RE: [Biofuel] Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths
Joey, Biofuel? How did you get to this issue. LOL Do you belong to this group of people that regularly visit energy lists and try to provoke a nuke discussion? I have stopped from a participating in a few lists because of this group, which seems to be roughly the same people all the time. I am not interesting in deconstruct any Nuclear Power Myths, if there are any. All kind of discussions are ok, if they come naturally, but the clear pattern by a defined group to bring up this kind of issues, smells attempt to organized industry influence. I guess that if you answer this guy, we will have some hundreds of email about nuclear and we will find that suddenly it is some new members that like this nuclear issues. Good time to do something else until this nuke attack has blown over, because I do not think that they can hijack this list. LOL Hakan At 07:14 AM 7/13/2005, you wrote: Keith, What sort of impact has been made by the use of ISL (in situ leaching) methods of uranium extraction on the overall disturbance and pollution of uranium 'mining'. Does this method reduce the impact? -Joey -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Keith Addison Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 12:03 PM To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: [Biofuel] Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths The Institute of Science in Society Science Society Sustainability http://www.i-sis.org.uk ISIS Press Release 11/07/05 Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths Peter Bunyard disposes of the argument for nuclear power: it is highly uneconomical, and the saving on greenhouse gas emissions negligible, if any, compared to a gas-fired electricity generating plant Peter Bunyard will be speaking at http://www.i-sis.org.uk/SWCFA.phpSustainable World Conference, 14-15 July 2005. References to this article are posted on http://www.i- sis.org.uk/full/DTNPMFull.phpISIS members' website. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/members.phpDetails here Limitations due to the quality of uranium ore A critical point about the practicability of nuclear power to provide clean energy under global warming is the quality and grade of the uranium ore. The quality of uranium ore varies inversely with their availability on a logarithmic scale. The ores used at present, such as the carnotite ores in the United States have an uranium content of up to 0.2 per cent, and vast quantities of overlying rocks and subsoil have to be shifted to get to the 96,000 tonnes of uranium-containing rock and shale that will provide the fresh fuel for a one gigawatt reactor [1]. In addition, most of the ore is left behind as tailings with considerable quantities of radioactivity from thorium- 230, a daughter product of the radioactive decay of uranium. Thorium has a half-life of 77 000 years and decays into radium-226, which decays into the gas radon-222. All are potent carcinogens. Fresh fuel for one reactor contains about 10 curies of radioactivity (27 curies equal 1012 becquerels, each of the latter being one radiation event per second.) The tailings corresponding to that contain 67 curies of radioactive material, much of it exposed to weathering and rain run-off. Radon gas has been found 1 000 miles from the mine tailings from where it originated. Uranium extraction has resulted in more than 6 billion tonnes of radioactive tailings, with significant impact on human health [2]. Once the fuel is used in a reactor, it becomes highly radioactive primarily because of fission products and the generation of the transuranics' such as neptunium and americium. At discharge from the reactor, a tonne of irradiated fuel from a PWR (pressurized water reactor such as in use at Sizewell) will contain more than 177 million curies of radioactive substances, some admittedly short-lived, but all the more potent in the short term. Ten years later, the radioactivity has died away to about 405 000 curies and 100 years on to 42 000 curies, therefore still 600 times more radioactive than the original material from which the fuel was derived [3]. Today's reactors, totalling 350 GW and providing about 3 per cent of the total energy used in the world, consume 60 000 tonnes of equivalent natural uranium, prior to enrichment. At that rate, economically recoverable reserves of uranium - about 10 million tonnes - would last less than 100 years. A worldwide nuclear programme of 1 000 nuclear reactors would consume the uranium within 50 years, and if all the world's electricity, currently 60 exajoules (1018Joules) were generated by nuclear reactors, the uranium would last three years [4]. The prospect that the amount of economically recoverable uranium would limit a worldwide nuclear power programme was certainly appreciated by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy in its advocacy for the fast breeder reactor, which theoretically could increase the quantity of energy to be derived from uranium by a factor of 70 through converting non-fissile uranium-238
Re: [Biofuel] Taking to the Wind
The Altamont Pass towers are of the lattice type, providing endless attraction to birds for resting and nesting. Power companies are hoping to not have to replace the towers with monocoques until the turbines reach the end of their life cycle. Essentially what is being found is that wind power is so maintenance efficient that the lattice towers are remaining in place far longer than anyone wants or expected. Todd Swearingen Thompson, Mark L. (PNB RD) wrote: What about the birds. Here in California we the enviro-groups suing the wind power generators for killing Ten's of thousands birds in the Altamont Pass area. Kinda hard to have it both ways. M -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith Addison Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 3:15 PM To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: [Biofuel] Taking to the Wind The Institute of Science in Society Science Society Sustainability http://www.i-sis.org.uk ISIS Press Release 12/07/05 Taking to the Wind Peter Bunyard looks at the realities of wind power and answers its detractors Peter Bunyard will be speaking at http://www.i-sis.org.uk/SWCFA.phpSustainable World Conference, 14-15 July 2005. References for this article are posted on http://www.i-sis.org.uk/full/TTTWFull.phpISIS members' website. Details http://www.i-sis.org.uk/membership.phphere Wind power working Ian Fells, professor of Energy Conversion at Newcastle University, told BBC's Radio 4 Today programme back in December 2002 that if we wanted electricity on tap, while simultaneously meeting our Kyoto Protocol commitments to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, we would fail abysmally unless we replaced and even added to our nuclear power capacity (25 per cent of UK electricity generation in 2005). Renewable energy sources, such as wind-power, he insisted, would be marginal to needs and barely worth the cost of developing [1]. Ian Fells' remarks contrasted with the experience of one of Denmark's energy experts who, during the same December 2002 Radio 4 programme, pointed out how successful his country's strategy had been in developing an electricity supply industry (in which wind-power provides nearly 20 per cent of the total in 2005). It had been good for jobs, good for exports and good for Denmark's energy needs, with the industry employing 16 000 and annual sales of wind turbines reaching more than 2 GW, equal to two large nuclear power plants. Peter Edwards, ex-chairman of the British Wind Energy Society developed the first British wind-farm at Delabole in Cornwall 14 years ago in response to the threat of a nuclear power station being built nearby. Initially the economics did not look good, at least in the context of the UK, and Edwards all but abandoned the idea. But then, in 1991, the government simultaneously introduced the fossil fuel levy on fossil fuel generating plants and the non-fossil fuel obligation (NFFO) to support at least 20 per cent electricity production from non-fossil fuel sources. At the time, nuclear power was generating 20 per cent of the Central Electricity Generating Board's production, and with privatisation in the offing, the NFFO was little more than a straight subsidy to sweeten up the City in time for a sale. Nonetheless, the subsidy did open up the possibility of investing in the alternatives, such as wind. In 1990, the fossil fuel levy amounted to £900 million, much of which went into the pockets of the nuclear industry. As Edwards told me in 2001, ten years on from establishing his ten-turbine wind-farm, performance has been better than predicted. We now have 10 years of records carefully analysed by ETSU (Energy Technology Study Unit) at Harwell, as well as by the DTI, and have discovered benefits from wind generation that we barely suspected. People are quick to say that the wind is fickle and that it fails just when you most need it, but such critics have also failed to understand that when we most need the energy, that's when the wind blows. In our part of the UK, 60 percent of annual generation is between October and March. Consequently, wind generation and demand go together; in winter when the wind blows, the chill factor goes up and so does the need for electricity; in summer just when everyone is returning home for their tea in the early evening that's when the onshore winds obligingly come into play. It took just a few months to get the Vesta 400 kilowatt turbines up and running. Moreover, each of the machines had been sited in hedgerows across the farm, with minimal loss of land, and since they were all plugged into the local Delabole 11 000 volt substation, they instantly provided power to the neighbourhood and hence avoided the substantial distribution losses that go with distantly connected power stations. Such embedded generation immediately improves the quality of supply, Peter Edwards said, evening out those
Re: [Biofuel] Taking to the Wind
Todd is absolutely right. The really frustrating part is that the same argument is being made byopponents of wind power,to shoot down the Nantucket sound project -- a totally useless argument because as Todd mentioned, the lesson of lattice type towers has long since been learned. So, theyare no longer incorporated innew installations. Side note: There is another baseless argument that wind turbines ruin marine habitats when used off-shore.Under-sea power lines themselves, are usually not challenged with the same fervor and the net effect of this, compared to the damagecaused byfossil fuelcollection, transportand use is negligible (IMHO). In past threads, we've discussed the problem of misinformation by our government and others to support their own agenda. I see wind power as an alternativewhich has been especially effected by this. MikeAppal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Altamont Pass towers are of the lattice type, providing endless attraction to birds for resting and nesting. Power companies are hoping to not have to replace the towers with monocoques until the turbines reach the end of their life cycle. Essentially what is being found is that wind power is so maintenance efficient that the lattice towers are remaining in place far longer than anyone wants or expected.Todd SwearingenThompson, Mark L. (PNB RD) wrote:What about the birds. Here in California we the enviro-groups suing the wind power generators for killing Ten's of thousands birds in the Altamont Pass area. Kinda hard to have it both ways. M -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith AddisonSent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 3:15 PMTo: biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSubject: [Biofuel] Taking to the WindThe Institute of Science in SocietyScience Society Sustainabilityhttp://www.i-sis.org.ukISIS Press Release 12/07/05Taking to the WindPeter Bunyard looks at the realities of wind power and answers its detractorsPeter Bunyard will be speaking at Sustainable World Conference, 14-15 July 2005.References for this article are posted on ISIS members' website. Details hereWind power workingIan Fells, professor of Energy Conversion at Newcastle University, told BBC's Radio 4 Today programme back in December 2002 that if we wanted electricity on tap, while simultaneously meeting our Kyoto Protocol commitments to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, we would fail abysmally unless we replaced and even added to our nuclear power capacity (25 per cent of UK electricity generation in 2005). Renewable energy sources, such as wind-power, he