Re: [Biofuel] 271 Diesel Generators
The 71 series detroit diesels have long been an industry standard. they are a higher rpm engine and widely used in fishing boats for their speed. they are a two cycle engine with a blower and are not quite as rugged as some of the other diesels, ie, more easily damaged by overheating, more prone to cracked heads, , and are famous for being leakers, leaking oil, and require a bit more tuning to keep running at top efficiency, mainly keeping the rack adjusted. In two cylinder engines, 2-71's or 2-53's refering to the individual volume in cubic inches of the combustion chamber this shouldnt be to much of a problem. I dont know how their rubber parts are affected by biodiesel, but they are a good engine and have been around for ever, pre WW2 if I remember correctly. They arent going to meet any modern pollution control standards, which is probably why they were sold off. They dont have the bottom end, loads of torque, at slower speeds, but , this isnt a problem with generators. From: Jeremy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 08:23:41 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Biofuel] 271 Diesel Generators I have found a source for 20Kw General Motors 271 that have come off of Union Pacific Railroad cars. The hours are unkown, but is assumed that they were well taken care of as they refrigerated railroad cars. They are all tested and painted. Apperently someone bought 2300 of them, and is selling them for a few grand. Is this a desirable motor for biofuel or in general, can someone who is running them testify to their value- even if you don't know the hours. Rebuild is reported to be very easy, full rebuild kits with pistons cost 400. Thanks for any respones. Jeremy ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/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/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] SAFETY REQUEST
First, please, obtain the MSDS, material safety data sheets of both: methanol and caustic soda (potassium hydroxide too). For the electrical installation, at any industrial level, apply explosion proof installation, equipment and materials. Local: good ventilation. With methanol not necessary to use explosimeters. In general use gloves, sight glasses or plastic face cover, safety hat , long sleeves. Do not inhalate methanol from bottles, drums, etc. Neither the methoxide. Not even after the estherification reaction. Strictly follow the safety guidelines of the MSDS. There might be other comments from experimented bio-dieselers. Best regards. Marcelino - Original Message - From: Evan Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 2:22 PM Subject: [Biofuel] SAFETY REQUEST Hey All, As Im sure most biodiesel makers know and are interested in... I want to do this SAFE!!! Methanol and Lye are Nasty, what can I do to be safe with them, do I need an LEL meter or a mask? Electrical/Fire safety is always big too. Does anyone have any suggestions or stories on how they make there biodiesel safetly. much thanks Evan J. Franklin Deputy Chief, Unity Search Rescue, The Franklin Biodiesel Project, Dispatcher, Operation Game Thief, Unity College, Unity Maine 42 Murdoc Drive U.C. Box 650 Unity, ME 04988 1-207-948-3215 x552 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Original Message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 09:49:54 -0700 In search of answers to the following: In the US, does a co-op structure for a bioD producer exempt it from reg= istering with the EPA as a fuel manufacturer? Corrolary: Can a fleet operator be a co-op member, and not be subject to= EPA scrutiny about Tier 1 Health Study certification? thanks! _ Msg sent via @bmi.net Mail v4 - http://www.bmi.net ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Sent via the WebMail system at unity.unity.edu ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/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/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
RE: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come(Finally an eye is opening)
This is great ... finally we are making sense. The WMD is not the issue. This is what I have said all along. People miss the big picture. Suddam Hussein was the weapon of mass destruction. 100% agreed. KS -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Henri Naths Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 9:56 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come Hakan, I would like to give a humble option here, ( Hakan wrote;...Criminal, established by the fact that we now know that Iraq were no WMD threat to US. ) We took out Hitler for the same reason, Him and Suddam Hussein were weapons of mass destruction. H. - Original Message - From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 31 March, 2005 7:29 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come Bob, You were right and I am wrong and I am glad that I did get a very good explanation on how Hubbert could be so right. It also explains why president Carter was so genuinely worried, when he developed his energy plan. He had the foresight to realize that Hubbert was right. It also explains why we see the surge in the genuine hate of Americans. It is the cost of aggressive and egoistic foreign policies, that resulted in about 10 more years of artificially low oil prices. All of this, ending up in an almost criminal behavior by the Bush administration. I say almost, because I do not want to be too crude. The legal aspect of being criminal, is very clearly established, Criminal, established by the fact that we now know that Iraq were no WMD threat to US. By laying the responsibility at the feet of faulty US intelligence community, the Bush administration is trying deliberately to avoid their legal responsibility. A kind of reversed side of the well known argument it was not my fault, I was ordered to do it. LOL All of this supported by the America people, in a reelection of president Bush. I hear the false argument that only 48% voted him in office. This argument is poor mathematics, I cannot get to this result, when Bush won with a more than 3 million of the populous American vote. It was the first election of Bush, that he did not have a populous majority and he was put in office by the Courts. Hakan At 11:16 PM 3/31/2005, you wrote: All I know is what I read in the brief biography. (and what I recall from hearing about his work many years ago) Hakan Falk wrote: Bob, I stand corrected and the only excuse I have, is that I only brought forward a mistake that I read earlier. I remember that it was an article about the hearings in US congress in mid 70'. Will however not do this mistake again, but do not despair, there are many others I will do and surely in my far from perfect English. -:) What was his field at Berkeley? Hakan ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/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/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/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] 271 Diesel Generators
Here is my two cents: The Detroit Diesel 71 (and 92)series is a somewhat antiquated two-stroke design. The engines come in various straight configurations from 2-71 all the way to 6-71 and 8-71's, as well as 8V71's.(those stinky noisy bus engines) or modularized into huge 12V's and 16V's for generators or saw mills. The number 71, . (and 92)denotes cubic inches per cylinder, so a 6-71 is 427 cubic inches. They all utilize a supercharger (popular among early hot rodders) in order to move the spent exhaust gasses from the cylinder and allow a fresh charge of air in for combustion.(there are no conventional intake or exhaust valve, just an exhaust port at the bottom of the piston stroke in the cylinder wall.) Be forewarned- these engines are extremely noisy and also produce an inordinate amount of smoke, they are on the EPA hit list and are no longer available as truck engines in this country due to their poor pollution stats. These regulations dont apply to stationary power plants so new engines are being built for this purpose only. I guess the same caution applies as all other diesel engines- certain rubber parts in the fuel pump or injector pump may be subject to failure when coming into contact with Biodiesel, so be careful.Also, when calculationg in the cost of a rebuild, include a supercharger rebuild kit, the blower has screw type vane rotors with long seals on the edges. I would love to have one as an auxiliary supply for my weekend house, so please post a source for them. I saw a similar genset on ebay with a 3-71 , may be the same folks. Thanks to you all john - Original Message - From: Randall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 4:06 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] 271 Diesel Generators disengage lurker mode Count me in too! Do you have a link or contact info? engage lurker mode ROY Washbish wrote: Jeremy If this turns out to be good I sure am interested in buying one. 23 KW DIESEL is just what I'm looking for. Thanks Roy Jeremy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have found a source for 20Kw General Motors 271 that have come off of Union Pacific Railroad cars. The hours are unkown, but is assumed that they were well taken care of as they refrigerated railroad cars. They are all tested and painted. Apperently someone bought 2300 of them, and is selling them for a few grand. Is this a desirable motor for biofuel or in general, can someone who is running them testify to their value- even if you don't know the hours. Rebuild is reported to be very easy, full rebuild kits with pistons cost 400. Thanks for any respones. Jeremy ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Roy Washbish Certified Health Coach A HOME BUSINESS PRODUCTS THAT WORK PRODUCTS BUSINESS HTTP://WWW.TRIVITA.COM/11393920 - Do you Yahoo!? Better first dates. More second dates. Yahoo! Personals ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/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/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/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come
Rick, I would never want to play down the logistical support from US, it was absolutely crucial for the outcome of WWII. Regardless the later commercial and economical benefits for US. I will never try to play down the importance of the Marshal plan from US, which was a more intelligent way of dealing with peace and post war activities. The Peace in Versailles after WWI, became a precursor of WWII and an example of that human stupidity knows no boundaries. US benefited enormously from WWII and being the OPEC of that time. It resulted in the start of the era of very strong global corporations with a very strong Jewish influence at the time. This was exactly what the German industrialists wanted to stop, by supporting Hitler in his quest for power, and that was one of the major reasons that led to WWII. It takes about 100 years before history start to be honest, realistic and less emotional, if it ever can be. The different groups of religions are proof of that propaganda and emotions, can continue for thousands of years. Hakan At 12:18 AM 4/4/2005, you wrote: Dear Hakan, You are, of course, correct as far as the fighting in Europe. The Soviet Union fielded some 540 divisions to the German 250+ and the US 87. By the time of the Normandy invasion Germany had lost. The critical battles of the war were arguably Stalingrad, Kursk, Karkov, and perhaps Voronezh. However, the US participation did likely prevent the Red Army from over running the the entire continent. And then there is the matter of the atom bomb. While its development involved mostly Europeans who fled to the US it was in the US that is was developed and for a time made Western Europe and the US the preeminent world power. Also it would be a mistake to down play the logistical support of the US to Europe which included the reduction of the U boat threat in 1943 and the support of the North African invasion. Rick Dear Henri and Rick, I only like to put this we took out Hitler to rest. That the Americans single handed took out Hitler, is a myth that only exists in Hollywood movies. The crucial material support from US in WWII was the deliveries of war material. The US infantry troop participation in Europe was on a low level and not crucial. By only look at the loss of soldiers, you understand clearly who was doing the major fighting. Russia 6,000,000 troop causalities Europe Alliance600,000 USA 60,000 Germany was very advanced and introduced for the first time the modern warfare and materials, with a massive air support. They tested much of it in the Spanish civil war. US took out Japan, not on the ground, but with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This at a time when the European part of WWII was at its end. I do agree that the US propaganda methods was/is superior. Something that Hitler and his administration several times acknowledged and copied. This superiority is maintained even today. Hakan ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/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/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [OFF TOPIC] Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come
Hello Hakan, Again with respect, it is not well known that the Pacific losses in WW2 were greater than in Europe. If that is the case I'd like to see your source for the statement. MacArthur was supreme commander in the Pacfic. I have given you his total losses throughout his campaign which ranged all the way from his starting point in Australia to the moment he accepted the Japanese surrender in Tokyo Bay. I based these on figures given my William Manchester, one of the most respected American biographers of the postwar period. The precise wording of his footnote, on page 639 of the 1979 Hutchinson paperback edition American Caesar - Douglas MacArthur, reads American casualties in the Bulge were 106,502. MacArthur's 90,437. The item to which this footnote refers reads: The Battle of the Bulge (a four week break-out by German armoured columns under General Von Rundsted in the Ardennes beginning December 16, 1944, and ending January 16, 1945) ...resulted in as many American casualties as were sustained in th entire Southwest Pacfic area campaign from Australia to Tokyo. To look at a couple of single battles in Europe. At the battle of Anzio in Italy, where the Allies fought for nearly four months (January 22 to May 25, 1943) to secure a beachhead that placed them only 37 miles from Rome, the total American, i.e. not Allied, casualties were 72,306 GIs. In the battle of Normandy - June 6 to July 31, 1944 - Eisenhower lost 28,366 GIs. The bottom line is that American losses in Europe were many, many times those in the Pacific. Please don't tell me that these figures are no indication. They are exact battlefield totals. I have given your chapter and verse for my sources. If you have figures to the contrary I would be very pleased to hear them, and of course the source. Regards, Bob. - Original Message - From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 1:55 PM Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come Bob, Even those numbers are sub number and does not say anything. It is possible that my source was wrong, but do not give me number who says nothing to that effect. If my source is right and US losses were 10% of allies total, around 10,000 US soldiers died in the Battle of Bulge. It is also something wrong with that US should have lost around 100,000 in Pacific and around 300,000 in Europe. When it is well known fact that the Pacific losses were higher than the European. Please try again and maybe you will find something more realistic. Hakan At 01:55 AM 4/4/2005, you wrote: Hello Hakan, (snip) The number you give is WWII losses, I was talking about the European part of WWII. This because we talked about taking out Hitler. US lost several times more in the Pacific, than they did in Europe. With respect, the total allied losses under General MacArthur - Supreme Commander of the Pacific theatre of operation - in the entire campaign fought from Australia to his arrival in Tokyo were 90,437. In the Battle of the Bulge in France in 1944 - which was just a single battle fought over a few weeks during the Second Front campaign - a total of 106,502 allied soldiers died. (See: American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur, by William Manchester. Hutchinson 1979, page 639). Regards, Bob. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/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/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Using E85 in a standard 1996 E150
Something that would concern me would be a leaner running engine with the additional oxygen content in ethanol in a E85 gasoline blend being used in a fuel injection management system not designed for the much higher oxygen content and I can't say for sure but premature engine wear might be the result. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was in Duluth, MN this weekend and decided to experiment. I have been using E10 for years in all of my gasoline engines, large and small, without any problems, so Saturday when I saw E85 offered at one location at $0.55 per gallon less than gasoline I put in 10 gallons on top of the 10 gallons of E10 that I had in the tank. I drove all around town, on the highway, and up and down the steep hills of Duluth. No problems. So today when it was time to head home, I filled up with E85 (22 more gallons). I drove 105 miles, all at highway speed, without any performance problems. The Check Engine light came on at around 70 miles, but no drivability problems were detected. I suspect the Check Engine light is indicating a lean mixture due to the oxygen rich nature of ethanol, and therefore is simply out the calibration range the computer expects. I am confident the fuel system is ethanol compatible because Ford has been authorizing E10 for years. Can anyone suggest a reason not to continue using E85 in this vehicle? Thank you. Michael ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] 271 Diesel Generators
