Re: [Biofuel] 271 Diesel Generators
Here it is-2-71 GenSet on ebay http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemcategory=42908item=7504543930rd=1 ___ 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] Liquid Coal
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The 27th Symposium on Biotechnology for Fuels and Chemicals, of the Biomass Program of U.S.Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, to be held next may in Denver, Colorado, includes among many other interesting papers and posters, the following: Special Topic A: International Energy Agency Task #39 - Liquid Biofuels Monday, May 2, 2005 Chair: Jack Saddler, University of British Columbia 10 minute talks, holding questions for general discussion at end 2:00 p.m. Opening remarks-Session Chair 2:05 p.m. Oral Presentation A-01. Technical Progress In Bioconversion: Steps Towards Commercialization, (MS Word 29 KB) Mabee, W.E., Gregg, D.J., Gilkes, N., and Saddler, J.N., The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada 2:10 p.m. Oral Presentation A-02. Fuel Ethanol RD in Sweden, (MS Word 20 KB) Barbel Hahn-Hgerdal, Applied Microbiology, LTH/Lund University, Lund, Sweden 2:20 p.m. Oral Presentation A-03. Making a Business with Biofuels, (MS Word 20 KB) Manfred Wrgetter, Bundesanstalt fur LandTechnik, Wieselburg, Austria 2:30 p.m. Oral Presentation A-04. Present Situation and Prospects on Bioethanol in Asian Countries, (MS Word 25 KB) Shiro Saka, Graduate School of Energy Science, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan 2:40 p.m. Oral Presentation A-05. Liquid Biofuels in South Africa, (MS Word 21 KB) Bernard A. Prior, Department of Microbiology, University of Stellenbosch,Stellenbosch, South Africa Best regards, Marcelino - Original Message - From: Luis Eduardo Puerto [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 1:54 PM Subject: [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/ ___ 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] Goodbye To All That Oil
From the sound of things the price of petroleum products is to cheap and should increase to adjust for inflation, world growth and demand. Won't the problem take care of itself? As prices rise, people will voluntarily cut consumption, right? Well, in a 2003 article, energy economist Andrew McKillop showed that at least during the 1990s, the opposite happened. Each time oil prices rose, world demand rose within six-12 months. And over on the far side of Hubbert's peak, it will be physical reality, not economics, that governs consumption. With supply shrinking year by year, every barrel that comes out of the ground will likely be burned lickety-split. http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/21588/ 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. ___ 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] Nuclear power 'regaining stature' as option
Nuclear power has the misconception of being essentially Free Power In that you only have to pour money into building a plant, getting some cheap fuel and that's it. What no one tells you about is you have to spend millions mining and crushing ore from a few mines in the world. Indecently none if any of them happen to be in the us Indecently Iran has a large area which they can mine on there own territory. The largest one is in the outback in Australia. if you do a bit of hunting around you'll also find uranium prices have risen over %100 over the last year and Russia and china have already ramped up production of new reactors. and there quite literally will be a shortage of nuclear fuel in 10 - 20 years. Bede ___ 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] US ethanol prices
MH wrote: 87 octane unleaded gasoline and E10 are now the same price US$2.299 a gallon where I live and I've never seen E-10 10 to 15 cents less per US gallon then regular unleaded gasoline though E85 can be and quiet a distance from my location. Now that I think about it there is a 10-20 cent decrease for Minnesota E10 unleaded gasoline in comparison to just a few miles across the border in the state of Wisconsin's 87-octane unleaded gasoline which costs more. This may only be true in the area I occasionally drive. ___ 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] Fwd: [Bioenergy] Part 2 - Biogas from starch and sugar
Very interested in your process, in N.A. applications. How can details of purchase / plans be accessed? - Les. - Original Message - From: Keith Addison To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 1:59 PM Subject: [Biofuel] Fwd: [Bioenergy] Part 2 - Biogas from starch and sugar From: Robert Deutsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
RE: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come(Finally an eye is opening)
I am surprised that you are asking that, since this is known worldwide. KS You're not being clear - what exactly is known worldwide? Keith Addison -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
Re: [Biofuel] Fwd: [Bioenergy] Part 2 - Biogas from starch and sugar