insisted, would be marginal to needs and barely worth the cost of developing [1].Ian Fells' remarks contrasted with the experience of one of Denmark's energy experts who, during the same December 2002 Radio 4 programme, pointed out how successful his country's strategy had been in developing an electricity supply industry (in which wind-power provides nearly 20 per cent of the total in 2005). It had been good for jobs, good for exports and good for Denmark's energy needs, with the industry employing 16 000 and annual sales of wind turbines reaching more than 2 GW, equal to two large nuclear power plants.Peter Edwards, ex-chairman of the British Wind Energy Society developed the first British wind-farm at Delabole in Cornwall 14 years ago in response to the threat of a nuclear power station being built nearby. Initially the economics did not look good, at least in the context of the UK, and Edwards all but abandoned the idea. But then, in 1991, the government simultaneously introduced the fossil fuel levy on fossil fuel generating plants and the non-fossil fuel obligation (NFFO) to support at least 20 per cent electricity production from non-fossil fuel sources.At the time, nuclear power was generating 20 per cent of the Central Electricity Generating Board's production, and with privatisation in the offing, the NFFO was little more than a straight subsidy to sweeten up the City in time for a sale. Nonetheless, the subsidy did open up the possibility of investing in the alternatives, such as wind. In 1990, the fossil fuel levy amounted to £900 million, much of which went into the pockets of the nuclear industry.As Edwards told me in 2001, ten years on from establishing his ten-turbine wind-farm, performance has been better than predicted. "We now have 10 years of records carefully analysed by ETSU (Energy Technology Study Unit) at Harwell, as well as by the DTI, and have discovered benefits from wind generation that we barely suspected. People are quick to say that the wind is fickle and that it fails just when you most need it, but such critics have also failed to understand that when we most need the energy, that's when the wind blows. In our part of the UK, 60 percent of annual generation is between October and March. Consequently, wind generation and demand go together; in winter when the wind blows, the chill factor goes up and so does the need for electricity;
Re: [Biofuel] Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths
Just because something may be doable doesn't mean that it's feasible, whether that feasibility is higher ratios of waste, expanded dispersal of radioactivity, increased economic cost, increased energy cost, etc., etc., etc. Even if all things are equal in comparison to traditional refining, you still have the same problems/pitfalls/inefficiencies for nuclear power that are distinctly pointed out in the article below. Essentially, nuclear power is in the same realm as petroleum. It's a non-renewable resource and its waste products are particularly voluminous and destructive in their own right. Yet still governments push for increased nuclear capacity. Same mindset as pushing for increased petroleum capacity. What was it Einstein said? The problems we face will not be solved by the minds that created them. Todd Swearingen Joey Hundert wrote: Keith, What sort of impact has been made by the use of ISL (in situ leaching) methods of uranium extraction on the overall disturbance and pollution of uranium 'mining'. Does this method reduce the impact? -Joey -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Keith Addison Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 12:03 PM To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: [Biofuel] Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths The Institute of Science in Society Science Society Sustainability http://www.i-sis.org.uk ISIS Press Release 11/07/05 Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths Peter Bunyard disposes of the argument for nuclear power: it is highly uneconomical, and the saving on greenhouse gas emissions negligible, if any, compared to a gas-fired electricity generating plant Peter Bunyard will be speaking at http://www.i-sis.org.uk/SWCFA.phpSustainable World Conference, 14-15 July 2005. References to this article are posted on http://www.i- sis.org.uk/full/DTNPMFull.phpISIS members' website. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/members.phpDetails here Limitations due to the quality of uranium ore A critical point about the practicability of nuclear power to provide clean energy under global warming is the quality and grade of the uranium ore. The quality of uranium ore varies inversely with their availability on a logarithmic scale. The ores used at present, such as the carnotite ores in the United States have an uranium content of up to 0.2 per cent, and vast quantities of overlying rocks and subsoil have to be shifted to get to the 96,000 tonnes of uranium-containing rock and shale that will provide the fresh fuel for a one gigawatt reactor [1]. In addition, most of the ore is left behind as tailings with considerable quantities of radioactivity from thorium- 230, a daughter product of the radioactive decay of uranium. Thorium has a half-life of 77 000 years and decays into radium-226, which decays into the gas radon-222. All are potent carcinogens. Fresh fuel for one reactor contains about 10 curies of radioactivity (27 curies equal 1012 becquerels, each of the latter being one radiation event per second.) The tailings corresponding to that contain 67 curies of radioactive material, much of it exposed to weathering and rain run-off. Radon gas has been found 1 000 miles from the mine tailings from where it originated. Uranium extraction has resulted in more than 6 billion tonnes of radioactive tailings, with significant impact on human health [2]. Once the fuel is used in a reactor, it becomes highly radioactive primarily because of fission products and the generation of the ‘transuranics' such as neptunium and americium. At discharge from the reactor, a tonne of irradiated fuel from a PWR (pressurized water reactor such as in use at Sizewell) will contain more than 177 million curies of radioactive substances, some admittedly short-lived, but all the more potent in the short term. Ten years later, the radioactivity has died away to about 405 000 curies and 100 years on to 42 000 curies, therefore still 600 times more radioactive than the original material from which the fuel was derived [3]. Today's reactors, totalling 350 GW and providing about 3 per cent of the total energy used in the world, consume 60 000 tonnes of equivalent natural uranium, prior to enrichment. At that rate, economically recoverable reserves of uranium - about 10 million tonnes - would last less than 100 years. A worldwide nuclear programme of 1 000 nuclear reactors would consume the uranium within 50 years, and if all the world's electricity, currently 60 exajoules (1018Joules) were generated by nuclear reactors, the uranium would last three years [4]. The prospect that the amount of economically recoverable uranium would limit a worldwide nuclear power programme was certainly appreciated by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy in its advocacy for the fast breeder reactor, which theoretically could increase the quantity of energy to be derived from uranium by a factor of 70 through converting non-fissile uranium-238 into plutonium-239. In the Authority's
Re: [Biofuel] Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths
Excellent points Hakan. Plenty of other places to discuss nuclear. Whatever role nuclear has or doesn't have in the future, biofuels will have a critical role in meeting our future energy needs. I agree, natural tie ins are OK (e.g., wind power sited on biofuel fields), but let's avoid the distractions that take away the purpose of this Board. Bob In a message dated 7/13/2005 3:11:59 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have stopped from a participating in a few lists because of this group, which seems to be roughly the same people all the time. I am not interesting in deconstruct any Nuclear Power Myths, if there are any. All kind of discussions are ok, if they come naturally, but the clear pattern by a defined group to bring up this kind of issues, smells attempt to organized industry influence.I guess that if you answer this guy, we will have some hundreds of email about nuclear and we will find that suddenly it is some new members that like this nuclear issues. Good time to do something else until this nuke attack has blown over, because I do not think that they can hijack this list. LOLHakan ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths
a) It's not a board. It's a mailing list. b) List rules state that calls to limit topic discussion are explicitly forbidden. Or in the words of our fearless list owner: No Topic Cops. c) It isn't your place to decide what the purpose of this board is. Learn to use your delete key; if you aren't interested, just ignore the thread as it will die soon enough anyway. jh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Excellent points Hakan. Plenty of other places to discuss nuclear. Whatever role nuclear has or doesn't have in the future, biofuels will have a critical role in meeting our future energy needs. I agree, natural tie ins are OK (e.g., wind power sited on biofuel fields), but let's avoid the distractions that take away the purpose of this Board. Bob In a message dated 7/13/2005 3:11:59 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have stopped from a participating in a few lists because of this group, which seems to be roughly the same people all the time. I am not interesting in deconstruct any Nuclear Power Myths, if there are any. All kind of discussions are ok, if they come naturally, but the clear pattern by a defined group to bring up this kind of issues, smells attempt to organized industry influence. I guess that if you answer this guy, we will have some hundreds of email about nuclear and we will find that suddenly it is some new members that like this nuclear issues. Good time to do something else until this nuke attack has blown over, because I do not think that they can hijack this list. LOL Hakan ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -- John E Hayes, M.S. Instructor, Dietetics Program, DIET 203 / DIET 215 Doctoral Student, Nutritional Sciences University of Connecticut - 326 Koons Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 860.486.0007 ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths
jh, "Deciding" wasn't what I had in mind, nor was I trying to be a "Cop." As parties interested in biofuels and interested in keeping this site dynamic, I think we all exercise some self-restraint in what we post here.My caution, along the lines of Hakan I believe, is that, as a practical matter, people tend to drop membership in mailing lists, etc., when the discussions stray too far afield from the nominal topic of the group. Hakan, myself, and I'm sure many others have dropped off what might otherwise be very useful to others interested in that nominal topic. I understand the use of the delete key, but when it has to be used too often, keeping membership on a list just gets too frustrating. I'm grateful to"our fearless list owner" for creating and maintaining this list and certainly did not intend to run afoul of any rules. I was simply trying to post an observation about voluntary restraints to keep this a place to keep coming to and for sharing information about biofuels and "naturally" related issues. Bob a) It's not a board. It's a mailing list.b) List rules state that calls to limit topic discussion are explicitly forbidden. Or in the words of our fearless list owner: No Topic Cops.c) It isn't your place to decide what the purpose of this board is. Learn to use your delete key; if you aren't interested, just ignore the thread as it will die soon enough anyway.jh ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Limiting coffee breaks. was: Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths
JH, I have not tried to prohibit a nuke discussions, anyone who want to discuss with the nuke gang is welcome to do so. I have the right to limit my participation in any discussion and also to express that. If I take the opportunity to take a pause and a coffee, or whatever, it is my right to both to say and do so. Why are you trying to force my participation, this is not nice either, I need my coffee breaks and you have no right to limit them. LOL I have expressed my suspicion of that some persons will use the board for nuke propaganda, as I have experienced on other lists, and I have declared my lack of interest to participate in this. It is not limiting anyone else to do so, engineered or not. Do discuss whatever you want, but some things I am not interested in and will not participate in. It was however a quite pathetic invitation and without any previous logic, Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths. WOW Hakan At 06:25 PM 7/13/2005, you wrote: a) It's not a board. It's a mailing list. b) List rules state that calls to limit topic discussion are explicitly forbidden. Or in the words of our fearless list owner: No Topic Cops. c) It isn't your place to decide what the purpose of this board is. Learn to use your delete key; if you aren't interested, just ignore the thread as it will die soon enough anyway. jh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Excellent points Hakan. Plenty of other places to discuss nuclear. Whatever role nuclear has or doesn't have in the future, biofuels will have a critical role in meeting our future energy needs. I agree, natural tie ins are OK (e.g., wind power sited on biofuel fields), but let's avoid the distractions that take away the purpose of this Board. Bob In a message dated 7/13/2005 3:11:59 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have stopped from a participating in a few lists because of this group, which seems to be roughly the same people all the time. I am not interesting in deconstruct any Nuclear Power Myths, if there are any. All kind of discussions are ok, if they come naturally, but the clear pattern by a defined group to bring up this kind of issues, smells attempt to organized industry influence. I guess that if you answer this guy, we will have some hundreds of email about nuclear and we will find that suddenly it is some new members that like this nuclear issues. Good time to do something else until this nuke attack has blown over, because I do not think that they can hijack this list. LOL Hakan ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -- John E Hayes, M.S. Instructor, Dietetics Program, DIET 203 / DIET 215 Doctoral Student, Nutritional Sciences University of Connecticut - 326 Koons Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 860.486.0007 ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] seeds on the brain - small scale diesel production and motorcycles
Hi everyone, I know we've already discussed the variety of oil producing seeds and related processes for extraction. My conclusion has been that I don't have enough land or time to process my own diesel fuel for the quantities that I need. However after researching the performance and availability of diesel motorcycles (http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_bikes.htmland http://www.royal-enfield.de/main.htm) and revisiting some pages for small scale production, I'm having second thoughts. According to some estimates, yields can be as high as 100 gallons per acre. Can anyone who has processed their own biodiesel (from the ground up), please help me get a feel for what I can expect if I decide to produce on a small scale (avg.1-2 gal/week per year for seasonal riding). It might still be too much, even with the best yielding crops and plenty of land, sunshine and care. The bottom line is that I'm not sure. Regards, Mike___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] start up questions
I built a new system that will process 40 gallon batches. I started with some test batches. Everything came out fine. The first 20 gallon batch also separated just as it should. I have since completed washing this fuel and made my second batch at 40 gallons. On the second batch a few questions/problems came up. I used new a 2k watt water heater element (not stainless) for heat. It failed on the second use. I'm wonder if this could be application related or just a bad part? I replaced with a 1440 watt stainless finished the batch. It too came out very good. I started the bubble wash on the second batch. I closed the garage up and let it run over night. I checked in themorning and thecarbon monoxide detector in that garage was going off. The carbon detector has failed. I was wonderingthis too is a coincidence or something from the wash process. Is therea concern with fumes during the wash process? I was looking at a product by Mr Funnel. It claims to be able separate fuel from water. I have used it with unleaded gas and it works. Doesanyone have experience with this or similar products used on bio-diesel? I plan on using bio-diesel in a 05 Duramax and in Kubota tractor with a 905 engine. Are there any concerns I should be aware of with either of these engines? Thanks This message may contain privileged and/or confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error or are not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, disseminate or distribute it; do not open any attachments, delete it immediately from your system and notify the sender promptly by e-mail that you have done so. Thank you. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
RE: [Biofuel] Taking to the Wind
Mike, I have yet to see the group that does not thrive on misinformation used to support their agenda, so there is no reason to limit the charge to government or conservatives. Besides, most birds are smart enough to fly around objects and stay out of the way of other flying objects. Proof of that can be seen on a daily basis when great flocks of birds move around looking for an evening roosting place. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Redler Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 9:05 AM To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Taking to the Wind Todd is absolutely right. The really frustrating part is that the same argument is being made byopponents of wind power,to shoot down the Nantucket sound project -- a totally useless argument because as Todd mentioned, the lesson of lattice type towers has long since been learned. So, theyare no longer incorporated innew installations. Side note: There is another baseless argument that wind turbines ruin marine habitats when used off-shore.Under-sea power lines themselves, are usually not challenged with the same fervor and the net effect of this, compared to the damagecaused byfossil fuelcollection, transportand use is negligible (IMHO). In past threads, we've discussed the problem of misinformation by our government and others to support their own agenda. I see wind power as an alternativewhich has been especially effected by this. Mike Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Altamont Pass towers are of the lattice type, providing endless attraction to birds for resting and nesting. Power companies are hoping to not have to replace the towers with monocoques until the turbines reach the end of their life cycle. Essentially what is being found is that wind power is so maintenance efficient that the lattice towers are remaining in place far longer than anyone wants or expected. Todd Swearingen Thompson, Mark L. (PNB RD) wrote: What about the birds. Here in California we the enviro-groups suing the wind power generators for killing Ten's of thousands birds in the Altamont Pass area. Kinda hard to have it both ways. M -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith Addison Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 3:15 PM To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: [Biofuel] Taking to the Wind The Institute of Science in Society Science Society Sustainability http://www.i-sis.org.uk ISIS Press Release 12/07/05 Taking to the Wind Peter Bunyard looks at the realities of wind power and answers its detractors Peter Bunyard will be speaking at Sustainable World Conference, 14-15 July 2005. References for this article are posted on ISIS members' website. Details here Wind power working Ian Fells, professor of Energy Conversion at Newcastle University, told BBC's Radio 4 Today programme back in December 2002 that if we wanted electricity on tap, while simultaneously meeting our Kyoto Protocol commitments to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, we would fail abysmally unless we replaced and even added to our nuclear power capacity (25 per cent of UK electricity generation in 2005). Renewable energy sources, such as wind-power, he insisted, would be marginal to needs and barely worth the cost of developing [1]. Ian Fells' remarks contrasted with the experience of one of Denmark's energy experts who, during the same December 2002 Radio 4 programme, pointed out how successful his country's strategy had been in developing an electricity supply industry (in which wind-power provides nearly 20 per cent of the total in 2005). It had been good for jobs, good for exports and good for Denmark's energy needs, with the industry employing 16 000 and annual sales of wind turbines reaching more than 2 GW, equal to two large nuclear power plants. Peter Edwards, ex-chairman of the British Wind Energy Society developed the first British wind-farm at Delabole in Cornwall 14 years ago in response to the threat of a nuclear power station being built nearby. Initially the economics did not look good, at least in the context of the UK, and Edwards all but abandoned the idea. But then, in 1991, the government simultaneously introduced the fossil fuel levy on fossil fuel generating plants and the non-fossil fuel obligation (NFFO) to support at least 20 per cent electricity production from non-fossil fuel sources. At the time, nuclear power was generating 20 per cent of the Central Electricity Generating Board's production, and with privatisation in the offing, the NFFO was little more than a straight subsidy to sweeten up the City in time for a sale. Nonetheless, the subsidy did open up the possibility of investing in the alternatives, such as wind. In 1990, the fossil fuel levy amounted to £900 million, much of which went into the pockets of the nuclear
Re: [Biofuel] Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths
Hello Bob, Hakan Excellent points Hakan. Plenty of other places to discuss nuclear. Whatever role nuclear has or doesn't have in the future, biofuels will have a critical role in meeting our future energy needs. I agree, natural tie ins are OK (e.g., wind power sited on biofuel fields), but let's avoid the distractions that take away the purpose of this Board. Bob In a message dated 7/13/2005 3:11:59 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have stopped from a participating in a few lists because of this group, which seems to be roughly the same people all the time. I am not interesting in deconstruct any Nuclear Power Myths, if there are any. All kind of discussions are ok, if they come naturally, but the clear pattern by a defined group to bring up this kind of issues, smells attempt to organized industry influence. I guess that if you answer this guy, we will have some hundreds of email about nuclear and we will find that suddenly it is some new members that like this nuclear issues. Good time to do something else until this nuke attack has blown over, because I do not think that they can hijack this list. LOL Hakan I know who you mean Hakan. I also don't think they can hijack this list. LOL again. But let's get it straight. You say: All kind of discussions are ok, if they come naturally, but the clear pattern by a defined group to bring up this kind of issues, smells attempt to organized industry influence. The discussion is okay, the disinfo group isn't okay. But Bob says: Plenty of other places to discuss nuclear... but let's avoid the distractions that take away the purpose of this Board. What won't happen is that we'll ban nuclear discussions and send them to other lists in case we have problems with trolls if we don't ban it. I hope we can deal with trolls without killing any discussion. As it is, the list archive is a good resource on nuclear issues, but it wouldn't be for long without new input. Anyway nuclear power IS a biofuels issue. Among the main contenders as clean green carbon-neutral world-saving energy sources are biofuels, and nuclear energy. The nuke message is just new wine in the same old broken bottles, PR stuff, spin, but a lot of people are buying it. We've just been involved in this here in Japan, again. We've promoted biodiesel at quite a few environment expos and summer festivals and so on, among other things, and last month we provided free biodiesel for diesel power generators at the five-day Sun and Moon Midsummer Festival at Kyoto University. There was quite a lot of publicity and Midori was there for two days running a booth from the open back of the Toyota