I would also like one. Please let us know how to make contact with supplier. Thanks. Antifossil On Apr 4, 2005 8:12 PM, Busyditch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here is my two cents: The Detroit Diesel 71 (and 92)series is a somewhat antiquated two-stroke design. The engines come in various straight configurations from 2-71 all the way to 6-71 and 8-71's, as well as 8V71's.(those stinky noisy bus engines) or modularized into huge 12V's and 16V's for generators or saw mills. The number 71, . (and 92)denotes cubic inches per cylinder, so a 6-71 is 427 cubic inches. They all utilize a supercharger (popular among early hot rodders) in order to move the spent exhaust gasses from the cylinder and allow a fresh charge of air in for combustion.(there are no conventional intake or exhaust valve, just an exhaust port at the bottom of the piston stroke in the cylinder wall.) Be forewarned- these engines are extremely noisy and also produce an inordinate amount of smoke, they are on the EPA hit list and are no longer available as truck engines in this country due to their poor pollution stats. These regulations dont apply to stationary power plants so new engines are being built for this purpose only. I guess the same caution applies as all other diesel engines- certain rubber parts in the fuel pump or injector pump may be subject to failure when coming into contact with Biodiesel, so be careful.Also, when calculationg in the cost of a rebuild, include a supercharger rebuild kit, the blower has screw type vane rotors with long seals on the edges. I would love to have one as an auxiliary supply for my weekend house, so please post a source for them. I saw a similar genset on ebay with a 3-71 , may be the same folks. Thanks to you all john - Original Message - From: Randall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 4:06 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] 271 Diesel Generators disengage lurker mode Count me in too! Do you have a link or contact info? engage lurker mode ROY Washbish wrote: Jeremy If this turns out to be good I sure am interested in buying one. 23 KW DIESEL is just what I'm looking for. Thanks Roy Jeremy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have found a source for 20Kw General Motors 271 that have come off of Union Pacific Railroad cars. The hours are unkown, but is assumed that they were well taken care of as they refrigerated railroad cars. They are all tested and painted. Apperently someone bought 2300 of them, and is selling them for a few grand. Is this a desirable motor for biofuel or in general, can someone who is running them testify to their value- even if you don't know the hours. Rebuild is reported to be very easy, full rebuild kits with pistons cost 400. Thanks for any respones. Jeremy ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net http://Infoarchive.net(searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Roy Washbish Certified Health Coach A HOME BUSINESS PRODUCTS THAT WORK PRODUCTS BUSINESS HTTP://WWW.TRIVITA.COM/11393920 - Do you Yahoo!? Better first dates. More second dates. Yahoo! Personals ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net http://Infoarchive.net(searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net http://Infoarchive.net(searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net http://Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] taking out Saddam
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hallo Kids, Better start thinking neocons and giving biblical prophecy a helping hand. A lot more there than meets the eye. Nasty business. Takes some digging and some understanding of fundamental Christianity. Rational to them but very, very scary. Happy Happy, Gustl Gustl, leave us some room for at least one of my pet theories. 1) Oil multi-nationals wanted control of the Iraqi oilfields. Couldn't leave the graft and corruption to UN officials - that's a private sector area of expertise. 2) U.S. needed a new theatre to try some new Pentagon toys. 3) Saddam was lobbying to sell Iraqi oil (under U.N. program or otherwise) in Euros instead of U.S. $, threatening the strength of the greenback. 4) Saddam tried to kill George W.'s daddy. On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 20:28:13 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Darryl wrote: Clearly, taking out Saddam had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction (the U.N. inspectors had all but proven he had none before the U.S. found the courage to invade), or 9/11 (the plans were in play in the U.S. Administration *before* the planes hit the towers). It was not about getting the oil, as it was available for sale on the world market prior to the invasion. It wasn't about Iraq as a military threat in the region - the U.S. and U.K. were flying military and surveillance over the country *daily* prior to the invasion. It wasn't about Al- Qaeda - they despised Saddam. Hussein did not attack or threaten the U.S. So, Henri, in your opinion, why had the Bush White House really decided to invade Iraq - prior to 9/11? Could it be because the UN sanctions were failing and about to be lifted? The US was not about to allow the Saddam administration to get $10+ Billion in oil revenue each year knowing they would use it to resume their weapons programs. No, they did not have weapons of mass destruction yet, but they did have the know how and planned to build them ASAP once the sanctions were lifted. Mike ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/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/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ -- Darryl McMahon http://www.econogics.com/ It's your planet. If you won't look after it, who will? ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] taking out Saddam
[EMAIL PROTECTED] responded: Darryl wrote: Clearly, taking out Saddam had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction (the U.N. inspectors had all but proven he had none before the U.S. found the courage to invade), or 9/11 (the plans were in play in the U.S. Administration *before* the planes hit the towers). It was not about getting the oil, as it was available for sale on the world market prior to the invasion. It wasn't about Iraq as a military threat in the region - the U.S. and U.K. were flying military and surveillance over the country *daily* prior to the invasion. It wasn't about Al- Qaeda - they despised Saddam. Hussein did not attack or threaten the U.S. So, Henri, in your opinion, why had the Bush White House really decided to invade Iraq - prior to 9/11? Could it be because the UN sanctions were failing and about to be lifted? The US was not about to allow the Saddam administration to get $10+ Billion in oil revenue each year knowing they would use it to resume their weapons programs. What is your basis for determining the UN sanctions were failing? UN inspectors were back in Iraq prior to the U.S. decision to invade. There is no indication that Iraq had managed to re-arm to any appreciable extent during the period the sanctions were in place. If they had, the U.S. led invasion would have encountered a lot more resistance. No, they did not have weapons of mass destruction yet, but they did have the know how and planned to build them ASAP once the sanctions were lifted. However, rogue nations like North Korea that openly acknowledge having WMDs somehow don't warrant military action by the U.S. Mike -- Darryl McMahon http://www.econogics.com/ It's your planet. If you won't look after it, who will? ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [OFF TOPIC] Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come
Bob, I have to make a variant of a famous statement by saying, If the numbers do not fit, you have to quit LOL Hakan At 03:35 AM 4/5/2005, you wrote: Hello Hakan, Again with respect, it is not well known that the Pacific losses in WW2 were greater than in Europe. If that is the case I'd like to see your source for the statement. MacArthur was supreme commander in the Pacfic. I have given you his total losses throughout his campaign which ranged all the way from his starting point in Australia to the moment he accepted the Japanese surrender in Tokyo Bay. I based these on figures given my William Manchester, one of the most respected American biographers of the postwar period. The precise wording of his footnote, on page 639 of the 1979 Hutchinson paperback edition American Caesar - Douglas MacArthur, reads American casualties in the Bulge were 106,502. MacArthur's 90,437. The item to which this footnote refers reads: The Battle of the Bulge (a four week break-out by German armoured columns under General Von Rundsted in the Ardennes beginning December 16, 1944, and ending January 16, 1945) ...resulted in as many American casualties as were sustained in th entire Southwest Pacfic area campaign from Australia to Tokyo. To look at a couple of single battles in Europe. At the battle of Anzio in Italy, where the Allies fought for nearly four months (January 22 to May 25, 1943) to secure a beachhead that placed them only 37 miles from Rome, the total American, i.e. not Allied, casualties were 72,306 GIs. In the battle of Normandy - June 6 to July 31, 1944 - Eisenhower lost 28,366 GIs. The bottom line is that American losses in Europe were many, many times those in the Pacific. Please don't tell me that these figures are no indication. They are exact battlefield totals. I have given your chapter and verse for my sources. If you have figures to the contrary I would be very pleased to hear them, and of course the source. Regards, Bob. - Original Message - From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 1:55 PM Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come Bob, Even those numbers are sub number and does not say anything. It is possible that my source was wrong, but do not give me number who says nothing to that effect. If my source is right and US losses were 10% of allies total, around 10,000 US soldiers died in the Battle of Bulge. It is also something wrong with that US should have lost around 100,000 in Pacific and around 300,000 in Europe. When it is well known fact that the Pacific losses were higher than the European. Please try again and maybe you will find something more realistic. Hakan At 01:55 AM 4/4/2005, you wrote: Hello Hakan, (snip) The number you give is WWII losses, I was talking about the European part of WWII. This because we talked about taking out Hitler. US lost several times more in the Pacific, than they did in Europe. With respect, the total allied losses under General MacArthur - Supreme Commander of the Pacific theatre of operation - in the entire campaign fought from Australia to his arrival in Tokyo were 90,437. In the Battle of the Bulge in France in 1944 - which was just a single battle fought over a few weeks during the Second Front campaign - a total of 106,502 allied soldiers died. (See: American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur, by William Manchester. Hutchinson 1979, page 639). Regards, Bob. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/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/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/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
[Biofuel] Iraq Invasion - Age of Oil Scarcity
Iraq Invasion May Be Remembered as Start of the Age of Oil Scarcity By Robert Collier San Francisco Chronicle Sunday 20 March 2005 http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/032105EA.shtml Production tumbles in post-Hussein era as more countries vie for shrinking supplies Instead of inaugurating a new age of cheap oil, the Iraq war may become known as the beginning of an era of scarcity. Two years ago, it seemed likely that Iraq, with the world's third-largest petroleum reserves, would become a hypercharged gusher once U.S. troops toppled Saddam Hussein. But chaos and guerrilla sabotage have slowed the flow of oil to a comparative trickle. The price of crude on global markets hit an all-time record Friday, and oil experts say U.S. consumers are likely to keep feeling the pinch. Global supply hasn't kept up, and it isn't likely to in the near future, and one of the causes is Iraq, said John Lichtblau, chairman of the Petroleum Industry Research Foundation in New York. The war coincided with the start of a sharp rise in oil imports by booming China and India, and experts say this alignment of factors may keep prices permanently high. Iraq's oil production averaged about 3 million barrels a day before the war and now lags below 2 million, while prewar projections had pegged production to have hit at least 4 million by now. This missing production would have covered much of the annual growth in global oil demand, which is expected to increase by 1.8 million barrels a day this year, to 84.3 million barrels. If it weren't for the insurgency, Iraq would produce at least another million barrels day -- and maybe two, said Gal Luft, co-director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security in Washington. Iraq is very much missing from the market, and it's one of the reasons why prices have risen so much. Iraq has earned only about $31 billion from oil exports in the two years since the U.S. invasion, far below the prewar predictions by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who claimed that Iraqi oil would generate $50 billion to $100 billion in the same period. Foreign oil companies have withdrawn almost all their staff from Iraq because of the dangers. The risk to operate there is a very serious risk, and it's not about to go away, Lichtblau said. People are killed and kidnapped, and those pipelines are being blown up a week after they're repaired, again and again. The companies are keeping their feet in the door. About 20 firms have provided free services to Iraq -- training for oil personnel, geological studies or other help -- as a way to maintain good contacts until things improve. To make matters worse, there are few new sources of oil elsewhere. Russia is embroiled in the government confiscation of its biggest oil producer, Yukos; Nigeria's biggest oil region is riven by social conflict; Venezuela is in a worsening dispute with Washington; and the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries has no extra capacity to pump more crude. More and more people are realizing that the real story of Iraq, and more generally after 9/11, is our vulnerability as a nation to our dependence on imported foreign oil, said Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy in Washington. The problem is access. Where do you go to find oil you do need to replace what you're producing? There aren't many alternatives, said Robert Ebel, director of the energy program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. And most countries have government oil companies -- they keep it for themselves, so you can't get in. All these factors may be causing a sea change in attitudes among American politicians, some analysts say. Fast-rising energy prices helped the Bush administration rally votes in Congress for its proposal to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling. That proposal squeezed out a victory by a two-vote margin in the Senate last week. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
[Biofuel] US energy insanity
