Re: [Biofuel] Nuclear War against Iran

[Michael Redler]

"I really like Canada, but I'm still an American.  I can't imagine NOT being an American."     Some of us feel that it is our obligation as American citizens to express dissent and do everything we can to rectify the horrible direction our country's government has chosen. Others defend those choices with a convoluted, propaganda driven brand of patriotism and are unaware of what they are defending, making the world a more dangerous place.     Thomas Jefferson not only helped with the building of a nation but, also expected the government to experience periods where it forgets it's most important task. So, if you are a US citizen and someone tells you that your "un-American" for being critical of your government, here are some important messages from our founding fathers and other noteworthy Americans:    
   “Dissent is the highest form of papatriotismH1>   -Thomas Jefferson     "It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from the government.- Thomas Paine "A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution". -- President James Madison "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither."- Ben Franklin "If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."- Samuel Adams "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."- Edmund Burke "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the
 existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it."- President Abraham Lincoln   http://en.thinkexist.com/quotation/Dissent_is_the_highest_form_of/289567.html     http://thomasmc.com/dissent.htm         Mike  robert luis rabello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:  Joe Street wrote:> Ok Guilty. Sorry about that. Yes these are reasons your nation (former > nation?) is worried.You're forgiven. I really like Canada, but I'm still an American. I can't imagine NOT being an American. Not all of us
 ascribe to the blind jingoism we're fed in the media and school systems.> I would still comment that one doesn't have to be > a Christian to have the good balanced outlook that you do.Of course not. There are many people in this forum (indeed, in the world at large) who do not ascribe to my faith, yet understand that we must look beyond personal gratification in order for us to sustain our existence as a species. Perhaps you're among them. On the other hand, there are many who CLAIM to be Christians who, by virtue of their attitudes and actions, deny the foundational teachings of Jesus Christ. They presume to act on God's behalf in terms of judgment and policy. THOSE people frighten me!Now, as this relates to nuclear war and Iran, the article that Keith posted earlier today by Mike Whitney might be dismissed as pacifist nonsense by someone who advocates violence as a means of problem solving. The concept
 that WE might somehow be at fault, that WE might be either misunderstanding the evidence, or deliberately manipulating it for a political end suggests nefarious intent on behalf of leaders who have robed themselves in white, claiming to "save the world" from itself. I have heard this from NeoCons who assume that any agitation for nonviolence, negotiation and peace represents some kind of pandering to evil, like Neville Chamberlin's famous "peace in our time" document that carried an aggressive, German chancellor's rather worthless signature. I hear a lot of harking back to that time, as if we're standing on the sidelines, watching some other nation try to take over the world.We don't want to hear that the enemy is staring at us whenever we look into the mirror, but the scriptures say that the devil masquerades as "an angel of light". It's a pretty thin disguise, as far as I'm concerned.Today Americans celebrate the
 legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Like him, I have a dream. I dream of a peaceable kingdom. Yet, when I hear this incessant dragon talk advocating warfare as an instrument of foreign policy, I also dream of fire, mushroom clouds and darkness. I far prefer the good dream to the nightmare.robert luis rabello"The Edge of Justice"Adventure for Your Mindhttp://www.newadventure.ca___
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] Nuclear War against Iran

[robert luis rabello]

jtcava wrote:


>>  Just this;The government of Israel does not espouse the total 
>> eradication of the Iranian people.


If their treatment of the Palestinians is any indication, I'm not 
confident that you are correct.  What a nation SAYS and what it 
actually DOES are two different things.


While on the other hand Iran would probably use it's nukes to further 
the "cause" of Islam,mainly the destruction of the state of Israel.

What evidence can you offer to support this contention?

robert luis rabello
"The Edge of Justice"
Adventure for Your Mind
http://www.newadventure.ca

Ranger Supercharger Project Page
http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/


___
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] Methanol Recovery?

[Theo Chadzichristos]

Hello everyone, I am scaling up the size of my processing units to make
about 300-400gallons of biodiesel a day. Right now I do not do any methanol
recovery however at the larger scale it makes a lot of finical sense to get
back the methanol. I have had a lot of trouble finding somewhat larger devices
for recovering the methanol. I was wondering if anyone has experience in this field.
The internet mentions methanol recovery but no sights really go into methanol
recovery and biodiesl. Any help would be appreciated.  am open to either
homemade designs or ones that can be purchased. Any useful links or links to
pictures would be great. Also is it be to recover methanol form the glycerin,
the biodiesel or both?