details of purchase / plans be accessed? - Les. It's a forward from another list, as it says. You'll find Dr Karve's address at the beginning of Part 1. He's in Inida. Keith - Original Message - From: Keith Addison To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 1:59 PM Subject: [Biofuel] Fwd: [Bioenergy] Part 2 - Biogas from starch and sugar From: Robert Deutsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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) 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] Fwd: [Bioenergy] Part 2 - Biogas from starch and sugar
On Apr 6, 2005 1:20 AM, Leslie Young [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Very interested in your process, in N.A. applications. How can details of purchase / plans be accessed? - Les. - Original Message - From: Keith Addison To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 1:59 PM Subject: [Biofuel] Fwd: [Bioenergy] Part 2 - Biogas from starch and sugar From: Robert Deutsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Re: [Biofuel] The need for Gmail invitation
Thank you for bringing the other side view about the big company.As our university has not the resourec as well as for the same service the MSN and yahoo eventough little for the south people all is very hard to have. The spam problem are well handled in google. Yahoo e mail used to put all my e mail in waste box. I agree with you as anything with out any real need is an waste and also that we here all need be very careful not to store personel and important material in private company hard disc. sd P.V.Pannirselvam On Apr 4, 2005 5:48 AM, Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Pannirselvam Hello Keith and all our list members Gmail is going to increase from 1 Mega To 2 Mega , as I have alot of invitation to be sent , Most of our list members are welcome as our e mail list is very big one . Please kindly inform if any one really need as gmail help us too There are some concerns about gmail. I think it's as well to be aware of them. See: http://www.google-watch.org/ Google Watch http://www.google-watch.org/gmail.html Gmail is too creepy http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3602745.stm BBC NEWS | Business | Google's Gmail sparks privacy row 5 April, 2004 http://www.privacyrights.org/ar/GmailLetter.htm Thirty-One Privacy and Civil Liberties Organizations Urge Google to Suspent Gmail http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,62917,00.html Wired News: Free E-Mail With a Steep Price? Regards Keith Thanking all sd Pannirselvam P.V Brasil -- Pagandai V Pannirselvam Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte - UFRN Departamento de Engenharia Qumica - DEQ Centro de Tecnologia - CT Programa de Ps Graduao em Engenharia Qumica - PPGEQ Grupo de Pesquisa em Engenharia de Custos - GPEC Av. Senador Salgado Filho, Campus Universitrio CEP 59.072-970 , Natal/RN - Brasil Residence : Av Odilon gome de lima, 2951, Q6/Bl.G/Apt 102 Capim Macio EP 59.078-400 , Natal/RN - Brasil Telefone(fax) ( 84 ) 215-3770 Ramal20 2171557 Telefone(fax) ( 84 ) 215-3770 Ramal20 ___ 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/ -- Pagandai V Pannirselvam Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte - UFRN Departamento de Engenharia Qumica - DEQ Centro de Tecnologia - CT Programa de Ps Graduao em Engenharia Qumica - PPGEQ Grupo de Pesquisa em Engenharia de Custos - GPEC Av. Senador Salgado Filho, Campus Universitrio CEP 59.072-970 , Natal/RN - Brasil Residence : Av Odilon gome de lima, 2951, Q6/Bl.G/Apt 102 Capim Macio EP 59.078-400 , Natal/RN - Brasil Telefone(fax) ( 84 ) 215-3770 Ramal20 2171557 Telefone(fax) ( 84 ) 215-3770 Ramal20 2171557 ___ 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] Fwd: [Bioenergy] Part 2 - Biogas from starch and sugar
On Apr 6, 2005 5:28 AM, Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Very interested in your process, in N.A. applications. How can details of purchase / plans be accessed? - Les. It's a forward from another list, as it says. You'll find Dr Karve's address at the beginning of Part 1. He's in Inida. Keith - Original Message - From: Keith Addison To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 1:59 PM Subject: [Biofuel] Fwd: [Bioenergy] Part 2 - Biogas from starch and sugar From: Robert Deutsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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) 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/ -- Pagandai V Pannirselvam Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte - UFRN Departamento de Engenharia Qumica - DEQ Centro de Tecnologia - CT Programa de Ps Graduao em Engenharia Qumica - PPGEQ Grupo de Pesquisa em Engenharia de Custos - GPEC Av. Senador Salgado Filho, Campus Universitrio CEP 59.072-970 , Natal/RN - Brasil Residence : Av Odilon gome de lima, 2951, Q6/Bl.G/Apt 102 Capim Macio EP 59.078-400 , Natal/RN - Brasil Telefone(fax) ( 84 ) 215-3770 Ramal20 2171557 Telefone(fax) ( 84 ) 215-3770 Ramal20 2171557 ___ 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)