Energy Insanity By Molly Ivins AlterNet Tuesday 29 March 2005 http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/033105EC.shtml In the long history of monumentally bad ideas, the Cheney energy policy is a standout for reasons of both omission and commission. Dumb, dumber and dumbest. As a general rule about Bush Co., the more closely a policy is associated with Dick Cheney, the worse it is. Which brings us to energy policy - remember his secret task force? In the long history of monumentally bad ideas, the Cheney policy is a standout for reasons of both omission and commission. Dumb, dumber and dumbest. Ponder this: Next year, the administration will phase out the $2,000 tax credit for buying a hybrid vehicle, which gets over 50 miles per gallon, but will leave in place the $25,000 tax write-off for a Hummer, which gets 10-12 mpg. That's truly crazy, and that's truly what the whole Cheney energy policy is. According to the Energy Information Administration in the Department of Energy, last year's energy bill (same as this one) would cost taxpayers at least $31 billion, do nothing about the projected over-80 percent increase in America's imports of foreign oil by 2025, and increase gasoline prices. (Since every bureaucrat who tells the truth in this administration - about the cost of the drug bill or the safety of Vioxx - seems to get the ax, I'm probably getting those folks in trouble.) The bill is loaded with corporate giveaways and tax breaks for big oil. Meanwhile, Bush's budget cuts funding for renewable energy research and programs, and anyone who tells you different is lying. Now, here's the Catch-22 we get with this administration: It is using the exact language of the bill's critics - stealing it wholesale and using it to promote its bill. It's our friend Frank Luntz, the Republican pollster who specializes in framing issues (framing means the same thing as spinning, and in the non-political world it is known as lying), at work again. Luntz put out a memo in January: Eight Energy Communication Guidelines for 2005 telling R's how to talk about energy using language people like. The Natural Resources Defense Council found a Bush speech on energy on March 9 in Ohio that parrots Luntz's suggestions to a laughable point - threat to national security, diversity of supply, innovation, conservation and (my fave) Point 4, The key principle is 'responsible energy exploration.' And remember, it's NOT drilling for oil. It's responsible energy exploration. So there was Bush, as per Luntz's memo, talking about environmentally responsible exploration and announcing one of his top energy objectives is to diversify our energy supply by developing alternative sources of energy. Polling shows 70 percent of Americans support a drastic increase in government spending on renewable energy sources. I'm tired of arguing about whether Bush is so ignorant he doesn't know that he is cutting alternative energy programs and subsidizing oil companies or so fiendishly clever that he knows and doesn't care what he says. In the end, it doesn't make any difference. You get wretched policy either way. The Apollo Project, a sensible outfit dedicated to reducing America's dependence on foreign oil, says 90 percent of Americans support its goal of energy independence. Bracken Hendricks, the executive director, points out that there is remarkable agreement among many so-called strange bedfellows - labor and business, environmentalists and evangelicals, governors and generals, urbanites and farmers. Meanwhile, what we are sticking with is soaring oil prices (ExxonMobil just reported the highest quarterly profit ever, $8.42 billion, by an American company) and declining discoveries. Several oil companies are reporting disappearing reserves, and Royal Dutch/Shell admitted it had overstated its reserves by 20 percent last year. Nor are the major oil companies spending their mammoth profits on exploration or field development - they're doing mega-mergers and stock buybacks. ExxonMobil spent $9.95 billion to buy back its own stock in 2004. The Chinese and the Indians are now buying cars like mad, and the result is going to be an enormous supply crunch, sooner rather than later. It is possible with existing technology to build a car that gets 500 miles per gallon, but the Bushies won't even raise the CAFE (fuel efficiency) standards for cars coming out now. The trouble with the Bush plan to develop hydrogen cars is that while you can get hydrogen out of water, you have put energy in to get it out, so there's a net energy loss. Conservation is simply the cheapest and most effective way of addressing this problem. If you put a tax on carbon, it would move industry to wind or solar power. Wind power here in Texas is at the tipping point now - comparably priced. Our health, our environment, our economy and the globe itself would all
[Biofuel] Re: Criminal
US Constitution Article VI: All treaties entered into, or that shall be entered into, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land. That is worth repeating. SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND UN Charter: Ratified by the US Senate and signed by President Truman, Chapter 1, Article 2 (4) No member state shall use the threat or the use of force against the territorial integrity or the political sovereignty of any other nation. Clearly, Bush and his minions violated the UN Charter which is a treaty that had been legally entered into and that makes it The Supreme Law of the Land. They broke the law! They are CRIMINALS. Richard Perle, chairman of the Defense Policy Board admitted as much on November 19, 2003. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html He failed to make the connection with international law and Article VI of the US Constitution. It amazes me how some people who live in America, and call themselves patriotic, are willing to ignore the Constitution [as well as other parts of our national DNA that are found in the documents of liberty.] If you don't believe in what America stands for, and you aren't willing to defend it, then you don't believe in America. You're Un-American. Period! PEACE Scott - Original Message - ( Hakan wrote;...Criminal, established by the fact that we now know that Iraq were no WMD threat to US. ) ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
RE: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come(Finally an eye is opening)
This is what I have said all along. People miss the big picture. Suddam Hussein was the weapon of mass destruction. 100% agreed. KS Sigh... I suppose one man's sense is another man's idiocy, and to each his own and all that, all jolly good and well... But in fact it's a matter of what you support, what you go along with, what you accept wihout questioning, what you oppose, to whose benefit and at whose expense. Which, I'm afraid, makes this idiocy, not sense. Lethal idiocy, furthermore, with its hands drenched in blood. Saddam threatened nobody, certainly not the US. Keith -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Henri Naths Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 9:56 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come Hakan, I would like to give a humble option here, ( Hakan wrote;...Criminal, established by the fact that we now know that Iraq were no WMD threat to US. ) We took out Hitler for the same reason, Him and Suddam Hussein were weapons of mass destruction. H. - Original Message - From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 31 March, 2005 7:29 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come Bob, You were right and I am wrong and I am glad that I did get a very good explanation on how Hubbert could be so right. It also explains why president Carter was so genuinely worried, when he developed his energy plan. He had the foresight to realize that Hubbert was right. It also explains why we see the surge in the genuine hate of Americans. It is the cost of aggressive and egoistic foreign policies, that resulted in about 10 more years of artificially low oil prices. All of this, ending up in an almost criminal behavior by the Bush administration. I say almost, because I do not want to be too crude. The legal aspect of being criminal, is very clearly established, Criminal, established by the fact that we now know that Iraq were no WMD threat to US. By laying the responsibility at the feet of faulty US intelligence community, the Bush administration is trying deliberately to avoid their legal responsibility. A kind of reversed side of the well known argument it was not my fault, I was ordered to do it. LOL All of this supported by the America people, in a reelection of president Bush. I hear the false argument that only 48% voted him in office. This argument is poor mathematics, I cannot get to this result, when Bush won with a more than 3 million of the populous American vote. It was the first election of Bush, that he did not have a populous majority and he was put in office by the Courts. Hakan At 11:16 PM 3/31/2005, you wrote: All I know is what I read in the brief biography. (and what I recall from hearing about his work many years ago) Hakan Falk wrote: Bob, I stand corrected and the only excuse I have, is that I only brought forward a mistake that I read earlier. I remember that it was an article about the hearings in US congress in mid 70'. Will however not do this mistake again, but do not despair, there are many others I will do and surely in my far from perfect English. -:) What was his field at Berkeley? Hakan ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Iraq Invasion - Age of Oil Scarcity
How many of us had an AHA moment when reading this article? We now see the real reason for this illegal war [or at least one of the reasons]. Saddam Hussein was about to be given a clean bill of health by the UN inspection team beacuse he obviously didn't have WMD's. He was then going to open the spigots and start selling oil. Not only was he going to sell oil for Euros exacerbating the decline of the dollar, but that would also have driven the global price of oil down. Clearly, EXXON/Mobile, Chevron/Texaco, BP/Amoco et. al. did not want the price of oil to go down. ExxonMobil Corporation reported the fourth quarter of 2004 as its highest quarter ever... http://www.npnweb.com/uploads/featurearticles/2005/MarketingStrategies/0503ms.asp PEACE Scott - Original Message - Instead of inaugurating a new age of cheap oil, the Iraq war may become known as the beginning of an era of scarcity. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
[Biofuel] Re: Biofuel Digest, Vol 8, Issue 22
Do think about water, though, they really don't like it! Simon Fowler MADUR ELECTRONICS Voitgasse 4 A-1220 Vienna Phone: + 43-1-2584502 Fax: + 43-1-2584502-22 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Our homepage: www.madur.com, www.madurusa.com essage: 6 Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 14:01:20 -1000 From: Thomas Mountain [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Biofuel] 271 Diesel Generators To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII The 71 series detroit diesels have long been an industry standard. they are a higher rpm engine and widely used in fishing boats for their speed. they are a two cycle engine with a blower and are not quite as rugged as some of the other diesels, ie, more easily damaged by overheating, more prone to cracked heads, , and are famous for being leakers, leaking oil, and require a bit more tuning to keep running at top efficiency, mainly keeping the rack adjusted. In two cylinder engines, 2-71's or 2-53's refering to the individual volume in cubic inches of the combustion chamber this shouldnt be to much of a problem. I dont know how their rubber parts are affected by biodiesel, but they are a good engine and have been around for ever, pre WW2 if I remember correctly. They arent going to meet any modern pollution control standards, which is probably why they were sold off. They dont have the bottom end, loads of torque, at slower speeds, but , this isnt a problem with generators. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come(Finally an eye is opening)
This is great ... finally we are making sense. The WMD is not the issue. This is what I have said all along. People miss the big picture. Suddam Hussein was the weapon of mass destruction. 100% agreed. KS Only two problems with that: a) Iraq was a sovereign nation. We do not have the right, either legally or morally, to depose an entire regime just because we don't like the leader. If you want to insist on a standard international litmus test to identify rogue leaders that need deposing because they legitimately threaten global security, then I'd actually agee with you. Thing is, Hussein did not meet that standard. b) Your statement is revisionist history. Congress authorized the President to use force against Iraq because Iraqi WMDs were thought to represent an imminent threat to national security. Congress did not authorize force because Saddam was a bad person. If we are a nation governed by the rule of law, then the end does NOT justify the means. You really don't want to live in a world where nations run around killing or toppling leaders they don't like. jh ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Iraq Invasion - Age of Oil Scarcity
One way of looking at is the increased price of petroleum satisfies the oil bosses desires for profits and possibly the decreased demand for petroleum products from the public without increasing taxes to discourage its use sometime in the future. Is their any truth to the increased demand from India and China for personal transportation which might increase petroleum product prices due to the lack of supply? How many of us had an AHA moment when reading this article? We now see the real reason for this illegal war [or at least one of the reasons]. Saddam Hussein was about to be given a clean bill of health by the UN inspection team beacuse he obviously didn't have WMD's. He was then going to open the spigots and start selling oil. Not only was he going to sell oil for Euros exacerbating the decline of the dollar, but that would also have driven the global price of oil down. Clearly, EXXON/Mobile, Chevron/Texaco, BP/Amoco et. al. did not want the price of oil to go down. ExxonMobil Corporation reported the fourth quarter of 2004 as its highest quarter ever... http://www.npnweb.com/uploads/featurearticles/2005/MarketingStrategies/0503ms.asp PEACE Scott - Original Message - Instead of inaugurating a new age of cheap oil, the Iraq war may become known as the beginning of an era of scarcity. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
[Biofuel] Empire in Decline -- War, Oil and the greater good
Saddam Hussein as a WMD? My perspective on this is that SH can be seen as a WMD. The problem is a lack of focus on the big picture (IMHO). If you want to discuss people as weapons, you must also have a way of gaging what they are destroying, how many of them exist in the world and where they show up in a list of priorities from those with the ability and inclination to do the greater good in the world. What one does to address the problem of a weapon such as SH, says a lot about the vision of those trying to solve the problem and the war in Iraq is an excellent example. If there was a genuine motive to save lives by ending tyranny, the US threw out the baby with the bath water by resorting to war. It also causes many to ask if there were ulterior motives. This is especially true now that there is a growing buzz about the coming end of oil as our primary source of fuel. Blood for oil (IMO) is an accusation that will become less ambiguous with time. Keeping hidden agendas and going to war to satisfy them is a crime and insults the intelligence of conscientious citizens who see the lives lost and the lies told to cover it up. To err on the side of life is a phrase that I hope follows and haunts GWB for the rest of his life. Both foreign and domestic policy in the US are geared toward the building of an empire. The biggest, long term problem facing the US is the fact that some US citizens don't believe that they are part of an empire and those that understand and see the empire, don't realize that it is in decline. All empires rise and fall. Mike ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come(Finally an eye is opening)
Sheesh In fact I posted a reply saying it was lethal nonsense: Sigh... I suppose one man's sense is another man's idiocy, and to each his own and all that, all jolly good and well... But in fact it's a matter of what you support, what you go along with, what you accept wihout questioning, what you oppose, to whose benefit and at whose expense. Which, I'm afraid, makes this idiocy, not sense. Lethal idiocy, furthermore, with its hands drenched in blood. Saddam threatened nobody, certainly not the US. Keith :-( Keith Keith Addison wrote: This is great ... finally we are making sense. The WMD is not the issue. This is what I have said all along. People miss the big picture. Suddam Hussein was the weapon of mass destruction. 100% agreed. KS Only two problems with that: a) Iraq was a sovereign nation. We do not have the right, either legally or morally, to depose an entire regime just because we don't like the leader. If you want to insist on a standard international litmus test to identify rogue leaders that need deposing because they legitimately threaten global security, then I'd actually agee with you. Thing is, Hussein did not meet that standard. b) Your statement is revisionist history. Congress authorized the President to use force against Iraq because Iraqi WMDs were thought to represent an imminent threat to national security. Congress did not authorize force because Saddam was a bad person. If we are a nation governed by the rule of law, then the end does NOT justify the means. You really don't want to live in a world where nations run around killing or toppling leaders they don't like. jh ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
[Biofuel] Re: 271 Diesel Generators - was Re: Biofuel Digest, Vol 8, Issue 22
PLEASE don't do this! At the top of the Digest it says: When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of Biofuel digest... Nobody will read a message titled Re: Biofuel Digest, Vol 8, Issue 22 and it will foul up archives searches forever. It should have read Re: 271 Diesel Generators, as it does now. Thankyou. Keith Addison Journey to Forever KYOTO Pref., Japan http://journeytoforever.org/ Biofuel list owner I used to work for the local Detroit distributor and we saw a few of the 71 series running on biodiesel. Water in the fuel system will mess up those high pressure unit injectors very quickly indeed. I cannot remember the material for the seal on the fuel pump, I thnk they went to viton about 15 years ago, the seals around the injector bodies were certainly changed around then. Do think about water, though, they really don't like it! Simon Fowler snip ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come(Finally an eye is opening)
John, I agree with what you say, but I did NOT write that!!! Sheesh Oops. Very sorry Keith. I know you didn't write that. That's what I get for hastily replying while I'm waiting for the coffee to finish brewing. Again. Sorry about that. jh ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