TownAce with its new Elsbett SVO system. Journey to Forever biodiesel powered the hall, including three stages for music, as well as the fairground and all the stalls. It went well, lots of people, especially alternative people from all over Japan, no problems and lots of interest. Last night two members of one of the groups that played at the festival visited us. We're friends, they got us involved in it in the first place, but it was only when they were playing onstage that they realised how they felt about it. They put it very clearly: We are very happy that we can play our music without nuclear power. Seems they're not alone, two of the other groups there have applied for our next seminar, and several people who were at the festival came to the last one, which was last Sunday. The site at Kyoto University is itself part of Japan's alternative society, that whole section of the university, including a big hall and a fairground, is a student autonomous zone, they run it, not the university authorities. It's been that way since the student protests of the 70s, which is still at the core of the environment movement and the protest movement here. It's complicated and interesting, but the movement is alive and well - they have no power but they fight their battles, and usually lose them, but they win some too, and even when they lose they don't stop fighting. Probably the major issue is nuclear energy. It would have to be, if you think about it. Japan's the #3 domestic nuclear user, with the government committed to 42% nuclear power generation by 2010, against a lot of opposition. Biodiesel as an alternative to nuclear power is a strong message. For the groups, it fills a hole in their defences: How are you going to play your guitar without nuclear power? They'd love to have a good answer to that. They mostly use diesel vans too, with a similar problem and the same solution. Quite a lot of the people we work with are in this position, like people running organic food delivery trucks, they really like biodiesel. There's an alternative economy too, including some places that use local currencies, and a lot of bartering. We
Re: [Biofuel] Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths
Hello Todd, Joey Just because something may be doable doesn't mean that it's feasible, whether that feasibility is higher ratios of waste, expanded dispersal of radioactivity, increased economic cost, increased energy cost, etc., etc., etc. Even if all things are equal in comparison to traditional refining, you still have the same problems/pitfalls/inefficiencies for nuclear power that are distinctly pointed out in the article below. Essentially, nuclear power is in the same realm as petroleum. It's a non-renewable resource and its waste products are particularly voluminous and destructive in their own right. Yet still governments push for increased nuclear capacity. Same mindset as pushing for increased petroleum capacity. They're both the great green answer to global warming, don't you know, nuclear even more so - it's turns out it's the *only* answer to global warming, according to a worldwide campaign now in motion at a media-outlet near you, if I read it right. Turn the spin-meter up, keep spare batteries, leave the terriers in the yard at night. What was it Einstein said? The problems we face will not be solved by the minds that created them. He didn't seem too sure himself what it was he said. Take your choice: #1. The world that we have made as a result of the level of thinking that we have done so far, has created problems we cannot solve at the level of thinking at which we created them. - Albert Einstein #2. You can never solve a problem with the same kind of thinking that created the problem in the first place - Albert Einstein. #3. Long hair minimizes the need for barbers; socks can be done without; one leather jacket solves the coat problem for many years; suspenders are superfluous. -- Albert Einstein I'll settle for 2 for first place, and 3 in a tie for second place with your rendition, well ahead of Albert in fourth place. All best Keith Todd Swearingen Joey Hundert wrote: Keith, What sort of impact has been made by the use of ISL (in situ leaching) methods of uranium extraction on the overall disturbance and pollution of uranium 'mining'. Does this method reduce the impact? -Joey -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Keith Addison Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 12:03 PM To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: [Biofuel] Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths The Institute of Science in Society Science Society Sustainability http://www.i-sis.org.uk ISIS Press Release 11/07/05 Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths Peter Bunyard disposes of the argument for nuclear power: it is highly uneconomical, and the saving on greenhouse gas emissions negligible, if any, compared to a gas-fired electricity generating plant snip ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Limiting coffee breaks. was: Deconstructing theNuclear Power Myths
It was however a quite pathetic invitation and without any previous logic, "Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths". WOW Hakan, that was Keith's subject he wrote, not anyone else. Keith was the person, if I'm not mistaken, who posted the original article that started this entire discussion. (at least, there was no RE: in front of it) I think so far people havemostly agreed with him, or in the case of one person brought up a question about methods of mining uranium. I guess I'm not familiar with any Nuke gangs trying to take over mailing lists, but it seems pretty innocent so far. Personally I always wondered, besides waste handling, why nuclear power was such a bad idea. Obviously I had no idea that it wasn'tthe infinite/renewable resourceit's made out to be. I'm certainly learning. Chris N - Original Message - From: Hakan Falk To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 1:31 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Limiting coffee breaks. was: Deconstructing theNuclear Power Myths JH,I have not tried to prohibit a "nuke" discussions, anyone who want to discuss with the "nuke" gang is welcome to do so. I have the right to limit my participation in any discussion and also to express that. If I take the opportunity to take a pause and a coffee, or whatever, it is my right to both to say and do so. Why are you trying to force my participation, this is not nice either, I need my coffee breaks and you have no right to limit them. LOLI have expressed my suspicion of that some persons will use the board for "nuke" propaganda, as I have experienced on other lists, and I have declared my lack of interest to participate in this. It is not limiting anyone else to do so, engineered or not. Do discuss whatever you want, but some things I am not interested in and will not participate in.It was however a quite pathetic invitation and without any previous logic, "Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths". WOWHakanAt 06:25 PM 7/13/2005, you wrote:a) It's not a board. It's a mailing list.b) List rules state that calls to limit topic discussion are explicitly forbidden. Or in the words of our fearless list owner: No Topic Cops.c) It isn't your place to decide what the purpose of this board is. Learn to use your delete key; if you aren't interested, just ignore the thread as it will die soon enough anyway.jh[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Excellent points Hakan. Plenty of other places to discuss nuclear.Whatever role nuclear has or doesn't have in the future, biofuels will have a critical role in meeting our future energy needs. I agree, natural tie ins are OK (e.g., wind power sited on biofuel fields), but let's avoid the distractions that take away the purpose of this Board. BobIn a message dated 7/13/2005 3:11:59 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have stopped from a participating in a few lists because of this group, which seems to be roughly the same people all the time. I am not interesting in deconstruct any Nuclear Power Myths, if there are any. All kind of discussions are ok, if they come naturally, but the clear pattern by a defined group to bring up this kind of issues, smells attempt to organized industry influence. I guess that if you answer this guy, we will have some hundreds of email about nuclear and we will find that suddenly it is some new members that like this nuclear issues. Good time to do something else until this nuke attack has blown over, because I do not think that they can hijack this list. LOL Hakan___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/--John E Hayes, M.S.Instructor, Dietetics Program, DIET 203 / DIET 215Doctoral Student, Nutritional SciencesUniversity of Connecticut - 326 Koons Hall[EMAIL PROTECTED] / 860.486.0007___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch
Re: [Biofuel] seeds on the brain - small scale diesel production and motorcycles
Howdy Mike, why not used vegetable oil? Even small burger joints generate 10 or so gal a week. Around my parts the small operators have to pay to have the stuff hauled off, so they are more than willing to give it to me for free. Michael Redler wrote: Hi everyone, I know we've already discussed the variety of oil producing seeds and related processes for extraction. My conclusion has been that I don't have enough land or time to process my own diesel fuel for the quantities that I need. However after researching the performance and availability of diesel motorcycles (http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_bikes.html and http://www.royal-enfield.de/main.htm) and revisiting some pages for small scale production, I'm having second thoughts. According to some estimates, yields can be as high as 100 gallons per acre. Can anyone who has processed their own biodiesel (from the ground up), please help me get a feel for what I can expect if I decide to produce on a small scale (avg. 1-2 gal/week per year for seasonal riding). It might still be too much, even with the best yielding crops and plenty of land, sunshine and care. The bottom line is that I'm not sure. Regards, Mike ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -- Bob Allen http://ozarker.org/bob Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves — Richard Feynman ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] Homes and energy
I thought the article below, from today's Washington Post, might be of interest to others on this list. Along with oversized houses, it's my experience that the houses are, as well,being placed on largerlots, which, for practical purposes, takes that land out of circulation for biofuel crop production, local agricultural uses, "natural" services (filtering water, sopping up CO2), among other things. The increased demand on our energy sources and forests are, of course, significantas well.Other than reasonable zoning limits, I don't think the government has a role in telling people how to spend their money, on housing versus whatever.But there's still enough idealist in me towish people would vote with their dollars for different values. "Homes As Hummers By Robert J. SamuelsonPostWednesday, July 13, 2005; A21 We Americans seem to be in the process of becoming wildly overhoused. Since 1970 the size of the average home has increased 55 percent (to 2,330 square feet), while the size of the average family has decreased 13 percent. Especially among the upper crust, homes have more space and fewer people. We now have rooms specialized by appliances (home computers, entertainment systems and exercise equipment) and -- who knows? -- may soon reserve them for pets. The long-term consequences of this housing extravaganza are unclear, but they may include the overuse of energy and, ironically, a drain on homeowners' wealth. By and large, the new American home is a residential SUV. It's big, gadget-loaded and slightly gaudy. In 2001 about one in eight homes exceeded 3,500 square feet, which was more than triple the average new home in 1950 (983 square feet). We have gone beyond shelter and comfort. A home is now a lifestyle. Buyers want spiral staircases and vaulted ceilings. In one marketing survey by the National Association of Home Builders, 36 percent of buyers under age 35 rated having a "home theater" as important or very important. Of course, homeownership (now a record 69 percent) symbolizes success in America. The impulse to announce more success by having more home seems to span all classes. In his book "Luxury Fever," Cornell University economist Robert Frank noted that Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen built a 74,000-square-foot house. According to Frank, that roughly equaled the size of Cornell's entire business school, with a staff of 100. Frank sees a "cascading effect" of imitation all along the social spectrum. The super-wealthy influence the wealthy, who influence the upper middle class -- and so on. People constantly enlarge their notion of "what kind of a house does a person like me live in." Another cause of this relentless upsizing is that the government unwisely promotes it. In 2005, about 80 percent of the estimated $200 billion of federal housing subsidies consists of tax breaks (mainly deductions for mortgage interest payments and preferential treatment for profits on home sales), reports an Urban Institute study. These tax breaks go heavily to upscale Americans, who are thereby encouraged to buy bigger homes. Federal housing benefits average $8,268 for those with incomes between $200,000 and $500,000, estimates the study; by contrast, they're only $365 for those with incomes of $40,000 to $50,000. It's nutty for government to subsidize bigger homes for the well-to-do. But otherwise, why shouldn't Americans buy what they can afford? No good reason. The trouble is that freedom doesn't confer infallibility. With hindsight, some homeowners may regret sinking so much money into ever-grander houses. One possible problem is future operating costs. Homes exceeding 3,500 square feet use about 40 percent more energy than those between 2,000 and 2,500 square feet, says the Energy Information Administration. Suppose electricity or natural gas prices rise because (for example) new power plants or terminals for liquefied natural gas aren't approved. A harder question is whether bigger homes might lose value. Say what? Gosh, we're in the midst of the greatest real estate boom in U.S. history. Since 2000 home values have risen 55 percent, to nearly $18 trillion, says the Federal Reserve. Americans have borrowed and spent lavishly against rising housing prices. That has kept the U.S. and world economies advancing. Americans increasingly believe that they can't lose by investing more in their homes: They can enjoy themselves and make a pile. But booms have a habit of imploding. The latest evidence that cheap credit and speculation have artificially inflated home prices comes from a study by the investment bank Credit Suisse First Boston. It finds that home buying is increasingly driven by purchases of investment properties and vacation homes. In 2004 these buyers accounted for 14.5 percent of all home sales, up from an average of 7.5 percent from 1998 to 2002. Cheap credit also abounds. In 2004 almost a fifth of all new mortgages were
Re: [Biofuel] Limiting coffee breaks. was: Deconstructing theNuclear Power Myths
Hello Chris It was however a quite pathetic invitation and without any previous logic, Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths. WOW Hakan, that was Keith's subject he wrote, not anyone else. Keith was the person, if I'm not mistaken, who posted the original article that started this entire discussion. (at least, there was no RE: in front of it) But I should say that I post such items as information, not that I necessarily agree with them or support what they say. ISIS usually do good stuff though. I think so far people have mostly agreed with him, or in the case of one person brought up a question about methods of mining uranium. I guess I'm not familiar with any Nuke gangs trying to take over mailing lists, but it seems pretty innocent so far. They certainly exist. Infiltrating mailing lists is by now a well-used spin tactic, used by Monsanto, for instance: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4412987,00.html The fake persuaders Corporations are inventing people to rubbish their opponents on the internet There are some campaigns where it would be undesirable or even disastrous to let the audience know that your organisation is directly involved... it simply is not an intelligent PR move. In cases such as this, it is important to first listen to what is being said online... Once you are plugged into this world, it is possible to make postings to these outlets that present your position as an uninvolved third party... Perhaps the greatest advantage of viral marketing is that your message is placed into a context where it is more likely to be considered seriously. -- From Viral Marketing: How to Infect the World, by Andrew Dimock, head of the online marketing and promotions division at Bivings, source of Monsanto's Fake Persuaders. We've had various Wise Use shills here in the past. Personally I always wondered, besides waste handling, why nuclear power was such a bad idea. Obviously I had no idea that it wasn't the infinite/renewable resource it's made out to be. I'm certainly learning. It's a hardy perennial, there's some really good information in the archives from previous discussions, well worth a trawl if you want to learn more. Chris N - Original Message - From: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Hakan Falk To: mailto:Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgBiofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 1:31 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Limiting coffee breaks. was: Deconstructing theNuclear Power Myths JH, I have not tried to prohibit a nuke discussions, anyone who want to discuss with the nuke gang is welcome to do so. I have the right to limit my participation in any discussion and also to express that. If I take the opportunity to take a pause and a coffee, or whatever, it is my right to both to say and do so. Why are you trying to force my participation, this is not nice either, I need my coffee breaks and you have no right to limit them. LOL I have expressed my suspicion of that some persons will use the board for nuke propaganda, as I have experienced on other lists, and I have declared my lack of interest to participate in this. It is not limiting anyone else to do so, engineered or not. Do discuss whatever you want, but some things I am not interested in and will not participate in. It was however a quite pathetic invitation and without any previous logic, Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths. WOW Hakan At 06:25 PM 7/13/2005, you wrote: a) It's not a board. It's a mailing list. b) List rules state that calls to limit topic discussion are explicitly forbidden. Or in the words of our fearless list owner: No Topic Cops. c) It isn't your place to decide what the purpose of this board is. Learn to use your delete key; if you aren't interested, just ignore the thread as it will die soon enough anyway. jh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Excellent points Hakan. Plenty of other places to discuss nuclear. Whatever role nuclear has or doesn't have in the future, biofuels will have a critical role in meeting our future energy needs. I agree, natural tie ins are OK (e.g., wind power sited on biofuel fields), but let's avoid the distractions that take away the purpose of this Board. Bob In a message dated 7/13/2005 3:11:59 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have stopped from a participating in a few lists because of this group, which seems to be roughly the same people all the time. I am not interesting in deconstruct any Nuclear Power Myths, if there are any. All kind of discussions are ok, if they come naturally, but the clear pattern by a defined group to bring up this kind of issues, smells attempt to organized industry influence. I guess that if you answer this guy, we will have some hundreds of email about nuclear and we will find that suddenly it is some new members that like this nuclear issues. Good time to do something else until this
Re: [Biofuel] It's imperialism, stupid
Further to which... The Horror In London When we kill them in droves, some of them will strike back. By Eric Margolis We are horrified that anyone would attack innocent civilians packed in subway cars. But the extremists and fanatics who do so say they are exacting revenge for the 500,000 Iraqi civilians who died, (confirmed by the UN), from the ten year US-British embargo of Iraq. For the criminal destruction in 1991 of Iraq's water and sewage treatment plants that cause massive cholera and typhoid. Or for the occupation of Iraq and destruction of the city of Falluja that killed tens of thousands more civilians, and, of course, for Palestine. http://snipurl.com/g7h1 The Logic of Suicide Terrorism It's the occupation, not the fundamentalism By Scott McConnell Scott McConnell caught up with Associate Professor Robert Pape of the University of Chicago, whose book on suicide terrorism, Dying to Win, is beginning to receive wide notice. Pape has found that the most common American perceptions about who the terrorists are and what motivates them are off by a wide margin. - A conversation with the man who knows more about suicide terrorists than any other American. http://snipurl.com/g7h2 It's Tim Brodie who's in denial about all this. Tim can't see straight or think straight, there's something wrong with his mind. Todd uses the term limbaughtomized, something similar maybe. Tim has led the list in this kind of crazed circular argument before, dancing round and round a crashingly obvious fact, anything rather than expose his cherished notions to the inimical forces of truth and reality. It has no integrity at all. Tim quotes words like unimpeachable, or tolerance or love in connection with terrorist acts that were never said here, he quotes arguments about Chomsky that just didn't happen that way. It's in the archives after all, but that doesn't stop Tim, he puts words into your mouth, and the whole list's, for very dubious reasons. For a typical example, Todd said this to Jill: You bitch about opposing view point and then go on to read a full page, chapter and verse, as to the opinions of your favorite, radical, right-wing, so-ultra-'conservative'-as-to-have-long-since-fallen-off-the-edge-of- the-flat-Earth talk show host yesterday. What's up with that? Tim quoted that directly to me and then said: I notice that he uses words like 'bitch' when in the context of corresponding with a woman, which in other circles would border on intimidation. That doesn't make sense, to bitch means to complain, that's all, but a bitch is a whore or worse. In his next message Tim changed it to this: What about Todd implying that Kim is a bitch. So much for universal rules of social discourse. He wouldn't have phrased it that way to her face (in a job situation, he'd be written up for intimidation). Try convincing Tim that Todd didn't call Kim a bitch, see how far you get. He KNOWS Todd called her a bitch. He KNOWS the bleeding-heart liberals on this list want appeasement, he has no difficulty contorting a discussion of real causes into an accusation of appeasement, as he did with Todd, as I said he'd do. You won't persuade Tim that we're not offering justifications for terrorism to support appeasement any more than you'll convince him Todd didn't call Kim a bitch. Anyway, he posted a message saying I'm a liar. Before letting it through I asked him for a modicum of proof for this assertion, to which he responded that all journalists are liars, everyone knows that, just switch on the TV or open a magazine for proof of his point. No mention of what he'd said I'd lied about. So I'm a liar, Todd called Kim a bitch, and it's the terrorists' inferior cultural value systems that make them do it, it has nothing to do with US foreign policy or the hubris of empire. And we're all weak-minded fools. Enough! It's hopeless trying to conduct a sane discussion on this basis, and on a mailing list it's a distraction and a distortion, it contributes nothing. We all have better things to do than waste our time on fruitless circular arguments with Tim Brodie. So much for the universal rules of social discourse indeed. Which happens to be a list rule, not often so abused. He was warned several times, to no avail. Goodbye Tim Brodie. Best wishes Keith Addison Journey to Forever KYOTO Pref., Japan http://journeytoforever.org/ Biofuel list owner Hello Tim snip I finally figured it out, too improbable for me. Personally? Were I of Arab descent? I'd be mad as hell. And knowing how easily it is for humans to be impatient and act or react rather than wait for a slow, bureaucratic, greedy internatiionally intwined monster to even begin to deliberate what it might destroy or compromise with its next bite, it's not a far reach to understand where the underpinnings of all this originate from. Ah, thanks Todd. There's a good quote to answer Keith's question...