I am surprised that you are asking that, since this is known worldwide. KS Since early 2004, when the David Kay report offered the initial findings of the Iraq Survey Group, various government investigations have confirmed that Iraq simply was not a threat to the United States. Nor to anybody else. And this: The latest WMD report merely confirms what anti-war activists were claiming all along -- way before the invasion of Iraq. Right - check the Biofuel list archives, eg. See also: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0401-33.htm Published on Friday, April 1, 2005 by David Corn WMD Commission Continues the Stonewall for Bush http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/21687/ We Told You So By Rahul Mahajan, AlterNet. Posted April 6, 2005. The latest WMD report merely confirms what anti-war activists were claiming all along -- way before the invasion of Iraq. Last week, the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction issued what may be the last in a series of in-depth reports by U.S. government on the intelligence failures surrounding the invasion of Iraq. Wade through the close to 3,000 pages of these reports and one conclusion is inescapable: those of us who opposed the invasion of Iraq were right on every count. We knew that the Bush administration's case of war was no more than a mish-mash of evasion, misdirection, and outright lies -- and we didn't need the vast resources of these investigative commissions to figure it out. The evidence - be it in the form of intelligence leaks, news reporting (though less often in the U.S. and rarely on the front page), or congressional testimony -- was out in the open for all to see. The al Qaeda Connection In the lead up to the war, Bush administration officials constantly insinuated a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, and even the 9/11 attacks. Vice President Cheney, over and again, referred to a cock-and-bull story about a Prague meeting between Mohammed Atta and the Iraqi intelligence. The Atta story was debunked in The New York Times as early as October 2002 - more than four months before the invasion. The other damning piece of evidence of this al Qaeda connection was a sighting of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Baghdad. As it turns out, the only person who helped out Zarqawi was George Bush. By eliminating Saddam, the U.S. has created a power vacuum that has made Zarqawi a major player in post-war Iraq. There was never any evidence emerged that he was getting resources, assistance, or cover from the old regime. The 9/11 commission later confirmed that there was absolutely no evidence linking Iraq to al Qaeda. The N-Bomb Scare Starting in August 2002, Dick Cheney and others raised the specter of Iraq armed with a nuclear bomb, ready to take out New York or Atlanta. On March 16, 2003, Cheney even said, of Saddam, We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. According to the WMD Commission report, the CIA believed that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapon program - which is still quite different from actually having nuclear weapons. But even this modified judgment was based on controversial evidence, such as the presence of a certain kind of aluminum tubes. As news reports before the invasion show, intelligence analysts were split over these tubes; where the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency thought they were designed to serve as uranium-enrichment centrifuges, the State Department and the Department of Energy were convinced they were conventional artillery shells. The latter were right, but we didn't need to wait for the WMD report to tell us that. The International Atomic Energy Association's Mohammed el Baradei told The Washington Post exactly that in January, 2003: It may be technically possible that the tubes could be used to enrich uranium, but you would have to believe that Iraq deliberately ordered the wrong stock and intended to spend a great deal of time and money reworking each piece. He repeated his assessments with even greater force in a report to the U.N. on March 7 - two weeks before the invasion. There is, of course, also the now long-debunked claim made by President Bush in his January, 2003 State of Union speech - the claim that Iraq had been trying to buy uranium from Niger. In February 2003, IAEA inspectors - having finally gained access to the Niger documents - pointed out that they were very crude forgeries, a fact that was covered in some newspapers, including the Chicago Tribune, well before the war. The Bush administration did not, however, abandon its claim until six months later, when former Ambassador Joe Wilson revealed that the administration knew there was no evidence of any attempt to buy uranium a full year before the Bush speech. What WMDs? As the WMD commission report reveals, when it came to Saddam's much-touted biological weapons program,
Re: [Biofuel] An Auto Industry Ad Leaves Critics Choking
My goodness - you don't believe them??? How unkind! LOL! I'm wondering how it fits with this (featuring dear old Dan Becker, knee-jerk hater of diesels - never mind) - emissions? What emissions? http://www.commondreams.org/news2005/0405-04.htm Sierra Club FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE APRIL 5, 2005 8:48 AM CONTACT: Sierra Club Brian O'Malley, 202-675-6279 Canada, Automakers Announce Breakthrough Global Warming Agreement Automakers To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions By Million of Tons Beginning 2007 Best Keith 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