[Biofuel] Biodiesel-powered Multi-fuel Camp Stove
Hi all, I am gearing up for my first test batch of biodiesel from virgin oil this weekend. A few have suggested that using a proven process and visual observances should be satisfactory tests to verify that all went well. Be that as it may, I am still trying uncover any possible measures to help verify my results. So, I am wondering, has anyone used biodiesel in a backpacking stove that is capable of burning petro-diesel? Can I expect that if I use biodiesel in one of these jobbies, should it burn the same as petro-diesel? Should I expect any difference in flame color? Would this sort of test be completely insignificant? Either way, I would certainly feel better the next time I'm out on the trail if I was heating my dinner with bio instead of petro. Thanks in advance, Ken ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
[Biofuel] Changing the Oil Economy
Worldwatch Institute: Global Security: Trends and Facts: Security Redefined State of the World 2005 Trends and Facts - Changing the Oil Economy * A Strategic Commodity * Oil and Global Economic Security * Oil and Civil Security * Oil and Climate Security * The Fork in the Road * Discussion Questions Even as oil has become indispensable, its continued use has begun to impose unacceptable costs and risks. A Strategic Commodity Industrial civilization is defined by the staggering abundance of energy it uses. The global consumption of useful energy per person is about 13 times higher than in pre-industrial times, even though total population has risen by a factor of 10 in the last 300 years. We have become a culture of energy consumption. And to date, most of that energy has come from fossil fuels, of which oil is the most highly prized. Oil saturates every aspect of modern life as a feedstock for countless products as well as an energy source, and has become the most important strategic commodity ever. Yet, at the same time, it has become a liability that threatens global security in three broad ways. Oil and Global Economic Security The key actors on the oil stage-importing and exporting nations-enjoy much the same relationship as junkies and pushers: neither can easily do without the other. First, oil threatens global economic security because it is a finite resource with no clear successor and because the gap between supply and demand is growing. Oil, most of it imported, accounts for a large share of energy budgets in most developed countries: 36 percent in France, 39 percent in the United States, and 49 percent in Japan, for instance. (Developing countries are even more vulnerable because their imports are larger in relation to GDP.) Growing evidence suggests that rising demand, especially from nations such as China and India, will soon permanently outpace supply, leading to a longterm rise in prices. Meanwhile, the exporting nations are dependent in their own way, in that many of them-especially in the Middle East-have become accustomed over the years to the heavy stream of revenues from oil sales and have failed to use those funds to diversify their economies. The widening of the supply/demand gap could be accelerated by the imminent peak of oil production, if the theories of a growing body of dissident geologists and oil analysts prove correct. They argue that the history of oil production and a careful analysis of current reserve estimates suggest that global oil output is likely to peak soon, perhaps within 10 years, and then drop off sharply. Already, oil production has plateaued or begun to decline in 33 of the 48 largest producers, including 6 of OPEC's 11 members. Even under conditions of steady but moderate growth in demand, such a drop in supply would be troublesome. But its occurrence just when the huge developing economies of India, China, and other awakening economic giants are poised to take off could spell major trouble for the global economy. Oil's Global Role * Global energy consumption is about 130 times higher than in pre-industrial times. * Oil is the single largest source of energy, accounting for 37 percent of global energy production. * The United States accounts for one quarter of global oil consumption. In the U.S, oil price spikes have preceded 9 of the 10 recessions since World War II. * Oil accounts for 36 percent of the total energy budget in France, 39 percent in the United States, 49 percent in Japan, 51 percent in Thailand, and 77 percent in Ecuador. Oil and Civil Security Countries that depend on oil revenues tend to be more authoritarian, more corrupt, more conflict-prone, and less developed than countries with diversified economies. Second, oil threatens civil security by undermining peace, civil order, democracy, and human rights in many regions. This effect takes at least three forms: great-power actions, the natural resource curse, and terrorism. Great powers have sought reliable access to oil since at least 1912, when Great Britain converted its fleet from coal to oil and established a stake in Iraq's oilfields to ensure the ascendancy of the Royal Navy. Other great powers, including the United States, have also wielded their military and economic strength to secure access to oil supplies, interfering in the affairs of other countries and supporting repressive regimes when useful. The 1981 Carter Doctrine asserted the U.S. right to treat any attempt to control the Persian Gulf as an assault on the vital interests of the United States. By one mid-range estimate, the United States spends at least $49 billion every year on the military presence necessary to ensure Middle Eastern oil flows. The natural resource curse refers to the tendency of mineral wealth to support corruption and conflict rather than economic growth and development. It can be seen at work in Saudi Arabia and
[Biofuel] Battle for Canada's underground resources
24/BUG8MBTQPS1.DTLtype=business Battle for Canada's underground resources Some tribes oppose pipeline to tap land rich in oil reserves Robert Collier, Chronicle Staff Writer Thursday, March 24, 2005 While Congress debates whether to allow oil and gas drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a similar battle with much higher stakes is under way in northwest Canada. The $6 billion Mackenzie Pipeline project would open the Canadian Arctic for natural gas drilling and send the gas 800 miles south down the Mackenzie River Valley to Alberta. There, much of this fuel would be used to throttle up production in a huge but hard-to-tap supply of petroleum dispersed in underground gravel formations. These so-called oil sands hold petroleum reserves that are second in size only to Saudi Arabia's, and analysts say they could supply a large portion of U.S. energy needs for decades to come. But the project has sparked opposition from some native tribal groups, which call it a federal grab of their ancestral lands, and from environmentalists, who say it would churn out greenhouse gases linked to global warming. It is a fight that is likely to forever set the course for Canada's vast and empty north. The project is full of continental superlatives -- North America's richest oil patch, its biggest construction project since the Alaska pipeline in the 1970s, its largest strip-mining operation. By far the most important thing for North America are those oil sands in Canada, said Robert Esser, director of oil and gas resources at Cambridge Energy Research Associates in New York. It's nice we're going to have access to (the Alaska refuge), but there are a lot of unknown questions there. We have no idea whether there is oil or gas or how much. In the oil sands, we know the reserves are huge, much larger than in Alaska. The Canadian government, which calls the project an economic necessity, is not required to seek approval from Parliament in Ottawa. Pipeline construction is expected to start in early 2007, with gas flowing two years later. In Alaska, by contrast, congressional authorization is required to develop the wildlife refuge. Last week's Senate vote to allow drilling will be followed by several more months of legislative maneuvering and, if the plan is approved, about eight years of preparation before oil begins to be pumped. Despite its bright prospects, Canada's pipeline could still be stopped in its tracks by opposition from one of the region's native tribes, which are known in Canada as First Nations. The Deh Cho First Nation, a tribe of about 4,200 people who occupy the southern third of the pipeline route, has filed suit in federal court in Vancouver, British Columbia, to block the project. Unlike tribes of the northern Mackenzie Valley that have settled their land disputes with the government and support the pipeline, the Deh Cho are holding out for autonomous powers in their area. Until a deal is reached on the land dispute, the government lacks legal authority for a pipeline right of way, the tribe insists. What we see today is Canada not living up to its obligations, said Noeline Villebrun, national chief of the Dene, the parent federation of Mackenzie Valley tribes. If Canada hopes to settle the claims, then the Deh Cho have to see their rights being accommodated. The Deh Cho won a round last week, when a federal judge ordered the government to release briefing notes, minutes, draft plans, correspondence and other documents related to planning for the pipeline project. Contained in the oil sands are vast quantities of so-called bitumen, or super-heavy oil, underneath an area of northern Alberta as big as Florida. One extraction process is similar to strip mining, in which sand is scooped out and cooked at high heat to extract the sludge. Another process pumps steam into the underground deposits, dissolving the bitumen and allowing it to be piped to the surface. Under both methods, the resulting goo is refined into commercial grades of crude oil and piped to customers, mostly in the western United States. About 2 tons of sand have to be dug up, heated and processed to make a single 42-gallon barrel of oil. The crucial ingredient in this process is natural gas. Although other fuels have been used to cook the oil sands, such as coal and the bitumen itself, none works as well as gas. Production of gas from long-established fields in Alberta is expected to decline in coming years, and because demand for gas is rising fast, expansion of the oil sands will require new supplies. The nearest major source is in three well-explored yet untapped gas fields in the delta of the Mackenzie River on the shore of the Arctic Ocean. If the pipeline is built, gas from the delta can be funneled down to Alberta, where it will connect with the province's pipeline system to reach the oil sands. With international oil prices
[Biofuel] US in race to unlock new energy source
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | US in race to unlock new energy source Green groups warn against moving methane hydrates from beneath seabed David Adam, science correspondent Monday April 4, 2005 The Guardian More than a mile below the choppy Gulf of Mexico waters lies a vast, untapped source of energy. Locked in mysterious crystals, the sediment beneath the seabed holds enough natural gas to fuel America's energy-guzzling society for decades, or to bring about sufficient climate change to melt the planet's glaciers and cause catastrophic flooding, depending on whom you talk to. No prizes for guessing the US government's preferred line. This week it will dispatch a drilling vessel to the region, on a mission to bring this virtually inexhaustible new supply of fossil fuel to power stations within a decade. The ship will hunt for methane hydrates, a weird combination of gas and water produced in the crushing pressures deep within the earth - literally, ice that burns. The stakes could not be higher: scientists reckon there could be more valuable carbon fuel stored in the vast methane hydrate deposits scattered under the world's seabed and Arctic permafrost than in all of the known reserves of coal, oil and gas put together. The amount of energy there is just too big to ignore, said Bahman Tohidi, head of the centre for gas hydrate research at Heriot Watt University in Edinburgh. It's not easy, but it's not something we can say we can't do so let's forget about it. Britain may miss out on any future methane hydrate boom - the North Sea is too shallow and no deposits have been found in the deeper waters further north - but other countries have recognised their potential. Japan, India and Korea, as well as the United States, are investing millions of pounds in hydrate research. Ray Boswell, who heads the hydrate programme at the US department of energy's national energy technology laboratory, said the US was determined to be the first to mine the resource. Commercially viable production is definitely realistic within a decade. The world is investing in hydrates, and one reason for us to do this is to maintain our leadership position in this emerging technology. Its new project will see the drilling vessel Uncle John spend about a month in the Gulf of Mexico, where it will bore down to two of the largest expected methane hydrate deposits in the region. Scientists on the ship will collect samples for experiments to see how the methane might be freed and transported to the surface. This is harder than it sounds. In some deposits the crystals occur in thick layers, in others they are found as smaller nuggets. Puncture one hydrate reservoir and the giant release of gas can disrupt drilling, pierce another and getting the methane out is like sucking porridge through a straw. This unpredictable nature means energy companies traditionally view hydrates as a nuisance. This gives them a joint interest with the US government as both sides want to know where the crystals are - one to avoid them and the other to exploit them. Mr Boswell said: We have a marriage of near-term industry interests and longer-term government interests. If they develop the ability to detect hydrates for the purpose of avoiding them, that's useful for people who want to do the exact same thing for the purpose of finding them. Devinder Mahajan, a chemist at the US department of energy's laboratory in Brookhaven, is looking for ways to encourage subsea hydrate deposits to release their methane. He has developed a pressurised tank that allows scientists to study hydrate formation. You fill the vessel with water and sediment, put in methane gas and cool it down under high pressure. After a few hours, the hydrates form, you can actually see it. They look like ice, but they're not, he said. This is a very important issue, tied to our future national energy security. Hydrates on land are easier to get at, and in 2003 a team of oil companies and scientists from Canada, Japan, India, Germany and the US showed it was possible to produce methane from the icy deposits below Canada's Northwest Territories. BP and the US government are carrying out similar experiments in Alaska. Environmental groups oppose attempts to extract methane from hydrate reserves. Roger Higman, a climate change campaigner with Friends of the Earth, said: The Americans are desperately looking around trying to boost their fossil fuels because they think the oil is going to run out or there's going to be a scarcity. The actual scarcity is in the space the atmosphere has for taking the carbon dioxide that burning methane produces. He added: We already have enough fossil fuel in the world that, if burnt, will ruin the world's climate. Rather than look for more, we need to keep the oil, gas and coal we already know about underground and develop alternative sources of energy, principally
[Biofuel] Oil in Troubled Waters