 






___
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] Nuclear War against Iran

[jtcava]

robert luis rabello wrote:

  Joe Street wrote:


  
  
Any more serious than Isreal's possession of same for everyone else in 
the area?

  
  
	Just this;The government of Israel does not espouse the total eradication of the Iranian people.While on the other hand Iran would probably use it's nukes to further the "cause" of Islam,mainly the destruction of the state of Israel.




___
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] EPA plan to censor community pollution reports

[AltEnergyNetwork]

Study Hits EPA Plan to Censor Community Pollution Reports

< http://www.alternate-energy.net/N/news.php?detail=n1137447634.news >   



The study's finding that EPA should be tracking a wider array of
these persistent, bioaccumulating substances comes as the Bush
Administration is proposing to do just the opposite. A pending
EPA plan, subject to public comment until Jan. 13, would
sharply curtail a citizens' "right to know" critical information
about pollutants in their communities.


full article

< http://www.alternate-energy.net/N/news.php?detail=n1137447634.news >




Many States Oppose Bush Pollution Plan

< http://www.alternate-energy.net/N/news.php?detail=n1137446547.news >



Houston TX - So far, twelve states have voiced opposition to
the Bush administration's plan to ease rules on reporting
legal toxin releases. Attorney generals representing the
twelve states, said in a letter addressed to the EPA,
that the Bush administration's pollution plan compromises
the public's right to know about possible health risks
in their neighborhoods


full article

< http://www.alternate-energy.net/N/news.php?detail=n1137446547.news >






Get your daily alternative energy news

Alternate Energy Resource Network
  1000+ news sources-resources
   updated daily

http://www.alternate-energy.net






Next Generation Grid 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/next_generation_grid/





Tomorrow-energy 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tomorrow-energy/




Alternative Energy Politics 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Alternative_Energy_Politics/




___
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] Nuclear War against Iran

[Joe Street]

Ruthlessly snipped from Keith's post:

>The fear-engendering description provided in the news would have the 
>reader believe that "diabolical" Iranians are ripping off the seals 
>with crowbars so they can quickly assemble their secret nuclear 
>stockpile to bomb Tel Aviv.
>
>This is the worse type of demagoguery.
>  
>
So it would seem that what is required is for the mainstream media to 
give equal coverage to the opposite side of the story.  So why is the 
mainstream media not doing so? (rhetorical question obviously) And more 
to the point why isn't everyone asking this question?  I wonder how rich 
I would have to be to make it happen? New world superpower? Ok her's a 
goofy idea; start a huge internet group to buy lottery tickets in the 
biggest lotteries and then use the winnings to spread the (gasp) truth 
on the TV. Can you imagine? LOL Actually - wait a minutewe could 
actually do this! And why not?


Joe


___
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] Nuclear War against Iran

[robert luis rabello]

Joe Street wrote:


> Ok Guilty. Sorry about that. Yes these are reasons your nation (former 
> nation?) is worried.

You're forgiven.  I really like Canada, but I'm still an American.  I 
can't imagine NOT being an American.  Not all of us ascribe to the 
blind jingoism we're fed in the media and school systems.

> I would still comment that one doesn't have to be 
> a Christian to have the good balanced outlook that you do.

Of course not.  There are many people in this forum (indeed, in the 
world at large) who do not ascribe to my faith, yet understand that we 
must look beyond personal gratification in order for us to sustain our 
existence as a species.  Perhaps you're among them.  On the other 
hand, there are many who CLAIM to be Christians who, by virtue of 
their attitudes and actions, deny the foundational teachings of Jesus 
Christ.  They presume to act on God's behalf in terms of judgment and 
policy.  THOSE people frighten me!

Now, as this relates to nuclear war and Iran, the article that Keith 
posted earlier today by Mike Whitney might be dismissed as pacifist 
nonsense by someone who advocates violence as a means of problem 
solving.  The concept that WE might somehow be at fault, that WE might 
be either misunderstanding the evidence, or deliberately manipulating 
it for a political end suggests nefarious intent on behalf of leaders 
who have robed themselves in white, claiming to "save the world" from 
itself.  I have heard this from NeoCons who assume that any agitation 
for nonviolence, negotiation and peace represents some kind of 
pandering to evil, like Neville Chamberlin's famous "peace in our 
time" document that carried an aggressive, German chancellor's rather 
worthless signature.  I hear a lot of harking back to that time, as if 
we're standing on the sidelines, watching some other nation try to 
take over the world.