[Biofuel] Round III of the Energy Bill Features More of the Same
Public Citizen FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE APRIL 5, 2005 10:48 AM CONTACT: Public Citizen Main Office: 202-588-1000 It's Time for a Knockout: Round III of the Energy Bill Features More of the Same Giveaways to Corporations, Does Not Protect Consumers or the Environment; Statement by Joan Claybrook, President, Public Citizen Note: Today, the House Energy and Commerce Committee holds a full mark-up of the draft energy legislation. WASHINGTON -- April 5 -- The latest energy bill - this one a draft released by House Energy Committee Chairman Joe Barton (R-Texas) - offers more of the same failed proposals that have doomed energy legislation in the past two Congresses. It showers nuclear and oil companies with subsidies, gives polluters a break from protecting the environment and promotes further electricity deregulation while doing nothing to protect consumers from high energy prices. Indeed, oil prices continue to soar despite Congress passing a billion-dollar subsidy in October 2004 to encourage more domestic energy production and its March 16 budget vote to open Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. You would think that such a radical change in federal oil production policy (the successful Senate vote represented the first time in 24 years that the Senate has approved the measure) would send a clear signal to oil traders in New York. But the prices of oil and gasoline have only skyrocketed since the vote, raising doubts about the claim by the Bush administration and Congress that giving energy producers what they want will somehow lower prices for consumers. Energy prices are at record highs because recent mergers have left domestic oil and gas markets uncompetitive (this week's proposed merger of ChevronTexaco and Unocal certainly won't help) and the energy traders that set prices are left largely unregulated. The bill not only lacks any requirement for strong fuel economy standards to cut back on overconsumption, but it attempts to undercut strong standards in the future by limiting the basis for issuing them. It also extends - rather than ends - a harmful credit to auto companies that sell dual-fuel vehicles, whose tanks in fact are usually filled only with gasoline. In addition, the draft energy bill ends the ability of states to have adequate input in the siting of controversial Liquefied Natural Gas facilities. To read Public Citizen's analysis of the bill, click here. http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/electricity/energybi ll/2005/articles.cfm?ID=13247 ___ 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] [off topic]US opposes Israeli settlement plan
US opposes Israeli settlement plan The United States has opposed Israeli plans to expand the illegal Jewish settlement of Maale Adumim near Jerusalem with some 3500 homes. The White House on Monday also said US President George Bush would raise the issue during next week's scheduled meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. We oppose the expansion of any settlement activity. That has been our view and that remains our view, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said when asked about settlement expansion plans in the West Bank. Settlement activity will be a subject that comes up, when Bush and Sharon meet next Monday at the US president's ranch in Crawford, Texas, McClellan said. The spokesman's comments, however, fell short of the position expressed last month by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Rice response In response to news of Israeli plans to build the homes between Maale Adumim and Arab East Jerusalem, Rice said settlement expansion should come to a full stop, because it could threaten progress towards peace. We oppose the expansion of any settlement activity. That has been our view and that remains our view A senior Bush administration official said Washington's stance had not softened since Rice's statement. The official called the White House's message direct, clear and unequivocal. Another official said the Bush administration was putting pressure on Israel largely behind the scenes before the Bush-Sharon meeting. Rice and Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, were expected to raise the issue later on Monday in talks with Dov Weissglass, a top Sharon adviser. Sharon's scheme Sharon believes an extension of Israel's biggest colony, already home to 30,000 people, is in line with Bush's assurance to him last year that Israel could expect to keep some large settlement blocs under a final peace accord. A strip between Jerusalem and Maale Adumim will certainly be built. At what time, under what circumstances, at which phase during negotiations ... I honestly don't know, said Israeli Vice-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Palestinians say the latest project on land Israel occupied in the 1967 Middle East war would cut them off from East Jerusalem, which they want as the capital of their future state. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ 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] Windmills in the Sky