t r u t h o u t Energy Special: Oil in Troubled Waters By Michael Peel Financial Times Friday 25 March 2005 In the mangrove swamps of Nigeria's oil-producing Rivers State, the Niger Delta People's Volunteer Force was in restless repose. A fighter worked out with dumbbells while others lounged on mattresses in front of a large outbuilding. One young man was reading, aloud in English, from a copy of Macbeth. Their leader, Alhaji Mujahid Dokubo-Asari, was preparing to take me to a swamp facility where he claimed to refine oil taken from a pipeline operated by Royal Dutch/Shell, the energy multinational. (Asari says this is not stealing; it is the Nigerian government that is stealing.) He had just changed out of a black tracksuit into a bright orange jumpsuit with the Shell logo on the back. He put on a white hard hat belonging to Willbros, the oil services company. Do I look fine? he asked, running his hands over his ample stomach. On this, the third of four occasions I visited Asari, he had not yet quite become the symbol of a Robin Hood-like quest by the poor for a share of the nation's oil wealth that he claims to be today. But he was fast gaining notoriety: his critics, outside government as well as within, saw him as a gangster rather than a political revolutionary. Either way, his rising profile says much about the way the Delta is being choked by a violent and corrupt web of relationships between oil multinationals, government officials, smugglers, ethnic fighters and local communities. I wanted to find out whether he was a true challenge to the inequities - perhaps even the existence - of Nigeria's multinational-operated oil regime. The country already provides about 10 per cent of US oil imports, while Britain expects to source a similar proportion of its energy needs from the Delta by 2010. The more than $300bn of revenues earned by Nigeria from Delta oil since independence in 1960 has in substantial part been stolen and squandered by generals and civilian governments, leaving its people among the poorest in the world. In September last year, Asari threatened to launch an offensive called Operation Locust Feast unless government troops backed off from the area in which he operated and the authorities began talks about oil-resource control. He denounced oil companies and said he could not be responsible for the safety of foreign nationals working in the area. This helped push the price of oil on the world markets through $50 a barrel for the first time. Shell evacuated over 200 staff. Nigeria's government invited Asari to Abuja, the capital, where he and another militia leader agreed to make peace and disarm. The Rivers State government claimed it later collected over a thousand weapons from the militias, but many Deltans still see the whole process as an emergency arrangement aimed at reassuring oil markets, rather than a serious attempt to end the region's conflict. Asari was cultivating media interest before the deal, so a colleague and I accepted an invitation to meet his men early one morning at a jetty about an hour and a half's drive from the oil city of Port Harcourt. They eventually arrived by speedboat and moored, half-hidden behind the end of the jetty. We quickly climbed aboard. A machine gun and three Kalashnikov rifles lay behind benches on the floor: one of the youths apologised as he passed the machine gun over my head. The men were swigging gin, which blew in my face in a fine spray as we picked up speed. They said sorry again; then one of them fired two shots in the air. The camp, reached after an exhilarating high-speed ride through a series of branching waterways, was full of the signs of expansion. A new accommodation block was being built and boat engines were being repaired by the waterside. Asari told us there was no shortage of willing expert helpers who support his idea of an independent nation for his Ijaw people, although none was around that day. Doctors have been coming twice a week, we have people volunteering, we have lawyers, he said. The struggle of the Ijaw people is a defining feature of Nigeria's post-colonial politics, which have been dominated by dictatorship, corruption and infrastructural collapse. The country was created by British colonial order in 1914, binding together people from hundreds of ethnic groups who speak hundreds of different languages. The Ijaw, the Delta's largest ethnic group, have in effect been disenfranchised by modern political boundary-setting: being a widely dispersed people concentrated around the Delta's coastline and rivers, their communities form parts of many states, rather than a single homogeneous zone. In the Delta, a long-running conflict over the distribution of local government posts between the Ijaw and the Itsekiri peoples is thought to have killed hundreds of people in the past few years, and even led, in
[Biofuel] Nuclear power 'regaining stature' as option
Nuclear power 'regaining stature' as option Global warming, energy needs lead to renewed interest Pierre Verdy / AFP - Getty Images Claude Mandil, executive director of the International Energy Agency, delivers a speech Monday during a ministerial international conference in Paris. Nuclear energy is regaining consideration as a key energy source, with concerns over greenhouse gas emissions overcoming worries about accidents at atomic reactors. The Associated Press Updated: 5:29 p.m. ET March 21, 2005 PARIS - Only by building more nuclear power stations can the world meet its soaring energy needs while averting environmental disaster, experts at an international conference said Monday. Energy ministers and officials from 74 countries were in Paris for the two-day meeting on the future of nuclear energy, as concerns about global warming and fossil fuel supplies renew governments' interest in atomic power. It's clear that nuclear energy is regaining stature as a serious option, said Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency - the U.N. nuclear watchdog - which organized the conference. ElBaradei said the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol, which commits governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, was focusing minds. Power plants fired by oil, coal and gas are major sources of carbon dioxide and other gases that cause global warming. The Kyoto accord will force plant operators to pay for their pollution, making nuclear power facilities more competitive by comparison. In the past, the virtual absence of restrictions or taxes on greenhouse gas emissions has meant that nuclear power's advantage, low emissions, has had no tangible economic value, ElBaradei said. But the Kyoto Protocol will likely change that over the longer term. Fossil-fuel costs worrisome Soaring fossil fuel costs, including the historic highs charted by oil prices during the past year, are a more immediate worry for governments - and a reminder of the petroleum shocks of the 1970s that persuaded countries, including France, to intensify nuclear production. But accidents at the Three Mile Island facility in Pennsylvania in 1979 and at Chernobyl, Ukraine, seven years later undermined public confidence in nuclear power. Although there is still deep public concern about the risk of accidents and transportation and storage of radioactive waste, nuclear advocates say there also is a new awareness that relying on fossil fuels could lead to an even greater environmental catastrophe. The climate will probably change no matter what we now do, but we should, at the very least, make every effort to slow it down, Donald Johnston, secretary general of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, said in a video statement. We ignore its importance at our peril. When Finland begins construction of a new reactor later this year, it will become the first Western European country to do so since 1991. France plans to start building a new-generation reactor in 2007. Nuclear plants produce one-third of Europe's electricity, saving greenhouse emissions equivalent to those of all of Europe's cars, French Industry Minister Patrick Devedjian said. In a message to the conference, U.S. Energy Secretary Sam Bodman cited a University of Chicago study that showed nuclear power can become competitive with electricity produced by plants fueled by coal or gas because of new technologies delivering more efficient reactors. 'Time to start building again' Echoing recent comments by President Bush, Bodman said: America hasn't ordered a new nuclear power plant since the 1970s, and it's time to start building again. Even in some countries that have been fiercely opposed to nuclear power, the mood is shifting. For example, Italians voted against the use of atomic energy in a referendum the year after Chernobyl, and the government began gradually decommissioning plants. Regarding nuclear power, we perceive a clear change in public opinion, notably by the young generations, Italian Industry Minister Antonio Marzano said. Asia may lead the way The real boom in nuclear power is expected to focus on developing countries, particularly in Asia. China is expected to increase its nuclear production capacity from the current 6.5 gigawatts to 36 gigawatts by 2020, according to IAEA figures, while India plans to multiply its production capacity tenfold and Russia is expected to double its capacity to about 45 gigawatts. A gigawatt equals 1 billion watts. U.S. nuclear plant builder Westinghouse Electric Co. is among contenders for an $8 billion contract for four new Chinese reactors to be awarded by year's end. © 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Biofuel] Damning verdict on GM crop (oil seed rape)
Guardian Unlimited Damning verdict on GM crop Final report on world's most comprehensive field trials says oil seed rape varieties would harm wildlife and environment Paul Brown and David Gow Tuesday March 22, 2005 The Guardian The following correction was printed in the Guardian's corrections and clarifications column, Thursday March 25 2005 Contrary to what we said in the report below, oil seed rape is not the largest single crop in Britain, neither is it the one from which farmers make most money. According to statistics published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, it comes third on both counts, behind wheat and barley. The long-awaited final results of the GM trials for Britain's biggest crop, winter oil seed rape, show that wildlife and the environment would suffer if the crop was grown in the UK, in effect ending the biotech industry's hopes of introducing GM varieties in the foreseeable future. The government, which has been keen to introduce GM crops, now has the results of the world's most comprehensive crop study, demonstrating that the GM varieties currently on offer would be detrimental to the countryside. Bayer CropScience, the company that owns the patent on the GM oil seed rape being tested, said afterwards that it was not going ahead with its application to grow the crop in Europe. The Conservatives took advantage of the government's discomfort, with Tim Yeo, the environment spokesman, announcing that the party would not allow GM crops to be grown in Britain unless it could be proved they were safe for people and the environment. The trials, whose results were published by the Royal Society yesterday, began before the last election when the public backlash against the government's plans to introduce GM crops stunned Downing Street. Michael Meacher, the then environment minister, came up with a plan to get the government off the hook by running extensive trials of GM and non-GM crops to test their effects on bees, butterflies, bugs, weeds and other farmland wildlife in two farming regimes. Large fields were planted half with GM and half with conventional crops and the results compared. It was widely predicted that the GM regime, which uses fewer applications of herbicide than conventional crops, would benefit wildlife, but for three out of the four crops tested the reverse was the case. Yesterday's results were particularly significant because winter-grown oil seed rape occupies 330,000 hectares (815,000 acres) of British fields and is the largest single crop, and the one from which farmers make most money. The main finding was that broadleaf weeds, such as chickweed, on which birds rely heavily for food, were far less numerous in GM fields than conventional fields. Some of the grass weeds were more numerous, although this had less direct benefit for wildlife and affected the quality of the crops. The scientific results made it clear that it is not the GM crops that harm wildlife but the herbicide sprayed on them. Fields containing conventional crops are sprayed with a herbicide which usually kills weeds before the crops emerge but herbicide-tolerant GM crops can be sprayed later. The results on this crop were that the patented glufosinate-ammonium weedkiller was so effective that there were one third fewer seeds for birds to eat at the end of the season than in a conventional crop. Two years later there were still 25% fewer seeds, even though the weedkiller had not been applied again. Les Firbank, who was in charge of the trials, said: These weeds are effectively the bottom of the food chain, so the seeds they produce are vital for farmland birds, which are already in decline. There were also fewer bees and butterflies in the GM crops. All the evidence is that it is the herbicide that makes the difference to the wildlife. Mark Avery, of the RSPB, said: Six years ago, before the farm-scale trials, we were told that GM crops were good for wildlife and good for farmers' profits. Now, against all expectations, we are told they are bad for both. It is bad news for the biotech industry. Elliot Morley, the environment minister, will await the advice of the government's advisory committee before making a final decision, but said the trials demonstrated the government's precautionary approach on GM crops. The European commission will today reluctantly give the go-ahead for other GM seeds and plants to be used commercially in Europe and demand that Austria, Luxembourg, France, Germany and Greece lift national bans. Although aware that the decision will provoke a public backlash and be open to challenge, the 25 commissioners, according to documents seen by the Guardian, say they have no alternative but to fulfil their legal obligations and force through a decision because a regulatory committee of national scientific experts and then ministers could not reach a majority
[Biofuel] An Auto Industry Ad Leaves Critics Choking
An Auto Industry Ad Leaves Critics Choking By Danny Hakim The New York Times Tuesday 22 March 2005 Detroit - Toyota, Ford, BMW and several other automakers are financing an advertising campaign aimed at politicians that asserts that automobiles are virtually emission-free. The campaign is part of an effort by a broad coalition of automakers to present their vehicles as environmentally benign at a time when the coalition is suing California to block a new regulation to curb global warming emissions and continuing to lobby in Washington against tougher fuel-economy regulations. A print version of the ad has appeared in journals aimed at legislators like Roll Call, Congress Daily and Congressional Quarterly, as well as in the industry trade publication Automotive News, according to the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the lobbying group behind the campaign. The ads have sparked a campaign by the Union of Concerned Scientists, an environmentalist group that says its efforts have generated 20,000 complaints asking the Federal Trade Commission to investigate whether the industry is making misleading claims. While regulations have indeed forced automakers to greatly improve emissions of smog-forming pollutants, the ads essentially ignore greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide as an automotive emission. The ads appear to contradict some automakers' own statements about rising levels of greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. Smog-forming emissions remain a public health issue, according to environmental and consumer groups, as the number of vehicles continues to increase. Our advertising practices division and our enforcement division are both aware of the ad and the campaign by UCS, Mitch Katz, a spokesman for the trade commission, said, referring to the Union of Concerned Scientists. We are evaluating the complaints we've received right now. He declined to say how many complaints the commission had received. The alliance includes most major automakers: Toyota, General Motors, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, Mazda, BMW, Mitsubishi, Porsche and Volkswagen. The ad shows a picture of a toddler in a car eating a Popsicle. Your car may never be spotless, but it's 99 percent cleaner than you think, the ad says. Autos manufactured today are virtually emission-free. And that's a dramatic improvement over models from just 30 years ago. Gloria Bergquist, a spokeswoman for the alliance, said that the ad's use of the term virtually emission-free should be understood to refer only to emissions classified as pollutants by the Environmental Protection Agency. Whether to consider greenhouse gases as pollutants is a politically charged issue. The Clinton administration determined carbon dioxide to be a pollutant, but the Bush administration reversed the decision. Several states and environment groups are suing to force the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate carbon dioxide emissions as pollutants. But David Friedman, research director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' clean vehicles program, said the advertisement itself made no such distinction - it simply called vehicles virtually emission-free. It reminds you of the cigarette makers, he said. They're trying to hide the harmful emissions coming from their vehicles. Though some cars on the road today are considered to be emitting roughly 99 percent fewer smog-forming particles than cars did in the pre-regulatory 1960s, Bergquist said the statement could not be broadly applied to all new cars and trucks until regulations of such emissions take effect by 2010. Automotive emissions of greenhouse gases, however, have been rising for two reasons: The number of vehicles is increasing and average fuel economy has declined since the late 1980s because of surging sales of sport utility vehicles and big pickups. Many scientists have raised potentially serious health concerns related to global warming, though there are dissenters. Most major automakers have said that they do take the issue of reducing global warming emissions quite seriously. In DaimlerChrysler's 2004 environmental report, for instance, the company's chief executive, Jrgen Schrempp, said in an opening statement that reducing CO emissions is the central topic as we strive for sustainable mobility. But Dennis Fitzgibbons, a spokesman for the company in Washington, said that the ad referred to emissions that have health-based effects that are defined under the Clean Air Act. Not all automakers appeared to agree with the alliance's blanket assessment that cars are now virtually emission-free. Honda, which is not an alliance member, said, Today's vehicles in many cases are virtually emissions-free with regards to smog-forming gases. However, CO emissions remain a significant contributor to global warming trends.