Re: [Biofuel] seeds on the brain - small scale diesel production and motorcycles
Bob, I don't disagree that there is an abundance of waste vegetable oil out there. My curiosity in making it from scratch, comes from the same ideology that drives me to join this forum. Although I'm sure that I'll eventually be tapping into this source, I'm not convinced of it's sustainabilityfor the individual.I try to look ahead toward a time when bio-based oils will have gained popularity and "waste" vegetable oil will be bought and sold between wholesalers and commercial processors. I know this won't happen tomorrow but, like I said, If we are concerned about sustainability on a world-wide scale, maybe we should alsobe concerned about it on a macro or micro scale in terms of energy Independence. Your point is duly noted. There may be no need to be concerned for a really long time. Besides, from one point of view, processing waste vegetable oil serves an important roll in conservation. So, as you've probably noticed, I'm still trying to figure out my priorities. One thing is for sure: I'd really like to geta couple of diesel motorcycles for me and my fiance. Mikebob allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Howdy Mike, why not used vegetable oil? Even small burger joints generate 10 or so gal a week. Around my parts the small operators have to pay to have the stuff hauled off, so they are more than willing to give it to me for free.Michael Redler wrote: Hi everyone, I know we've already discussed the variety of oil producing seeds and related processes for extraction. My conclusion has been that I don't have enough land or time to process my own diesel fuel for the quantities that I need. However after researching the performance and availability of diesel motorcycles (http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_bikes.html and http://www.royal-enfield.de/main.htm) and revisiting some pages for small scale production, I'm having second thoughts. According to some estimates, yields can be as high as 100 gallons per acre. Can anyone who has processed their own biodiesel (from the ground up), please help me get a feel for what I can expect if I decide to produce on a small scale (avg. 1-2 gal/week per year for seasonal riding). It might still be too much, even with the best yielding crops and plenty of land, sunshine and care. The bottom line is that I'm not sure. Regards, Mike ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -- Bob Allenhttp://ozarker.org/bob"Science is what we have learned about how to keepfrom fooling ourselves" Richard Feynman___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] seeds on the brain - small scale diesel production and motorcycles
Try "diesel motorcycle" on Google. I got a few hits when I tried it. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bob, I don't disagree that there is an abundance of waste vegetable oil out there. My curiosity in making it from scratch, comes from the same ideology that drives me to join this forum. Although I'm sure that I'll eventually be tapping into this source, I'm not convinced of it's sustainabilityfor the individual.I try to look ahead toward a time when bio-based oils will have gained popularity and "waste" vegetable oil will be bought and sold between wholesalers and commercial processors. I know this won't happen tomorrow but, like I said, If we are concerned about sustainability on a world-wide scale, maybe we should alsobe concerned about it on a macro or micro scale in terms of energy Independence. Your point is duly noted. There may be no need to be concerned for a really long time. Besides, from one point of view, processing waste vegetable oil serves an important roll in conservation. So, as you've probably noticed, I'm still trying to figure out my priorities. One thing is for sure: I'd really like to geta couple of diesel motorcycles for me and my fiance. Mike bob allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Howdy Mike, why not used vegetable oil? Even small burger joints generate 10 or so gal a week. Around my parts the small operators have to pay to have the stuff hauled off, so they are more than willing to give it to me for free. Michael Redler wrote: Hi everyone, I know we've already discussed the variety of oil producing seeds and related processes for extraction. My conclusion has been that I don't have enough land or time to process my own diesel fuel for the quantities that I need. However after researching the performance and availability of diesel motorcycles (http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_bikes.html and http://www.royal-enfield.de/main.htm) and revisiting some pages for small scale production, I'm having second thoughts. According to some estimates, yields can be as high as 100 gallons per acre. Can anyone who has processed their own biodiesel (from the ground up), please help me get a feel for what I can expect if I decide to produce on a small scale (avg. 1-2 gal/week per year for seasonal riding). It might still be too much, even with the best yielding crops and plenty of land, sunshine and care. The bottom line is that I'm not sure. Regards, Mike ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -- Bob Allen http://ozarker.org/bob "Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves" Richard Feynman ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] seeds on the brain - small scale diesel production and motorcycles
Michael Redler wrote: Bob, I don't disagree that there is an abundance of waste vegetable oil out there. My curiosity in making it from scratch, comes from the same ideology that drives me to join this forum. Although I'm sure that I'll eventually be tapping into this source, I'm not convinced of it's sustainability for the individual. so open your own burger joint ; ) I try to look ahead toward a time when bio-based oils will have gained popularity and waste vegetable oil will be bought and sold between wholesalers and commercial processors. I know this won't happen tomorrow but, like I said, If we are concerned about sustainability on a world-wide scale, maybe we should also be concerned about it on a macro or micro scale in terms of energy Independence. Your point is duly noted. There may be no need to be concerned for a really long time. Besides, from one point of view, processing waste vegetable oil serves an important roll in conservation. So, as you've probably noticed, I'm still trying to figure out my priorities. One thing is for sure: I'd really like to get a couple of diesel motorcycles for me and my fiance. I am currently looking for a running or at least rebuildable vw diesel engine. I can get a mg midget early 70's with a blown engine but good body and running gear. Anybody have a vw engine (pre electronic injector control) ? ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] It's imperialism, stupid
Kieth, Earlier, you mentioned how companies like Monsanto try to infiltrate groups like ours. In addition I'm sure that there are many emotionally driven and misguided individualslike Tim who are acting on their own. In the past, I've mentioned (rhetorically) that we have strength in solidarity. The fact that we can debate about the details butstay unanimous about almost everything else shows extraordinary strength and fidelity for this type of forum and I think we stand a better chance than mostin defending ourselves and this group from such kinds of sabotage. The Margolis article below is a great example of how thislist is an extremely important conduit for getting the truth out to potentially millions of people. Manyin this group have contributed in big ways and others are inspired to do the same. You have earned many titles Kieth. One which I feel you've earned many times over is that of activist. Through this group and your work with JTF, you have directly effected the lives of thousands of people (myself included). ...for what it's worth. MikeKeith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Further to which...The Horror In LondonWhen we kill them in droves, some of them will strike back.By Eric MargolisWe are horrified that anyone would attack innocent civilians packed in subway cars. But the extremists and fanatics who do so say they are exacting revenge for the 500,000 Iraqi civilians who died, (confirmed by the UN), from the ten year US-British embargo of Iraq. For the criminal destruction in 1991 of Iraq's water and sewage treatment plants that cause massive cholera and typhoid. Or for the occupation of Iraq and destruction of the city of Falluja that killed tens of thousands more civilians, and, of course, for Palestine.http://snipurl.com/g7h1The Logic of Suicide TerrorismIt's the occupation, not the fundamentalismBy Scott McConnellScott McConnell caught up with Associate Professor Robert Pape of the University of Chicago, whose book on suicide terrorism, Dying to Win, is beginning to receive wide notice. Pape has found that the most common American perceptions about who the terrorists are and what motivates them are off by a wide margin. - A conversation with the man who knows more about suicide terrorists than any other American.http://snipurl.com/g7h2It's Tim Brodie who's in denial about all this.Tim can't see straight or think straight, there's something wrong with his mind. Todd uses the term "limbaughtomized", something similar maybe. Tim has led the list in this kind of crazed circular argument before, dancing round and round a crashingly obvious fact, anything rather than expose his cherished notions to the inimical forces of truth and reality. It has no integrity at all.Tim quotes words like "unimpeachable", or "tolerance" or "love" in connection with terrorist acts that were never said here, he quotes arguments about Chomsky that just didn't happen that way. It's in the archives after all, but that doesn't stop Tim, he puts words into your mouth, and the whole list's, for very dubious reasons.For a typical example, Todd said this to Jill:You bitch about opposing view point and then go on to read a full page, chapter and verse, as to the opinions of your favorite, radical, right-wing, "so-ultra-'conservative'-as-to-have-long-since-fallen-off-the-edge-of- the-flat-Earth" talk show host yesterday. What's up with that?Tim quoted that directly to me and then said: "I notice that he uses words like 'bitch' when in the context of corresponding with a woman, which in other circles would border on intimidation."That doesn't make sense, "to bitch" means to complain, that's all, but "a bitch" is a whore or worse. In his next message Tim changed it to this: "What about Todd implying that Kim is a "bitch". So much for "universal rules of social discourse". He wouldn't have phrased it that way to her face (in a job situation, he'd be written up for intimidation)."Try convincing Tim that Todd didn't call Kim a bitch, see how far you get. He KNOWS Todd called her a bitch. He KNOWS the bleeding-heart liberals on this list want appeasement, he has no difficulty contorting a discussion of real causes into an accusation of appeasement, as he did with Todd, as I said he'd do. You won't persuade Tim that we're not offering justifications for terrorism to support appeasement any more than you'll convince him Todd didn't call Kim a bitch.Anyway, he posted a message saying I'm a liar. Before letting it through I asked him for a modicum of proof for this assertion, to which he responded that all journalists are liars, everyone knows that, just switch on the TV or open a magazine for proof of his point. No mention of what he'd said I'd lied about. So I'm a liar, Todd called Kim a bitch, and it's the terrorists' inferior cultural value systems that make them do it, it has nothing to do with US foreign policy or the hubris of empire. And we're all weak-minded fools.Enough! It's hopeless trying to conduct a
Re: [Biofuel] seeds on the brain - small scale diesel production and motorcycles
check out http://www.metaefficient.com/metaefficient/archives/news/efficient-diesel-motorcycle-created.html. A diesel-engined motorcycle that is said to do 150 MPG and potentially run biodiesel. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Try "diesel motorcycle" on Google. I got a few hits when I tried it. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bob, I don't disagree that there is an abundance of waste vegetable oil out there. My curiosity in making it from scratch, comes from the same ideology that drives me to join this forum. Although I'm sure that I'll eventually be tapping into this source, I'm not convinced of it's sustainabilityfor the individual.I try to look ahead toward a time when bio-based oils will have gained popularity and "waste" vegetable oil will be bought and sold between wholesalers and commercial processors. I know this won't happen tomorrow but, like I said, If we are concerned about sustainability on a world-wide scale, maybe we should alsobe concerned about it on a macro or micro scale in terms of energy Independence. Your point is duly noted. There may be no need to be concerned for a really long time. Besides, from one point of view, processing waste vegetable oil serves an important roll in conservation. So, as you've probably noticed, I'm still trying to figure out my priorities. One thing is for sure: I'd really like to geta couple of diesel motorcycles for me and my fiance. Mike bob allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Howdy Mike, why not used vegetable oil? Even small burger joints generate 10 or so gal a week. Around my parts the small operators have to pay to have the stuff hauled off, so they are more than willing to give it to me for free. Michael Redler wrote: Hi everyone, I know we've already discussed the variety of oil producing seeds and related processes for extraction. My conclusion has been that I don't have enough land or time to process my own diesel fuel for the quantities that I need. However after researching the performance and availability of diesel motorcycles (http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_bikes.html and http://www.royal-enfield.de/main.htm) and revisiting some pages for small scale production, I'm having second thoughts. According to some estimates, yields can be as high as 100 gallons per acre. Can anyone who has processed their own biodiesel (from the ground up), please help me get a feel for what I can expect if I decide to produce on a small scale (avg. 1-2 gal/week per year for seasonal riding). It might still be too much, even with the best yielding crops and plenty of land, sunshine and care. The bottom line is that I'm not sure. Regards, Mike ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -- Bob Allen http://ozarker.org/bob "Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves" Richard Feynman ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