Windmills in the Sky By David Cohn 02:00 AM Apr. 06, 2005 PT http://www.wired.com/news/planet/0,2782,67121,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2 Australian engineer Bryan Roberts wants to build a power station in the sky -- a cluster of flying windmills soaring 15,000 feet in the air -- but is having trouble raising enough money to get the project off the ground. After 25 years of research, Roberts has designed a helicopter-like rotorcraft to hoist a wind turbine high into the air, where winds are persistent and strong. The craft, which is powered by its own electricity and can stay aloft for months, feeds electricity to the ground through a cable. Roberts, a professor of engineering at the University of Technology, Sydney, believes there is enough energy in high-altitude winds to satisfy the world's demands. Wind-tunnel data suggests a cluster of 600 flying electric generators, or FEGs, could produce three times as much energy as the United States' most productive nuclear power plant. Roberts has teamed up with Sky WindPower, a San Diego startup that is trying to commercialize his invention. The company has Federal Aviation Administration approval to conduct tests of the technology in the California desert, but needs $3 million to build full-size flying generators. The company is having trouble raising the cash because there isn't likely to be an immediate return on investors' money. High-altitude winds could provide a potentially enormous renewable energy source, and scientists like Roberts believe flying windmills could put an end to dependence on fossil fuels. At 15,000 feet, winds are strong and constant. On the ground, wind is often unreliable -- the biggest problem for ground-based wind turbines. For FEGs, the winds are much more persistent than on ground-based machines, said Roberts. That's part of the benefit, more power and greater concentration. Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, said tapping into just 1 percent of the energy produced by high-altitude winds could satisfy a lot of the world's power needs. It's absurd that all this time we have turned a blind eye to the energy right above our heads, he said. High-altitude wind power represents the most concentrated flux of renewable energy found on Earth. At certain locations, the efficiency of a flying generator can be as high as 90 percent, three times higher than its grounded counterpart, according to Sky WindPower. At this efficiency, FEGs could become the nation's cheapest source of electricity, with an estimated cost per kilowatt hour of less than 2 cents, about half the price of coal, according to the Power Marketing Association. Having conducted tests with models, Sky WindPower wants to scale up Roberts' experiments and produce a commercial-sized flying windmill with four rotors. The rotorcraft will go into the first layer of the atmosphere, called the troposphere. Sky WindPower estimates the craft will produce 200 kilowatts per hour of electricity in an area that at ground level would produce none because of a lack of wind. Since strong high-altitude winds exist in many locations, the company's hope is to find sites 10 miles by 20 miles in size that are not currently used by commercial planes and turn them into restricted airspaces. Once in the air, the FEGs' roll and pitch would be controlled to catch the wind most effectively. Sky WindPower intends to use GPS technology to maintain the crafts' vertical and horizontal location to within a few feet. The craft will be brought to ground once a month or so for maintenance checks. The project has already received FAA approval and needs only to finalize a test site. Currently the company favors somewhere in Southern California. The company declined to be specific, saying it has not yet applied for local permits. Our desert test site does not have as good winds as future intended operational sites, said David Shepard, president of Sky WindPower. But starting there will enable us to proceed to more-difficult conditions with less risk. lt;agt;lt;imggt;lt;/agt; However, the company has not yet raised the capital to build the craft. Shepard said he expected the money would be found. We do have reason to expect that we will obtain the funding necessary to carry out our intended demonstration, he said. I have reason to be optimistic. Caldeira, whose high-altitude wind energy graphs can be found on Wind SkyPower's website, said he was disappointed but not surprised the company is having trouble raising money for testing. Investors tend not to put money into a project that is risky or won't pay within a few years, he said. Caldeira said there are lots of obstacles that scare investors: testing, obtaining local permission and quelling fears of possible danger. Even if this is a far-out possibility, our society is remiss in not vigorously investigating the potential for