[Biofuel] Goodbye To All That Oil
Goodbye To All That Oil By Stan Cox, AlterNet. Posted April 4, 2005. The peak oil idea - which says that world oil production will go into irreversible decline sometime in the next decade or two - is quickly morphing into conventional wisdom. Until recently, peak-oil analysts got about as much respect from the energy establishment as do perpetual-motion enthusiasts. But now, with oil prices headed for uncharted territory and even Saudi Arabia seemingly unable to boost production to higher levels, the peak oil idea - which says that world oil production will go into irreversible decline sometime in the the next decade or two - is quickly morphing into conventional wisdom. Fifty years ago, geologist M. King Hubbert showed that the output of an oilfield, or indeed the oil production of an entire country, increases year by year up to the point (a peak) at which approximately half the oil is exhausted. From there, he said, annual output drops inexorably toward zero. Hubbert hit the bullseye with his prediction that U.S. production would peak in 1970. And over the past half century, country after country has seen its oil production hit a peak and start dropping. Yet for decades, economists, petroleum executives and government officials refused to follow Hubbert's analysis to its logical conclusion - that in the easily foreseeable future, humanity will pass over a global peak of oil production, where there awaits a very grim, slippery slope. The Hubbert Curve, designed by geophysicist M. King Hubbert, illustrates that over time, the rate of oil production rises and then falls in a bell-shape pattern. But gradually, in the past couple of years, the main issue in the oil debate has shifted from whether a world peak will occur to when. And when it comes to peak-oil predictions these days, there is no shortage. Please place your bets Colin Campbell of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO) predicts that production will begin its decline between now and 2010. British Petroleum exploration consultant Francis Harper believes it will happen between 2010 and 2020. Consulting firm PFC Energy puts it at around 2010 to 2015. The publication Petroleum Review predicts that demand will outstrip supply in 2007. Richard Heinberg, author of the 2003 book, The Party's Over: Oil, War, and the Fate of Industrial Societies, expects a peak in 2007 or 2008. Retired Princeton professor Kenneth Deffeyes, author of the just-published, Beyond Oil: The View from Hubbert's Peak is more pessimistic, and more specific, about when the peak will happen: Thanksgiving Day, 2005. (His tongue appears to be in his cheek regarding the day, but not the year). If all that is too gloomy for you, energy consultant Michael Lynch maintains that there's no peak in sight for the next 20 or 30 years. Peter Odell of Erasmus University in the Netherlands has tacked a full 30 years onto Deffeyes' grim prediction, setting a date of Thanksgiving 2035. And Uncle Sam has the cheeriest news of all: a peak year of 2037 forecast by the Department of Energy. Now how many times has someone told you, Oh, yeah, all my life they've been saying the oil's about to run out, and it hasn't done it yet? In fact, the record of oil forecasting has not been an exercise in Chicken-Littlism. Asking, When will oil peak and begin its decline? (not, When will it run out?), the prognosticators of the past came up with dates only five to 10 years ahead of many of today's predictions. Roger Bentley of the University of Reading found that in the 1970s - during the last outbreak of peak-oil fever - analysts from reputable organizations (including Esso, Shell, the UK Department of Energy, and the U.N., as well as Hubbert himself) were nearly unanimous in predicting a world oil peak somewhere around the year 2000. Does the peak year even matter? With oil prices soaring, economic logic says the sooner the peak's date can be nailed down, the better. Financial web sites are buzzing about it, but in a somewhat merrier key than the peak-oil sites. One research firm is even forecasting production peaks for individual oil companies, with obvious implications for stock values. On the other hand, if we're more concerned about improving humanity's prospects in 2010 or 2037 than Wall Street's prospects at the close of trading tomorrow, then one prediction is probably as good as another. In designing an energy policy that can be sustained far into the post-petroleum future, the precise timing of the peak is of about as much practical importance as the date of the next total eclipse of the sun (on that forecast, astronomers agree: March 29, 2006). A recent report prepared for the U.S. government by Science Applications International Corporation suggests that whatever the peak year turns out to be, 2005 is the time to get moving on energy policy. The report's lead author, Robert L. Hirsch,
[Biofuel] Re: killing or toppling leaders
Besides, it violates the Constitution, Article VI - The Supreme Law of the Land - Original Message - You really don't want to live in a world where nations run around killing or toppling leaders they don't like. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
RE: [OFF TOPIC] Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come
Hi All, I thought I would just add this brief qualifying remark. Deaths and casualties are somewhat different things. Casualties involve both dead, wounded, and missing. Casualties also include non-battlefield accidents or any loss of manpower requiring replacement. If I am wrong someone let me know. Tom -Original Message- From: bmolloy To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 4/4/05 10:35 PM Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come Hello Hakan, Again with respect, it is not well known that the Pacific losses in WW2 were greater than in Europe. If that is the case I'd like to see your source for the statement. MacArthur was supreme commander in the Pacfic. I have given you his total losses throughout his campaign which ranged all the way from his starting point in Australia to the moment he accepted the Japanese surrender in Tokyo Bay. I based these on figures given my William Manchester, one of the most respected American biographers of the postwar period. The precise wording of his footnote, on page 639 of the 1979 Hutchinson paperback edition American Caesar - Douglas MacArthur, reads American casualties in the Bulge were 106,502. MacArthur's 90,437. The item to which this footnote refers reads: The Battle of the Bulge (a four week break-out by German armoured columns under General Von Rundsted in the Ardennes beginning December 16, 1944, and ending January 16, 1945) ...resulted in as many American casualties as were sustained in th entire Southwest Pacfic area campaign from Australia to Tokyo. To look at a couple of single battles in Europe. At the battle of Anzio in Italy, where the Allies fought for nearly four months (January 22 to May 25, 1943) to secure a beachhead that placed them only 37 miles from Rome, the total American, i.e. not Allied, casualties were 72,306 GIs. In the battle of Normandy - June 6 to July 31, 1944 - Eisenhower lost 28,366 GIs. The bottom line is that American losses in Europe were many, many times those in the Pacific. Please don't tell me that these figures are no indication. They are exact battlefield totals. I have given your chapter and verse for my sources. If you have figures to the contrary I would be very pleased to hear them, and of course the source. Regards, Bob. - Original Message - From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 1:55 PM Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come Bob, Even those numbers are sub number and does not say anything. It is possible that my source was wrong, but do not give me number who says nothing to that effect. If my source is right and US losses were 10% of allies total, around 10,000 US soldiers died in the Battle of Bulge. It is also something wrong with that US should have lost around 100,000 in Pacific and around 300,000 in Europe. When it is well known fact that the Pacific losses were higher than the European. Please try again and maybe you will find something more realistic. Hakan At 01:55 AM 4/4/2005, you wrote: Hello Hakan, (snip) The number you give is WWII losses, I was talking about the European part of WWII. This because we talked about taking out Hitler. US lost several times more in the Pacific, than they did in Europe. With respect, the total allied losses under General MacArthur - Supreme Commander of the Pacific theatre of operation - in the entire campaign fought from Australia to his arrival in Tokyo were 90,437. In the Battle of the Bulge in France in 1944 - which was just a single battle fought over a few weeks during the Second Front campaign - a total of 106,502 allied soldiers died. (See: American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur, by William Manchester. Hutchinson 1979, page 639). Regards, Bob. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/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/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/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
[Biofuel] Liquid Coal
Hello, I am interested in finding about Liquid Coal. For what I hear, it seems it is environmentally friendly and cheaper to produce given the high oil prices today.I am located in Montreal, and if anybody knows about someone wortking on this technology I would be totally interested. Thank you. By the way, this is an awesome mailinglist!!! Best regards, Luis. - Do You Yahoo!? Todo lo que quieres saber de Estados Unidos, Amrica Latina y el resto del Mundo. Vista Yahoo! Noticias. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
RE: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come(Finally an eye is opening)
Keith, You are not right by saying that he did not threaten anybody. You needed to be there just for half a day and you would have seen what I am talking about. People being killed by his regime --- not sure how to spell this one. Over the years thousands of people. That is what I am talking about. So there have been many other reasons why it is good that he is no longer in this possition. Let us not just boil everything down to oil or WMD. KS -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Keith Addison Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 7:51 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come(Finally an eye is opening) This is great ... finally we are making sense. The WMD is not the issue. This is what I have said all along. People miss the big picture. Suddam Hussein was the weapon of mass destruction. 100% agreed. KS Sigh... I suppose one man's sense is another man's idiocy, and to each his own and all that, all jolly good and well... But in fact it's a matter of what you support, what you go along with, what you accept wihout questioning, what you oppose, to whose benefit and at whose expense. Which, I'm afraid, makes this idiocy, not sense. Lethal idiocy, furthermore, with its hands drenched in blood. Saddam threatened nobody, certainly not the US. Keith -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Henri Naths Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 9:56 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come Hakan, I would like to give a humble option here, ( Hakan wrote;...Criminal, established by the fact that we now know that Iraq were no WMD threat to US. ) We took out Hitler for the same reason, Him and Suddam Hussein were weapons of mass destruction. H. - Original Message - From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 31 March, 2005 7:29 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come Bob, You were right and I am wrong and I am glad that I did get a very good explanation on how Hubbert could be so right. It also explains why president Carter was so genuinely worried, when he developed his energy plan. He had the foresight to realize that Hubbert was right. It also explains why we see the surge in the genuine hate of Americans. It is the cost of aggressive and egoistic foreign policies, that resulted in about 10 more years of artificially low oil prices. All of this, ending up in an almost criminal behavior by the Bush administration. I say almost, because I do not want to be too crude. The legal aspect of being criminal, is very clearly established, Criminal, established by the fact that we now know that Iraq were no WMD threat to US. By laying the responsibility at the feet of faulty US intelligence community, the Bush administration is trying deliberately to avoid their legal responsibility. A kind of reversed side of the well known argument it was not my fault, I was ordered to do it. LOL All of this supported by the America people, in a reelection of president Bush. I hear the false argument that only 48% voted him in office. This argument is poor mathematics, I cannot get to this result, when Bush won with a more than 3 million of the populous American vote. It was the first election of Bush, that he did not have a populous majority and he was put in office by the Courts. Hakan At 11:16 PM 3/31/2005, you wrote: All I know is what I read in the brief biography. (and what I recall from hearing about his work many years ago) Hakan Falk wrote: Bob, I stand corrected and the only excuse I have, is that I only brought forward a mistake that I read earlier. I remember that it was an article about the hearings in US congress in mid 70'. Will however not do this mistake again, but do not despair, there are many others I will do and surely in my far from perfect English. -:) What was his field at Berkeley? Hakan ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/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/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
[Biofuel] Fwd: [Bioenergy] Part 1 - Biogas from starch and sugar
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 00:16:05 +0700 Subject: [Bioenergy] Part 1 - Biogas from starch and sugar PART 1 (this message has been cut to conform to the requirements of the listserv) Dear Friends, For those of you interested in compact, low cost digesters for bio-gas production, I have put together a compilation of information clipped from postings and personal correspondence with Dr. A. D. Karve of Pune, India. Dr. Karve is the developer of an innovative system of bio-gas generation using any waste (or non-edible) starchy and sugary feedstocks. This information is presented with Dr. Karve's permission to promote further development and dissemination of this new and evolving technology. Robert Deutsch, Advisor Community Sanitation and Recycling Organization Phnom Penh, Kingdom of Cambodia http://www.online.com.kh/users/csarowww.online.com.kh/users/csaro = Compact, low-cost digester for biogas from waste starch Note: The following text was cut and pasted from a number of public exchanges discussing an experimental method for production of bio-gas from various starchy and sugary feed stocks developed by Dr.A.D.Karve ( mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] ), President, Appropriate Rural Technology Institute, Pune, Maharashtra, India. Dr. Karve was the winner of the prestigious Ashden award in 2002 for a different stove development and one of the four winners of the 2004 Shell Foundation stove dissemination grants. These exchanges mostly took place on the REPP discussion group on energy efficient stoves over the last 18 months ( mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoveshttp://listserv.repp .org/mailman/listinfo/stoves ). Almost all of this text was culled from the posting by the main developer and promoter of the method, Dr. A.D. Karve, although quotes and questions from several others are included. As these messages discuss the development of this new approach over a period of some 18 months, there are some obvious contradictions in the data reflecting the progressive nature of the research. R. Deutsch, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] = == Introduction Preliminary studies indicated that the amount of biogas produced and the retention period varied from feedstock to feedstock and from season to season. Also, when the feedstock was changed from one form to another, the system took a few days to stabilise. Our studies also indicated that the gas yield could be increased by using combinations of feedstock materials. We are now looking at additives such as micronutrients, nitrogen, phosphorous compounds etc., which might bacterial action and yield more gas at a faster rate. Since the users would depend mainly upon locally available feedstock, field trials are essential to determine the retention periods and gas yield for different raw materials. Many people in India, who read my article in a local newspaper, copied our design and have started to use this biogas plant in their households. A schoolgirl submitted a working model of it in a statewide science project competition and won the first prize in the state. A company supplying science equipment to educational institute wants to manufacture models (50 litre capacity) for supply to schools and colleges. We have supplied 200 litre models to 10 voluntary agencies in different regions for demonstrating this technology to villagers in their respective areas. This model is meant for areas where the main diet is rice. This model yields enough gas to operate a pressure cooker to cook rice, beans, vegetables or meat for a family of five. In areas, where the main diet of the people consists of unleavened flat bread, somewhat like the tortilla, each piece of bread is made individually, and therefore the stove has to be in operation for a longer time. In such cases, we recommend the five hundred-litre model. The fermenter vessel contains almost 200 litres of liquid. When you pour a few litres of feedstock slurry into the biogas plant, a corresponding quantity comes out of the outlet pipe. Because the material to be fed into the biogas plant consists mainly of starch and sugary material like sugarcane juice or fruit pulp, the slurry consists almost exclusively of water with a little suspended matter in it. In the case of cattle dung or municipal solid waste, the slurry is thicker, because the feedstock material contains a lot of cellulose and lignin, which are not as easily digestible as starch or sugar. It may also be theoretically possible to produce alcohol and methane simultaneously, but we haven't looked for alcohol. The system however runs on vinegar, which is the oxidised product of alcohol. The system is sensitive to temperature. Here in Pune it