RE: [Biofuel] Taking to the Wind
Hi Jim, "I have yet to see the group that does not thrive on misinformation used to support their agenda" I'm hoping I just misunderstood when I read "I have yet to see...". You are a member of this group...aren't you? Mike "James G. Branaum" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mike, I have yet to see the group that does not thrive on misinformation used to support their agenda, so there is no reason to limit the charge to government or conservatives. Besides, most birds are smart enough to fly around objects and stay out of the way of other flying objects. Proof of that can be seen on a daily basis when great flocks of birds move around looking for an evening roosting place. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael RedlerSent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 9:05 AMTo: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSubject: Re: [Biofuel] Taking to the Wind Todd is absolutely right. The really frustrating part is that the same argument is being made byopponents of wind power,to shoot down the Nantucket sound project -- a totally useless argument because as Todd mentioned, the lesson of lattice type towers has long since been learned. So, theyare no longer incorporated innew installations. Side note: There is another baseless argument that wind turbines ruin marine habitats when used off-shore.Under-sea power lines themselves, are usually not challenged with the same fervor and the net effect of this, compared to the damagecaused byfossil fuelcollection, transportand use is negligible (IMHO). In past threads, we've discussed the problem of misinformation by our government and others to support their own agenda. I see wind power as an alternativewhich has been especially effected by this. MikeAppal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Altamont Pass towers are of the lattice type, providing endless attraction to birds for resting and nesting. Power companies are hoping to not have to replace the towers with monocoques until the turbines reach the end of their life cycle. Essentially what is being found is that wind power is so maintenance efficient that the lattice towers are remaining in place far longer than anyone wants or expected.Todd SwearingenThompson, Mark L. (PNB RD) wrote:What about the birds. Here in California we the enviro-groups suing the wind power generators for killing Ten's of thousands birds in the Altamont Pass area. Kinda hard to have it both ways. M -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith AddisonSent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 3:15 PMTo: biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSubject: [Biofuel] Taking to the WindThe Institute of Science in SocietyScience Society Sustainabilityhttp://www.i-sis.org.ukISIS Press Release 12/07/05Taking to the WindPeter Bunyard looks at the realities of wind power and answers its detractorsPeter Bunyard will be speaking at Sustainable World Conference, 14-15 July 2005.References for this article are posted on ISIS members' website. Details hereWind power workingIan Fells, professor of Energy Conversion at Newcastle University, told BBC's Radio 4 Today programme back in December 2002 that if we wanted electricity on tap, while simultaneously meeting our Kyoto Protocol commitments to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, we would fail abysmally unless we replaced and even added to our nuclear power capacity (25 per cent of UK electricity generation in 2005). Renewable energy sources, such as wind-power, he insisted, would be marginal to needs and barely worth the cost of developing [1].Ian Fells' remarks contrasted with the experience of one of Denmark's energy experts who, during the same December 2002 Radio 4 programme, pointed out how successful his country's strategy had been in developing an electricity supply industry (in which wind-power provides nearly 20 per cent of the total in 2005). It had been good for jobs, good for exports and good for Denmark's energy needs, with the industry employing 16 000 and annual sales of wind turbines reaching more than 2 GW, equal to two large nuclear power plants.Peter Edwards, ex-chairman of the British Wind Energy Society developed the first British wind-farm at Delabole in Cornwall 14 years ago in response to the threat of a nuclear power station being built nearby. Initially the economics did not look good, at least in the context of the UK, and Edwards all but abandoned the idea. But then, in 1991, the government simultaneously introduced the fossil fuel levy on fossil fuel generating plants and the non-fossil fuel obligation (NFFO) to support at least 20 per cent electricity production from non-fossil fuel sources.At the time, nuclear power was generating 20 per cent of the Central Electricity Generating Board's production, and with privatisation in the offing, the NFFO was little more than a straight subsidy to sweeten up the City in time for a sale. Nonetheless, the subsidy did open up the possibility of investing in the
Re: [Biofuel] seeds on the brain - small scale diesel production and motorcycles
Metaefficient's web page is in Dutch. Altavista's Babel Fish translation web page translates web pages between different languages, for free. Enter the url of the web page (www.startwin.com) which you want to translate from (in this case, Dutch) into the "Translate a web page" field, select the desired language to translate to (in this case, English), and click the "translate" button. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: check out http://www.metaefficient.com/metaefficient/archives/news/efficient-diesel-motorcycle-created.html. A diesel-engined motorcycle that is said to do 150 MPG and potentially run biodiesel. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Try "diesel motorcycle" on Google. I got a few hits when I tried it. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bob, I don't disagree that there is an abundance of waste vegetable oil out there. My curiosity in making it from scratch, comes from the same ideology that drives me to join this forum. Although I'm sure that I'll eventually be tapping into this source, I'm not convinced of it's sustainabilityfor the individual.I try to look ahead toward a time when bio-based oils will have gained popularity and "waste" vegetable oil will be bought and sold between wholesalers and commercial processors. I know this won't happen tomorrow but, like I said, If we are concerned about sustainability on a world-wide scale, maybe we should alsobe concerned about it on a macro or micro scale in terms of energy Independence. Your point is duly noted. There may be no need to be concerned for a really long time. Besides, from one point of view, processing waste vegetable oil serves an important roll in conservation. So, as you've probably noticed, I'm still trying to figure out my priorities. One thing is for sure: I'd really like to geta couple of diesel motorcycles for me and my fiance. Mike bob allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Howdy Mike, why not used vegetable oil? Even small burger joints generate 10 or so gal a week. Around my parts the small operators have to pay to have the stuff hauled off, so they are more than willing to give it to me for free. Michael Redler wrote: Hi everyone, I know we've already discussed the variety of oil producing seeds and related processes for extraction. My conclusion has been that I don't have enough land or time to process my own diesel fuel for the quantities that I need. However after researching the performance and availability of diesel motorcycles (http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_bikes.html and http://www.royal-enfield.de/main.htm) and revisiting some pages for small scale production, I'm having second thoughts. According to some estimates, yields can be as high as 100 gallons per acre. Can anyone who has processed their own biodiesel (from the ground up), please help me get a feel for what I can expect if I decide to produce on a small scale (avg. 1-2 gal/week per year for seasonal riding). It might still be too much, even with the best yielding crops and plenty of land, sunshine and care. The bottom line is that I'm not sure. Regards, Mike ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -- Bob Allen http://ozarker.org/bob "Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves" Richard Feynman ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the
Re: [Biofuel] seeds on the brain - small scale diesel production and motorcycles
Rebuilt VW long and short blocks. www.vwdieselparts.com Reasonable pricing. Fairly good service. Probably something similar to this somewhere at a theatre near you so you wouldn't have to pay a freight bill. Todd Swearingen bob allen wrote: Michael Redler wrote: Bob, I don't disagree that there is an abundance of waste vegetable oil out there. My curiosity in making it from scratch, comes from the same ideology that drives me to join this forum. Although I'm sure that I'll eventually be tapping into this source, I'm not convinced of it's sustainability for the individual. so open your own burger joint ; ) I try to look ahead toward a time when bio-based oils will have gained popularity and waste vegetable oil will be bought and sold between wholesalers and commercial processors. I know this won't happen tomorrow but, like I said, If we are concerned about sustainability on a world-wide scale, maybe we should also be concerned about it on a macro or micro scale in terms of energy Independence. Your point is duly noted. There may be no need to be concerned for a really long time. Besides, from one point of view, processing waste vegetable oil serves an important roll in conservation. So, as you've probably noticed, I'm still trying to figure out my priorities. One thing is for sure: I'd really like to get a couple of diesel motorcycles for me and my fiance. I am currently looking for a running or at least rebuildable vw diesel engine. I can get a mg midget early 70's with a blown engine but good body and running gear. Anybody have a vw engine (pre electronic injector control) ? ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths
Dear Hakan, I may be naive as I am fairly new to the list but it looks to me like the question grew out of a ISIS press release about nuclear power. As I am more interested in biofuels myself I'd hate to get into a long thing that would detract from that but I am curious as to the answer to Joey's question as the technology in all areas of energy generation seem to be changing almost daily. Rick Hakan Falk wrote: Joey, Biofuel? How did you get to this issue. LOL Do you belong to this group of people that regularly visit energy lists and try to provoke a nuke discussion? I have stopped from a participating in a few lists because of this group, which seems to be roughly the same people all the time. I am not interesting in deconstruct any Nuclear Power Myths, if there are any. All kind of discussions are ok, if they come naturally, but the clear pattern by a defined group to bring up this kind of issues, smells attempt to organized industry influence. I guess that if you answer this guy, we will have some hundreds of email about nuclear and we will find that suddenly it is some new members that like this nuclear issues. Good time to do something else until this nuke attack has blown over, because I do not think that they can hijack this list. LOL Hakan At 07:14 AM 7/13/2005, you wrote: Keith, What sort of impact has been made by the use of ISL (in situ leaching) methods of uranium extraction on the overall disturbance and pollution of uranium 'mining'. Does this method reduce the impact? -Joey -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Keith Addison Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 12:03 PM To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: [Biofuel] Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths The Institute of Science in Society Science Society Sustainability http://www.i-sis.org.uk ISIS Press Release 11/07/05 Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths Peter Bunyard disposes of the argument for nuclear power: it is highly uneconomical, and the saving on greenhouse gas emissions negligible, if any, compared to a gas-fired electricity generating plant Peter Bunyard will be speaking at http://www.i-sis.org.uk/SWCFA.phpSustainable World Conference, 14-15 July 2005. References to this article are posted on http://www.i- sis.org.uk/full/DTNPMFull.phpISIS members' website. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/members.phpDetails here Limitations due to the quality of uranium ore A critical point about the practicability of nuclear power to provide clean energy under global warming is the quality and grade of the uranium ore. The quality of uranium ore varies inversely with their availability on a logarithmic scale. The ores used at present, such as the carnotite ores in the United States have an uranium content of up to 0.2 per cent, and vast quantities of overlying rocks and subsoil have to be shifted to get to the 96,000 tonnes of uranium-containing rock and shale that will provide the fresh fuel for a one gigawatt reactor [1]. In addition, most of the ore is left behind as tailings with considerable quantities of radioactivity from thorium- 230, a daughter product of the radioactive decay of uranium. Thorium has a half-life of 77 000 years and decays into radium-226, which decays into the gas radon-222. All are potent carcinogens. Fresh fuel for one reactor contains about 10 curies of radioactivity (27 curies equal 1012 becquerels, each of the latter being one radiation event per second.) The tailings corresponding to that contain 67 curies of radioactive material, much of it exposed to weathering and rain run-off. Radon gas has been found 1 000 miles from the mine tailings from where it originated. Uranium extraction has resulted in more than 6 billion tonnes of radioactive tailings, with significant impact on human health [2]. Once the fuel is used in a reactor, it becomes highly radioactive primarily because of fission products and the generation of the ‘transuranics' such as neptunium and americium. At discharge from the reactor, a tonne of irradiated fuel from a PWR (pressurized water reactor such as in use at Sizewell) will contain more than 177 million curies of radioactive substances, some admittedly short-lived, but all the more potent in the short term. Ten years later, the radioactivity has died away to about 405 000 curies and 100 years on to 42 000 curies, therefore still 600 times more radioactive than the original material from which the fuel was derived [3]. Today's reactors, totalling 350 GW and providing about 3 per cent of the total energy used in the world, consume 60 000 tonnes of equivalent natural uranium, prior to enrichment. At that rate, economically recoverable reserves of uranium - about 10 million tonnes - would last less than 100 years. A worldwide nuclear programme of 1 000 nuclear reactors would consume the uranium within 50 years, and if all the world's electricity, currently 60 exajoules (1018Joules) were generated by