Re: [Biofuel] Fwd: [Bioenergy] Part 2 - Biogas from starch and sugar
details of purchase / plans be accessed? - Les. It's a forward from another list, as it says. You'll find Dr Karve's address at the beginning of Part 1. He's in Inida. Inida??? Aarghhh! Sorry, it should be India, of course. :-( Keith Keith - Original Message - From: Keith Addison To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 1:59 PM Subject: [Biofuel] Fwd: [Bioenergy] Part 2 - Biogas from starch and sugar From: Robert Deutsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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) 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] Questions with plumbing on the bd processor
hello theo i have found this site about chemicals and their compatibility they don't list biodiesel specifically but methanol and lye are on it http://www.coleparmer.com/techinfo/ChemComp.asp vince Theo Chadzichristos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi everyone, Well I finally put forth the effort to switch to BD and am putting the finishing touches on my processor. I will be using a pump for mixing and was wondering about pvc and hoses. Im trying to decide if I should plumb my processor with some pvc pipe or plastic tubing. I found low density polyethylene at the hardware store and lots of vinyl tubing. I think the vinyl is bad with BD if im not mistaken but is the low-density stuff ok? I know high density polyethylene is what a lot of buckets are made of and that stuff is ok with BD but what about the low density stuff. Also there was talk about people using pvc for plumbing on their processor but I had trouble finding stuff about it in the archives. Is pvc a better choice to use on my processor then the other types of plastic tubing? Thanks for the help. ___ 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/ - Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada 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] New study confronts old thinking on ethanol's net energy value
ry/data/agNews_050328crETHANOL.xmlcatref=ag1001 New study confronts old thinking on ethanol's net energy value 3/28/2005, 2:49 PM CST Ethanol generates 35% more energy than it takes to produce, according to a recent study by Argonne National Laboratory conducted by Michael Wang. The finding goes against a belief among many that ethanol production uses more energy than it creates. Some critics of corn ethanol have argued that it has a negative energy balance, which means the energy in ethanol itself minus fossil energy used for corn farming and ethanol production. The new findings support earlier research that determined ethanol has a positive net energy balance, according to the National Corn Growers Association. That research was conducted by USDA, Michigan State University, the Colorado School of Mines, the Institute for Local Self-Reliance and other public and private entities. A USDA study released in 2004 found that ethanol may net as much as 67% more energy than it takes to produce. The US Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy said the Argonne study should help quell debate about the net energy balance of ethanol. We believe (the study) has laid to rest some long-held misunderstandings about ethanol and its important role in reducing America's reliance on imported oil and our greenhouse gas emissions, DOE officials stated in a summary of the study. In terms of key energy and environmental benefits, cornstarch ethanol comes out clearly ahead of petroleum-based fuels. In the last 10 years, only two studies, both of which were conducted by Cornell University entomologist David Pimentel, have found the net energy balance of ethanol to be negative. Many economists have argued Pimentel used outdated data in his methodology. In the last 30 years, corn yield per unit of chemical inputs has gone up significantly. At the same time, energy use by ethanol production plants has gone down significantly, Argonne has found in the past. Argonne suggests some researchers fail to accurately account for solar energy when determining ethanol's energy balance. Some of the confusion arises over the fact that some of the total energy used in the production of ethanol is 'free' solar energy used to grow the corn in the first place, DOE states. Since the solar energy is free, renewable and environmentally benign, we shouldn't care. Ethanol also has a positive benefit in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction, according to the Argonne study. Wang found that, on a per gallon basis, corn ethanol reduces GHG emissions by 18-29%, National Corn Growers Association says. The US now uses about 3 billion gallons of fuel ethanol a year, only Brazil uses more fuel ethanol. Argonne is one of the US Department of Energy's largest research centers. Read a report about the new study on the National Corn Growers Association Web site here http://www.ncga.com/public_policy/PDF/03_28_05ArgonneNatlLabEthanolStudy.pdf ___ 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] Nuclear power 'regaining stature' as option