[Biofuel] Fwd: [Bioenergy] Part 2 - Biogas from starch and sugar
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 00:12:35 +0700 Subject: [Bioenergy] Part 2 - Biogas from starch and sugar PART 2 (this message has been cut to conform to the file size requirements of the listserv) Production This system uses starchy or sugary material as feedstock. 1kg of sugar or starch yields about 400 litres of methane, within a period of 6 to 8 hours. This quantity is enough for cooking one meal for 5 to 6 persons. The biogas produced by this system contains theoretically about equal volumes of carbondioxide and methane, but in reality, it turned out to have less than 5% carbondioxide. This phenomenon is explained by the fact that carbon dioxide dissolves in the water in the fermenter vessel and diffuses out of it through the 1 cm gap between the fermenter and the gas holder. We are getting about 250 g of methane per kg of flour. The values are approximations based on the volume of the gas and the crude analysis that was done in a chemistry lab. We are making arrangements with a government certified analytical lab for getting both the gas and the slurry analysed, and hope to come out with more reliable figures. The grain flour contains almost 10% protein and about half a percent of seed coat material, along with small quantities of fat in the embryo. Mr. Malar wanted to know the production potential of oilcake to methane. The biodigester working on oilcake of Madhuka indica actually uses 30 to 32 kg of oilcake (and not 16) to produce about 15 cubic meters of methane. The time taken by this reaction is just 24 hours. The weight of methane produced would be about 5.5 kg, having a clorific value of roughly 10,000 KCal/kg. [ From Nandu] Because of the residual oil and the high protein content of the oilcake, its calorific value is much greater than that of starch from cereal grains, rhizomes or tubers. As a result, this particular system is 1600 times as efficient as the conventional biogas plants. Another person, with whom we are collaborating, has a biogas plant producing daily 40 cubic meters of gas. He used to feed it daily with 1000kg dung, but now he is using daily a mixture of 200 kg cattle dung and 15 kg sorghum grain flour. He is reluctant to switch over completely to sorghum, as he feels that the bacteria may go on strike if they did not get their daily dose of dung. In his case, he replaces 800 kg dung by 15 kg flour and reduces the reaction time from 40 days to one day. He thus gets an efficiency that is 2000 times that of the traditional system. In the moving dome reactors that we use, the gas holder telescopes into the fermenter. Therefore, the total volume of the system is twice that of the volume of the gas that you expect to get from it. Starch, sugar, powdered oilcake, grain flour or powdered seed of any plant, take about the same time to digest and also produce the same amount of gas. It is likely that our high methane content is a result of a reaction 4H2 + CO2 = CH4 + 2H2O. Because very little work has been done by scientists on use of high calorie feedstocks, there is quite a lot of speculation about the high methane content that we are getting. Under our temperature and pressure, 1 cubic meter of biogas produced by a typical dung based biogas plant (50% each of CO2 and CH4) weighs about a kg. CH4 is about a third as heavy as CO2., therefore, in this case, 500 litres of CH4 would weigh about 250 g and the remaining 500 litres of CO2 would weigh about 750 g. I our case, we get almost pure methane, and it takes about 1 kg of flour to produce 500 litres of it. Therefore we came to the conclusion that our biogas plant gives 250 g of methane per kg of feedstock. We haven't found much difference in different species of grain I wish to correct the figures of oilcake used and biogas generated. It takes daily about 30 kg oilcake to produce 15 cubic meters of gas. But this gas consists of almost pure methane. It is not a case of co-generation, but direct fermentation. Cattle dung was used only initially as a source of bacteria, but for more than a month, they are using only oilcake. I had never heard of the digestion accelerator, but would love to have it, if it is genuine. In any case, our biogas plant uses waste starch or sugar in any form. Thus spoilt bananas, oilcake of nonedible oilseed (e.g.castor or Jatropha), mango kernels, seed of practically any plant, rain damaged grain, etc. all work beautifully as feedstock. The material must be pulped or powdered. These substances are highly digestible and the methane production starts within a few hours after their introduction into the biogas plant. About 2 kg of dry matter in any of the above forms would yield about 500 g of pure methane in about 8 hours. This period can be halved by heating the biogas plant. Advantages The short retention time and the small feedstock quantity enabled us to reduce the size of the gas plant. Our biogas plants
Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come(Finally an eye is opening)
John, I agree with what you say, but I did NOT write that!!! Sheesh Oops. Very sorry Keith. I know you didn't write that. That's what I get for hastily replying while I'm waiting for the coffee to finish brewing. Again. Sorry about that. jh Take your emailer out and have it shot John. And have another cup of coffee! :-) Regards Keith ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/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-powered Multi-fuel Camp Stove
There are quality tests here: Quality testing http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_vehicle.html#quality As for stoves, it depends on the stove. I think some will and some won't, no matter how well you've made it. Learn to make the stuff properly (easy) and give it a try. We have a pressure stove made to burn kerosene and it works very well with biodiesel. See this page, about two-thirds of the way down, under The pre-heating tank: http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_processor10.html Journey to Forever 90-litre processor Best wishes Keith Hi all, I am gearing up for my first test batch of biodiesel from virgin oil this weekend. A few have suggested that using a proven process and visual observances should be satisfactory tests to verify that all went well. Be that as it may, I am still trying uncover any possible measures to help verify my results. So, I am wondering, has anyone used biodiesel in a backpacking stove that is capable of burning petro-diesel? Can I expect that if I use biodiesel in one of these jobbies, should it burn the same as petro-diesel? Should I expect any difference in flame color? Would this sort of test be completely insignificant? Either way, I would certainly feel better the next time I'm out on the trail if I was heating my dinner with bio instead of petro. Thanks in advance, Ken ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Re: killing or toppling leaders
Besides, it violates the Constitution, Article VI - The Supreme Law of the Land The only problem is that the Constitution ceased being the Supreme Law of the Land back in 1861. Now even little children swear allegiance, not to the Constitution, but to the flag (the traditional symbol of the nation's military power - hence the expression to show the flag meaning to send in troops) and the republic for which that might stands. That one nation indivisible part is a direct repudiation of the Declaration of Independence's assertion that governments derive their lawful authority by the consent of the governed. Walt http://www.windward.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
RE: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come(Finally an eye is opening)
Keith, You are not right by saying that he did not threaten anybody. You needed to be there just for half a day and you would have seen what I am talking about. People being killed by his regime --- not sure how to spell this one. Over the years thousands of people. That is what I am talking about. So there have been many other reasons why it is good that he is no longer in this possition. Let us not just boil everything down to oil or WMD. KS Uh-huh. And more than 100,000 Iraqis killed in the doing, with more Iraqi children starving now than before the Great Liberation (NOT!), and so on and on and on. That last is quite an achievement, consdering the half million children killed by the sanctions before the invasion. You fancy heroic surgery, do you Klaus? The operation was successful, though the patient died? I mean, good grief, you actually believe this has anything to do with Saddam Hussein being a threat? Eyes opening? Are you kidding? Your eyes seem to be wide shut. Why would the US - Washington - bother about some tin-pot dictator who allegedly murdered his people? They've supported, aided and abetted dozens and scores of them in the past, who've killed a lot more people than that. As I said before in this thread, check out William Blum: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/BIOFUEL/41438/ An Interview with William Blum - The Granma Moses of Radical Writing http://members.aol.com/superogue/homepage.htm Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower, by William Blum http://members.aol.com/bblum6/American_holocaust.htm Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, by William Blum http://members.aol.com/bblum6/American_holocaust.htm The American Holocaust If you're not prepared to do that, and acknowledge it, and THEN explain how Saddam's domestic misdeeds explain all and show what you call the big picture, then do not claim that your eyes are open, because that will show that not only are they shut but that it's wilful. Keith -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Keith Addison Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 7:51 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come(Finally an eye is opening) This is great ... finally we are making sense. The WMD is not the issue. This is what I have said all along. People miss the big picture. Suddam Hussein was the weapon of mass destruction. 100% agreed. KS Sigh... I suppose one man's sense is another man's idiocy, and to each his own and all that, all jolly good and well... But in fact it's a matter of what you support, what you go along with, what you accept wihout questioning, what you oppose, to whose benefit and at whose expense. Which, I'm afraid, makes this idiocy, not sense. Lethal idiocy, furthermore, with its hands drenched in blood. Saddam threatened nobody, certainly not the US. Keith -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Henri Naths Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 9:56 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come Hakan, I would like to give a humble option here, ( Hakan wrote;...Criminal, established by the fact that we now know that Iraq were no WMD threat to US. ) We took out Hitler for the same reason, Him and Suddam Hussein were weapons of mass destruction. H. - Original Message - From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 31 March, 2005 7:29 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come Bob, You were right and I am wrong and I am glad that I did get a very good explanation on how Hubbert could be so right. It also explains why president Carter was so genuinely worried, when he developed his energy plan. He had the foresight to realize that Hubbert was right. It also explains why we see the surge in the genuine hate of Americans. It is the cost of aggressive and egoistic foreign policies, that resulted in about 10 more years of artificially low oil prices. All of this, ending up in an almost criminal behavior by the Bush administration. I say almost, because I do not want to be too crude. The legal aspect of being criminal, is very clearly established, Criminal, established by the fact that we now know that Iraq were no WMD threat to US. By laying the responsibility at the feet of faulty US intelligence community, the Bush administration is trying deliberately to avoid their legal responsibility. A kind of reversed side of the well known argument it was not my fault, I was ordered to do it. LOL All of this supported by the America people, in a reelection of president Bush. I hear the false argument that only 48% voted him in office. This argument is poor mathematics, I cannot get to this result, when Bush won with a more than 3 million of the populous American vote. It was the first election of Bush, that he did
Re: [Biofuel] Iraq Invasion - Age of Oil Scarcity
I think the thesis here is a bit of a reach. At the time of the invasion the dollar was not in the shape it is now. In fact one reason for the decline is the cost of the war. I still lean to the theory that Sadam was seen as a threat to the region and eventually would threaten US access to cheep oil by occupying his neighbors. The Bush administration calculated that it would be cheaper to attack him rather than contain him. It is a sobering thought that one of the geniuses that believed this is now head of the world bank. As far as the Euro vs the dollar, The big energy companies don't care what they get paid in or by who. At one point one of the companies that wants to drill in the Arctic admitted they'd probably sell the oil to Japan Rather than try to pipe it to the lower 48. Rick Scott wrote: How many of us had an AHA moment when reading this article? We now see the real reason for this illegal war [or at least one of the reasons]. Saddam Hussein was about to be given a clean bill of health by the UN inspection team beacuse he obviously didn't have WMD's. He was then going to open the spigots and start selling oil. Not only was he going to sell oil for Euros exacerbating the decline of the dollar, but that would also have driven the global price of oil down. Clearly, EXXON/Mobile, Chevron/Texaco, BP/Amoco et. al. did not want the price of oil to go down. ExxonMobil Corporation reported the fourth quarter of 2004 as its highest quarter ever... http://www.npnweb.com/uploads/featurearticles/2005/MarketingStrategies/0503ms.asp PEACE Scott - Original Message - Instead of inaugurating a new age of cheap oil, the Iraq war may become known as the beginning of an era of scarcity. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/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/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] taking out Saddam