Re: [Biofuel] Limiting coffee breaks. was: Deconstructing theNuclear Power Myths
Valerie Plame did it, in Niger, with Yellowcake. Enuff already... Chris wrote: It was however a quite pathetic invitation and without any previous logic, Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths. WOW Hakan, that was Keith's subject he wrote, not anyone else. Keith was the person, if I'm not mistaken, who posted the original article that started this entire discussion. (at least, there was no RE: in front of it) I think so far people have mostly agreed with him, or in the case of one person brought up a question about methods of mining uranium. I guess I'm not familiar with any Nuke gangs trying to take over mailing lists, but it seems pretty innocent so far. Personally I always wondered, besides waste handling, why nuclear power was such a bad idea. Obviously I had no idea that it wasn't the infinite/renewable resource it's made out to be. I'm certainly learning. Chris N - Original Message - *From:* Hakan Falk mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *To:* Biofuel@sustainablelists.org mailto:Biofuel@sustainablelists.org *Sent:* Wednesday, July 13, 2005 1:31 PM *Subject:* Re: [Biofuel] Limiting coffee breaks. was: Deconstructing theNuclear Power Myths JH, I have not tried to prohibit a nuke discussions, anyone who want to discuss with the nuke gang is welcome to do so. I have the right to limit my participation in any discussion and also to express that. If I take the opportunity to take a pause and a coffee, or whatever, it is my right to both to say and do so. Why are you trying to force my participation, this is not nice either, I need my coffee breaks and you have no right to limit them. LOL I have expressed my suspicion of that some persons will use the board for nuke propaganda, as I have experienced on other lists, and I have declared my lack of interest to participate in this. It is not limiting anyone else to do so, engineered or not. Do discuss whatever you want, but some things I am not interested in and will not participate in. It was however a quite pathetic invitation and without any previous logic, Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths. WOW Hakan At 06:25 PM 7/13/2005, you wrote: a) It's not a board. It's a mailing list. b) List rules state that calls to limit topic discussion are explicitly forbidden. Or in the words of our fearless list owner: No Topic Cops. c) It isn't your place to decide what the purpose of this board is. Learn to use your delete key; if you aren't interested, just ignore the thread as it will die soon enough anyway. jh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Excellent points Hakan. Plenty of other places to discuss nuclear. Whatever role nuclear has or doesn't have in the future, biofuels will have a critical role in meeting our future energy needs. I agree, natural tie ins are OK (e.g., wind power sited on biofuel fields), but let's avoid the distractions that take away the purpose of this Board. Bob In a message dated 7/13/2005 3:11:59 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have stopped from a participating in a few lists because of this group, which seems to be roughly the same people all the time. I am not interesting in deconstruct any Nuclear Power Myths, if there are any. All kind of discussions are ok, if they come naturally, but the clear pattern by a defined group to bring up this kind of issues, smells attempt to organized industry influence. I guess that if you answer this guy, we will have some hundreds of email about nuclear and we will find that suddenly it is some new members that like this nuclear issues. Good time to do something else until this nuke attack has blown over, because I do not think that they can hijack this list. LOL Hakan ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -- John E Hayes, M.S. Instructor, Dietetics Program, DIET 203 / DIET 215 Doctoral Student, Nutritional Sciences University of Connecticut - 326 Koons Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 860.486.0007 ___ Biofuel mailing list
Re: [Biofuel] start up questions
I doubt the water heater element failure was caused by using it in BD. Probably a fluke. I would not be surprised to find that Mox fumes set off the CM detector - you should have better ventilation. Dunno about Mr Funnel - would like to hear what you find... -Mike JEFF IHDE wrote: I built a new system that will process 40 gallon batches. I started with some test batches. Everything came out fine. The first 20 gallon batch also separated just as it should. I have since completed washing this fuel and made my second batch at 40 gallons. On the second batch a few questions/problems came up. I used new a 2k watt water heater element (not stainless) for heat. It failed on the second use. I'm wonder if this could be application related or just a bad part? I replaced with a 1440 watt stainless finished the batch. It too came out very good. I started the bubble wash on the second batch. I closed the garage up and let it run over night. I checked in the morning and the carbon monoxide detector in that garage was going off. The carbon detector has failed. I was wondering this too is a coincidence or something from the wash process. Is there a concern with fumes during the wash process? I was looking at a product by Mr Funnel. It claims to be able separate fuel from water. I have used it with unleaded gas and it works. Does anyone have experience with this or similar products used on bio-diesel? I plan on using bio-diesel in a 05 Duramax and in Kubota tractor with a 905 engine. Are there any concerns I should be aware of with either of these engines? Thanks This message may contain privileged and/or confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error or are not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, disseminate or distribute it; do not open any attachments, delete it immediately from your system and notify the sender promptly by e-mail that you have done so. Thank you. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] seeds on the brain - small scale diesel production and motorcycles
http://www.google.com/search?hl=enq=diesel+motorcyclebtnG=Google +Search I also saw this one mentioned on another forum recently. http://tinyurl.com/b3ylx -M@ On Jul 13, 2005, at 2:21 PM, r wrote: Try diesel motorcycle on Google. I got a few hits when I tried it. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bob, I don't disagree that there is an abundance of waste vegetable oil out there. My curiosity in making it from scratch, comes from the same ideology that drives me to join this forum. Although I'm sure that I'll eventually be tapping into this source, I'm not convinced of it's sustainability for the individual. I try to look ahead toward a time when bio-based oils will have gained popularity and waste vegetable oil will be bought and sold between wholesalers and commercial processors. I know this won't happen tomorrow but, like I said, If we are concerned about sustainability on a world-wide scale, maybe we should also be concerned about it on a macro or micro scale in terms of energy Independence. Your point is duly noted. There may be no need to be concerned for a really long time. Besides, from one point of view, processing waste vegetable oil serves an important roll in conservation. So, as you've probably noticed, I'm still trying to figure out my priorities. One thing is for sure: I'd really like to get a couple of diesel motorcycles for me and my fiance. Mike bob allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Howdy Mike, why not used vegetable oil? Even small burger joints generate 10 or so gal a week. Around my parts the small operators have to pay to have the stuff hauled off, so they are more than willing to give it to me for free. Michael Redler wrote: Hi everyone, I know we've already discussed the variety of oil producing seeds and related processes for extraction. My conclusion has been that I don't have enough land or time to process my own diesel fuel for the quantities that I need. However after researching the performance and availability of diesel motorcycles (http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_bikes.html and http://www.royal-enfield.de/main.htm) and revisiting some pages for small scale production, I'm having second thoughts. According to some estimates, yields can be as high as 100 gallons per acre. Can anyone who has processed their own biodiesel (from the ground up), please help me get a feel for what I can expect if I decide to produce on a small scale (avg. 1-2 gal/week per year for seasonal riding). It might still be too much, even with the best yielding crops and plenty of land, sunshine and care. The bottom line is that I'm not sure. Regards, Mike - --- ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/ biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -- Bob Allen http://ozarker.org/bob Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves — Richard Feynman ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/ biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/ mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/ biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] seeds on the brain - small scale diesel
Hi Mike, Extracting the oil from seed requires a process that is quite expensive. Harvest equipment you could probably contract out but unless you are somewhere where you can sell the cake or have livestock to feed the cake to an on site extractor I don't think would pay. Trucking the beans or seed to an extractor and bringing back the oil would also be quite costly. One heck of a lot better to pick up a source of used WVO. Yours truly John Wilson *** Wilsonia Farm Kennel Preserve Goldens Ph-Fax (902)665-2386) Web: http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/goldens/new.htm Pups: http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/goldens/pup.htm Politics: http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/goldens/elect.htm http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/goldens/c68.htm In Nova Scotia smoking permitted in designated areas only until 9:00 PM . After 9:00 it is okey to kill everyone. ^ Nova Scotia going smoke-free in public by 2006 (FANTASTIC) ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] seeds on the brain - small scale diesel
on 7/13/05 4:20 PM, John Wilson at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Mike, Extracting the oil from seed requires a process that is quite expensive. Harvest equipment you could probably contract out but unless you are somewhere where you can sell the cake or have livestock to feed the cake to an on site extractor I don't think would pay. Nonsense.What pays and what doesn't depends largely on the manipulated state of that day's market. Pressing oil from seed is a very ancient and well-documented process. If you're planning to turn it into biodiesel, the usual requirement of refining is to some extent abbreviated. I encourage you to pursue this option. Find an oilseed crop that is easy to grow, harvest, and process by hand (sesame, peanuts, safflower, NOT soy or corn). Feed the cake to your animals, sell it to your neighbor, or compost it. Good luck. -K ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] seeds on the brain - small scale diesel
John, There is an article from Homepower magazine that gives detailed information on biodiesel production which includes oil extraction. I don't have enough experience to determine it's validity. But it seems to indicate that there is "table top" equipmentavailable for extracting the oil. I found a copy of it at: http://www.distributiondrive.com/Homepowerbiodieselarticle.pdf It gives some suggestions as to what can be done with the meal or cake as you call it. However, I didn't find any information on harvesting. Something that I've been considering is the production of small amounts of either biodiesel or ethanol as an engine starter fuel for avehicle set up to run on wood gas. That way, the bulk of the fuel would be more available with less processing. The bad partis that I think wood gas produces more greenhouse gassesthan biodiesel or ethanol. I need to do more research to be sure. It would be helpful if someone can direct me toa good URL for that info. MikeJohn Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Mike,Extracting the oil from seed requires a process that is quiteexpensive. Harvest equipment you could probably contract out but unless youare somewhere where you can sell the cake or have livestock to feed thecake to anon site extractor I don't think would pay. Trucking the beans or seed to anextractor and bringing back the oil would also be quite costly. One heck ofa lot better to pick up a source of used WVO.Yours trulyJohn Wilson***Wilsonia Farm Kennel PreserveGoldensPh-Fax (902)665-2386)Web: http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/goldens/new.htmPups: http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/goldens/pup.htmPolitics: http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/goldens/elect.htmhttp://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/goldens/c68.htmIn Nova Scotia smoking permitted in designated areas only until 9:00 PM .After 9:00 it is okey to kill everyone.^Nova Scotia going smoke-free in public by 2006 (FANTASTIC)___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