I can add only two words to this. Arrogant fools! Tom -Original Message- From: Keith Addison To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 4/5/05 1:16 PM Subject: [Biofuel] Nuclear power 'regaining stature' as option http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7259205/ 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
[Biofuel] Acetone Increases Mileage 15-35%
I have my doubts Kirk Aerielle Louise [EMAIL PROTECTED] Acetone Increases Mileage 15-35% http://pesn.com/2005/03/ 17/6900069_Acetone/ Acetone In Fuel Said to Increase Mileage 15-35% Readily-available chemical added to gas tank in small proportion improves the fuel's ability to vaporize completely by eliminating the surface tension that causes some particulates to note fully vaporize. by Louis LaPointe Adapted by Sterling D. Allan with LaPoint's permission for Pure Energy Systems News Acetone (CH3COCH3), also called dimethylketone or propanone, is a product that can be purchased inexpensively in most locations around the world, such as in the common hardware store. Added to the fuel tank in tiny amounts, it aids in the vaporization of the gasoline or diesel, increasing fuel efficiency, engine longevity, and performance -- as well as reducing hydrocarbon emissions. How it Works Complete vaporization of normal fuel is far from perfect in today's cars. A certain amount of fuel in most engines remains liquid in the hot chamber. In order to become a true gas and be fully combusted, fuel must undergo a phase change. Surface tension present an obstacle to vaporization. For instance the energy barrier from surface tension can sometimes force water to reach 300 degrees before it vaporizes. Similarly with gasoline. Acetone drastically reduces the surface tension. Most fuel molecules are sluggish with respect to their natural frequency. Acetone has an inherent molecular vibration that stirs up the fuel molecules, to break the surface tension. This results in a more complete vaporization with other factors remaining the same. More complete vaporization means less wasted fuel, hence the increased gas mileage from the increased thermal efficiency. That excess fuel was formerly wasted past the rings or sent out the tailpipe but with acetone it gets burned. Acetone allows gasoline to behave more like the ideal automotive fuel which is PROPANE. The degree of improved mileage depends on how much unburned fuel you are presently wasting. You might gain 15 to 35-percent better economy from the use of acetone. Sometimes even more. How Much to Use Add in tiny amounts from about one part per 5000 to one part per 500, depending on the vehicle -- just a few ounces per ten gallons of gas. Figure 1: Percentage MILEAGE GAIN when a tiny amount of acetone is added to fuel. The curves A B C show the effect on three different cars using different gasolines. Some engines respond better than others to acetone. The D curve is for diesel fuel. Too much acetone will decrease mileage slightly due to adding too much octane to the fuel. Too much also upsets the mixture ratio because acetone (like alcohol) is a light molecule. After you find the right amount for your car per ten gallons, and you are happy with your newfound mileage, you might want to try stopping the use of acetone for a couple of tanks. Watch the drop in mileage. It will amaze you. That reverse technique is one of the biggest eye openers concerning the use of acetone in fuel. In a 10-gallon tank of gasoline, use two to three ounces of pure acetone to obtain excellent mileage improvements. In a ten-gallon tank of diesel fuel, use from 1 to 2 ounces of acetone. Performance went up too. Use about a teaspoon of acetone in the fuel tank of a lawnmower or snowblower. Where to Get Acetone The pure acetone label is the only additive suggested and is easily available from most stores in 16-ounce plastic bottles and in one-gallon containers from some large farm supply stores. But any acetone source is better than none. Containers labeled acetone from a hardware store are usually okay and pure enough to put in your fuel. We prefer cans or bottles that say 100-percent pure. The acetone in gallons or pints we get from Fleet Farm are labeled 100% pure. The bottles from Walgreen say 100% pure. Never use solvents such as paint thinners or unknown stuff in your gas. Toluene, benzene and xylene are okay if they are pure but may not raise mileage except when mixed with acetone. Additional Benefits In addition to increased mileage acetone added to fuel boasts other benefits such as increased power, engine life, and performance. Less unburned fuel going past the rings keeps the rings and engine oil in far better condition. A tiny bit of acetone in diesel fuel can stop the black smoke when the rack is all the way at full throttle. You will notice that the exhaust soot will be greatly reduced. Acetone can reduce hydrocarbon emissions up to 60-percent. In some older cars, the HC readings with acetone went from say 440 PPM to 195, as just one example. Though mileage gains taper off with too much acetone, hydrocarbon emissions are nevertheless greatly reduced. Pure acetone is an extremely clean burning fuel that burns in air with a pretty blue, smokeless flame. Acetone reduces the formation of water-ice crystals in below-zero weather which damage the fuel filter. There