Hallo Darryl, Not at all discounting any of those items you listed below but definitely do not discount the radical religious underpinning either. ;o) Happy Happy, Gustl On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 21:49:15 -0400 Darryl McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gustl, leave us some room for at least one of my pet theories. 1) Oil multi-nationals wanted control of the Iraqi oilfields. Couldn't leave the graft and corruption to UN officials - that's a private sector area of expertise. 2) U.S. needed a new theatre to try some new Pentagon toys. 3) Saddam was lobbying to sell Iraqi oil (under U.N. program or otherwise) in Euros instead of U.S. $, threatening the strength of the greenback. 4) Saddam tried to kill George W.'s daddy. On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 20:28:13 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Darryl wrote: Clearly, taking out Saddam had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction (the U.N. inspectors had all but proven he had none before the U.S. found the courage to invade), or 9/11 (the plans were in play in the U.S. Administration *before* the planes hit the towers). It was not about getting the oil, as it was available for sale on the world market prior to the invasion. It wasn't about Iraq as a military threat in the region - the U.S. and U.K. were flying military and surveillance over the country *daily* prior to the invasion. It wasn't about Al- Qaeda - they despised Saddam. Hussein did not attack or threaten the U.S. So, Henri, in your opinion, why had the Bush White House really decided to invade Iraq - prior to 9/11? Could it be because the UN sanctions were failing and about to be lifted? The US was not about to allow the Saddam administration to get $10+ Billion in oil revenue each year knowing they would use it to resume their weapons programs. No, they did not have weapons of mass destruction yet, but they did have the know how and planned to build them ASAP once the sanctions were lifted. Mike ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/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/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ -- Darryl McMahon http://www.econogics.com/ It's your planet. If you won't look after it, who will? ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/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/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
RE: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come(Finally an eye is opening)
Keith, I am surprised that you are asking that, since this is known worldwide. KS -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Keith Addison Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 2:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come(Finally an eye is opening) And whose eye might that be Klaus? Not yours, I don't think. Keith, You are not right by saying that he did not threaten anybody. You needed to be there just for half a day and you would have seen what I am talking about. People being killed by his regime --- not sure how to spell this one. Over the years thousands of people. That is what I am talking about. So there have been many other reasons why it is good that he is no longer in this possition. Let us not just boil everything down to oil or WMD. KS Uh-huh. And more than 100,000 Iraqis killed in the doing, with more Iraqi children starving now than before the Great Liberation (NOT!), and so on and on and on. That last is quite an achievement, consdering the half million children killed by the sanctions before the invasion. You fancy heroic surgery, do you Klaus? The operation was successful, though the patient died? I mean, good grief, you actually believe this has anything to do with Saddam Hussein being a threat? Eyes opening? Are you kidding? Your eyes seem to be wide shut. Why would the US - Washington - bother about some tin-pot dictator who allegedly murdered his people? They've supported, aided and abetted dozens and scores of them in the past, who've killed a lot more people than that. As I said before in this thread, check out William Blum: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/BIOFUEL/41438/ An Interview with William Blum - The Granma Moses of Radical Writing http://members.aol.com/superogue/homepage.htm Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower, by William Blum http://members.aol.com/bblum6/American_holocaust.htm Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, by William Blum http://members.aol.com/bblum6/American_holocaust.htm The American Holocaust If you're not prepared to do that, and acknowledge it, and THEN explain how Saddam's domestic misdeeds explain all and show what you call the big picture, then do not claim that your eyes are open, because that will show that not only are they shut but that it's wilful. Keith -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Keith Addison Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 7:51 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come(Finally an eye is opening) This is great ... finally we are making sense. The WMD is not the issue. This is what I have said all along. People miss the big picture. Suddam Hussein was the weapon of mass destruction. 100% agreed. KS Sigh... I suppose one man's sense is another man's idiocy, and to each his own and all that, all jolly good and well... But in fact it's a matter of what you support, what you go along with, what you accept wihout questioning, what you oppose, to whose benefit and at whose expense. Which, I'm afraid, makes this idiocy, not sense. Lethal idiocy, furthermore, with its hands drenched in blood. Saddam threatened nobody, certainly not the US. Keith -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Henri Naths Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 9:56 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come Hakan, I would like to give a humble option here, ( Hakan wrote;...Criminal, established by the fact that we now know that Iraq were no WMD threat to US. ) We took out Hitler for the same reason, Him and Suddam Hussein were weapons of mass destruction. H. - Original Message - From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 31 March, 2005 7:29 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come Bob, You were right and I am wrong and I am glad that I did get a very good explanation on how Hubbert could be so right. It also explains why president Carter was so genuinely worried, when he developed his energy plan. He had the foresight to realize that Hubbert was right. It also explains why we see the surge in the genuine hate of Americans. It is the cost of aggressive and egoistic foreign policies, that resulted in about 10 more years of artificially low oil prices. All of this, ending up in an almost criminal behavior by the Bush administration. I say almost, because I do not want to be too crude. The legal aspect of being criminal, is very clearly established, Criminal, established by the fact that we now know that Iraq were no WMD threat to US. By laying the responsibility at the feet of faulty US intelligence community, the Bush administration is trying deliberately to avoid their legal responsibility. A kind of reversed side
Re: [Biofuel] An Auto Industry Ad Leaves Critics Choking
I'll accept this statement when the CEOs of the automakers backing the advertisements each agree to the following. They, their spouses, children and grand children all agree to spend 24 hours in a confined space with the vehicle of my choice from their product line running for the entire period. Extended fuelling will be provided as necessary. Provided they all leave in good health, I will accept that their vehicle is virtually emission- free. Darryl McMahon Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted: http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/03/21/news/auto.html An Auto Industry Ad Leaves Critics Choking By Danny Hakim The New York Times Tuesday 22 March 2005 Detroit - Toyota, Ford, BMW and several other automakers are financing an advertising campaign aimed at politicians that asserts that automobiles are virtually emission-free. The campaign is part of an effort by a broad coalition of automakers to present their vehicles as environmentally benign at a time when the coalition is suing California to block a new regulation to curb global warming emissions and continuing to lobby in Washington against tougher fuel-economy regulations. A print version of the ad has appeared in journals aimed at legislators like Roll Call, Congress Daily and Congressional Quarterly, as well as in the industry trade publication Automotive News, according to the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the lobbying group behind the campaign. The ads have sparked a campaign by the Union of Concerned Scientists, an environmentalist group that says its efforts have generated 20,000 complaints asking the Federal Trade Commission to investigate whether the industry is making misleading claims. While regulations have indeed forced automakers to greatly improve emissions of smog-forming pollutants, the ads essentially ignore greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide as an automotive emission. The ads appear to contradict some automakers' own statements about rising levels of greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. Smog-forming emissions remain a public health issue, according to environmental and consumer groups, as the number of vehicles continues to increase. Our advertising practices division and our enforcement division are both aware of the ad and the campaign by UCS, Mitch Katz, a spokesman for the trade commission, said, referring to the Union of Concerned Scientists. We are evaluating the complaints we've received right now. He declined to say how many complaints the commission had received. The alliance includes most major automakers: Toyota, General Motors, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, Mazda, BMW, Mitsubishi, Porsche and Volkswagen. The ad shows a picture of a toddler in a car eating a Popsicle. Your car may never be spotless, but it's 99 percent cleaner than you think, the ad says. Autos manufactured today are virtually emission-free. And that's a dramatic improvement over models from just 30 years ago. Gloria Bergquist, a spokeswoman for the alliance, said that the ad's use of the term virtually emission-free should be understood to refer only to emissions classified as pollutants by the Environmental Protection Agency. Whether to consider greenhouse gases as pollutants is a politically charged issue. The Clinton administration determined carbon dioxide to be a pollutant, but the Bush administration reversed the decision. Several states and environment groups are suing to force the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate carbon dioxide emissions as pollutants. But David Friedman, research director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' clean vehicles program, said the advertisement itself made no such distinction - it simply called vehicles virtually emission-free. It reminds you of the cigarette makers, he said. They're trying to hide the harmful emissions coming from their vehicles. Though some cars on the road today are considered to be emitting roughly 99 percent fewer smog-forming particles than cars did in the pre-regulatory 1960s, Bergquist said the statement could not be broadly applied to all new cars and trucks until regulations of such emissions take effect by 2010. Automotive emissions of greenhouse gases, however, have been rising for two reasons: The number of vehicles is increasing and average fuel economy has declined since the late 1980s because of surging sales of sport utility vehicles and big pickups. Many scientists have raised potentially serious health concerns related to global warming, though there are dissenters. Most major automakers have said that they do take the issue of reducing global warming emissions quite seriously. In DaimlerChrysler's 2004 environmental report, for instance, the company's chief executive, Jrgen Schrempp, said in an opening
[Biofuel] ON THE RAMPAGE
ON THE RAMPAGE Corporate Predators and the Destruction of Democracy By Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman Rampant corporate crime. Pollution. Cancer. Sweatshops. Dangerous working conditions. Wealth disparities. Corrupted politics. In a compilation of compelling snapshots from two of the leading reporters on business power, On the Rampage documents the price we pay for living in a corporate-dominated society -- and provides energizing accounts of individuals and movements resisting, and triumphing over, concentrated corporate power. Available at local bookstores or from Common Courage Press, 1-800-497-3207, http://www.commoncouragepress.com/index.cfm?action=bookbookid=214 * On the Rampage is a cool, clear and sprightly written down-to-earth series of stories about how the relentless greed and power of corporations control human beings here and abroad. Mokhiber and Weissman demonstrate how to blend unassailable evidence with irresistible rhetoric. -- Ralph Nader Mokhiber and Weissman again strike at the heart of corporate power and malfeasance in this excellent book, On The Rampage. These journalists uphold the time-honored and now all-too-rare tradition of dogged muckracking, exposing corporate criminals and their bought politicians in the spirit of Ida Tarbell, Lincoln Steffens, and I.F. Stone. -- Amy Goodman, Democracy Now! On the Rampage treats readers to 71 trenchant essays on corporate soulessness from two of America's leading reporters on corporate misbehavior. -- Representative Dennis Kucinich Mokhiber and Weissman are veteran trackers of the corporate beasts that pillage the globe. In On the Rampage, they are on the tail of GM, Exxon, Philip Morris and other snakes, showing how they prey on workers, the environment and consumers. To escape from being snack food for the corporate godzillas, We the People needs to get On the Rampage. -- Jim Hightower, radio commentator and author, Let's Stop Beating Around the Bush * In their follow-up to the acclaimed Corporate Predators, Mokhiber and Weissman deride a criminal justice system that sentences a man to 16 years for stealing a Snickers Bar -- while letting the perpetrators of one of the largest antitrust conspiracies in histories off with a few months behind bars. They decry corporate welfare recipients for stealing money from kids -- extorting tax breaks from cities and states that come at the expense of schools. They shed light on the brutality of corporate globalization, showing how the privatization and marketization of everything from healthcare to drinking water is depriving people around the globe of access to life's essentials. They denounce the spread of the corporate culture into every nook and cranny of our lives -- junk food pushers in the schools, tort deformers educating judges, oil companies cleaning up public museums, big companies of all stripes taking over public interest groups -- and show how the corporate culture is degrading our politics, values and community life. They analyze the corporate beast: its unique legal immunities and privileges, its unnatural assets (for example, perpetual life, inability to be jailed), the underpinnings of its power, and its vulnerabilities. And they offer inspirational accounts of resistance to and triumph over concentrated corporate power. Does the citizen upsurge have the staying power and cohesiveness to go beyond street protests and campaigns against particular business abuses? they ask. While the answer isn't clear, they conclude, the citizen uprising is our best hope to rescue our lives, and our planet, from the corporate grip. To order, visit your local bookstore, or click on http://www.commoncouragepress.com/index.cfm?action=bookbookid=214 or call toll-free at 1-800-497-3207 - Please pass this message to friends, colleagues and relevant lists - ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