[Biofuel] Examination of Pure Plant Oil as a Transportation Biofuel – Experiences and Potentials
I put this document together for a Department of Transport consultation. I think it would be of interest. Available online at http://www.vegburner.co.uk/examppo.htm Best Darren --- Examination of Pure Plant Oil as a Transportation Biofuel Experiences and Potentials Pure plant oils have been shown to offer great promise as a transportation biofuel. A European Parliament report [3] that examined biofuels before the biofuels directive was finalised stated Because of its non-toxic nature and its allowance for smaller refining units, this approach would probably bring the greatest long-term benefits in terms of regional development, environmental balance and job creation. However this option is often discredited due to experiences when operating plant oils in diesel engines. A growing number of studies have examined its usage. Unfortunately the results of these studies have been mixed largely due to variables in both fuel characteristics and engine optimisation. As an example the Department of Transport commissioned study [1] cited in the consultation papers last summer would at face value show that rapeseed oil fuelled cars have greater emissions than vehicles fuelled with diesel fuel. Examination of this study by someone with experience of the technologies and issues involved shows that the equipment fitted and adjustments made to the vehicles to allow rapeseed oil usage were not sufficient to provide optimised operation. The rapeseed oil used as a fuel was not tested to ensure that its properties were suitable for use as a diesel engine fuel; some properties of relevance were tested and found to be within levels considered appropriate. Other important variables which would affect combustion and reliability were not tested. Emissions from the use of PPO have also been examined in a recent literature review compiled on behalf of the Dutch government [2]. This review examined a number of different recent studies and drew the conclusion that when PPO tailpipe emissions were compared to those of diesel fuel there were no clear differences except for reduced NOx. Also concerns about reliability in diesel engines are often cited. However numerous properly converted vehicles have been shown to operate reliably. German experiences have shown PPO to be a viable alternative with many possible advantages over alternatives [4]. In Germany a fuel standard has been created by a partnership between industry and academia, the German government is now looking at adopting this standard to further promote developments. It has often been stated that if vehicle manufacturers were encouraged to produce vehicles with engines designed to handle PPO that uptake would be encouraged due to the negation of the expense of conversion. It has been calculated that if engines were produced with PPO capability the costs would be greatly reduced. Support for PPO in the UK is limited and it appears the government has received little in the way of solid information on the prospects of this biofuel. This would appear to be largely due to the lack of industry interest in this fuel; currently there are a very limited number of small firms involved in these technologies. The suggestion would be that the financial incentives are insufficient to promote its usage despite possible advantages over other options. There has also been much confusion over the tax position of PPO which has slowed uptake. Results of comparisons between different renewable alternatives generally frame biodiesel (which shares many factors with PPO production) using current intensive chemical heavy input crop production and large scale mill oil extraction. These variables could be significantly improved by the adoption of less intensive crop production (eg. using organic farming methods) and the use of small scale presses which have been proven to be able to supply quality fuel with good overall economic and environmental performance. This allows fuel transportation to be greatly reduced as fuel can be grown and produced close to point of use. Obviously this is a best case scenario but these methods are growing in popularity both in Germany and other EU member states. Cold pressed locally distributed rapeseed fuel has been shown to have an energy balance of 24.85:1 and a CO2 balance of 14.44:1 [5]. There is also a large potential for the use of other oil crops. Oil based biofuel production has concentrated on feed stocks from readily available food oils. There are a huge number of oil producing plants that could potentially provide a suitable fuel oil and may well lend themselves to better methods of cultivation and better yields; algae is often cited, tree and shrub crops can produce high yields with reduced cultivation inputs, mixed plantings of oilseed and other crops have been shown to provide good yields. [1] Dft Biofuels Evaluation Final Report of Test Programme to Evaluate Emissions Performance of Vegetable Oil Fuel on Two Light