We don't want to hear that the enemy is staring at us whenever we 
look into the mirror, but the scriptures say that the devil 
masquerades as "an angel of light".  It's a pretty thin disguise, as 
far as I'm concerned.

Today Americans celebrate the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. 
Like him, I have a dream.  I dream of a peaceable kingdom.  Yet, when 
I hear this incessant dragon talk advocating warfare as an instrument 
of foreign policy, I also dream of fire, mushroom clouds and darkness. 
  I far prefer the good dream to the nightmare.


robert luis rabello
"The Edge of Justice"
Adventure for Your Mind
http://www.newadventure.ca

Ranger Supercharger Project Page
http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/


___
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] Nuclear War against Iran

[Joe Street]

robert luis rabello wrote:

  Joe Street wrote:
  
  
  
And while we are on the subject of civility and 
destruction let's not forget who's nation is currently bombing the crap 
out of the cradle of civilization at the moment hmmm?

  
  
	I'm a Christian BEFORE I'm an American, and I don't advocate 
violence.  But my nation is NOT Christian, so you can't expect its 
leadership to behave in a "turn the other cheek" and "feed your 
enemies" kind of way.  You posted a question concerning why the United 
States would worry about a nuclear capable Iran, and I offered several 
points for consideration.  Please do not confuse my understanding of 
the pathology with advocacy of it.


robert luis rabello
  


Ok Guilty. Sorry about that. Yes these are reasons your nation (former
nation?) is worried.  I would still comment that one doesn't have to be
a Christian to have the good balanced outlook that you do. 

Joe


___
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] Fuel heater question

[Kenji James Fuse]

I have a 1988 F250, and it has a thermostatically-controlled fuel heater
above the filter. Unfortunately, it is a very flimsy device, designed only
for very rare use in sub -20F temperatures.

I found this out when I considered hotwiring it so I could control it from
the cab. But a Ford mechanic said this was sure to burn out the thin
ceramic heating unit in no time. I don't know about a fancy 1999 model,
but it's probably the same deal.

Let me know if this is the case and if you find an adequate heater because
I'm looking for the same. I'm almost ready to order a Veg-therm, but I've
heard varying reports on it and it seems expensive for what it is.

Kenji Fuse

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006, magic wrote:

> Hello all,
>
>I have a 1999 F350 that I would like to run B100 in year round. (It's
> been a mild winter this year, but typically drops below 32F and
> occasionally under 20F.) I figured a fuel preheater would resolve any
> issues.  As I started to research the options, I also got a book on the
> F350. Looking at the fuel system in the book, there is a fuel heater
> just below the fuel filter (at the bottom of a "fuel filter/water
> separator assembly").
>
>My question is would this all I need, or would I be better off still
> getting one of those fuel line preheater(s)?
>
>Many thanks,
>
>S
>
>
> ___
> 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] Nuclear War against Iran

[robert luis rabello]

Joe Street wrote:


> Any more serious than Isreal's possession of same for everyone else in 
> the area?

No, and that part of my point.  What exactly ARE we afraid of?

> People in Iran aren't any less savvy than you are and if anyone thinks 
> so then I invite them to come and talk to some Iranian students studying 
> engineering at the University of Waterloo which is arguably one of the 
> world's notable engineering schools.  Could it be that there are some 
> vestiges of cutural bias in your mind to assume that the intelligent 
> people of another society are more willing to end the world than our 
> trusted leaders?


I think I'm not communicating clearly, Joe.  It's clear to me that we 
have people on "our" side who are willing to walk down the path of the 
unthinkable, hence my remarks concerning "dragonspeak" on Sunday 
morning talk shows and the pulpits of anti-Christian churches all 
across North America.  Given that we're all of the same species, it 
makes sense that there are people on "the other side" (whatever THAT 
is) who are like minded.  I read the remarks of an "Islamist" 
spokesman in the Globe and Mail this morning, a man whose organization 
claimed credit for a car bomb that blew up among Canadian soldiers in 
Afghanistan.  This man believed that killing Canadians represents the 
will of God.  We have people on BOTH sides of the conflict who hold to 
this paradigm.  That's the danger.


>  Oh I suppose thier countries could be run by someone 
> of less than stellar IQ if George Bush is any example. 

And it looks like Harper is going to get in up here as well.  I was 
asking my sweetheart why she'd vote for a party represented by someone 
of his wit, but I didn't get a satisfactory answer . . .

 > So how come
> Israel didn't launch in retaliation when Hussein was lobbing gas fitted 
> skud missiles and the patriots were flying here and there to little 
> effect (as is thier nature and all the other missile defence garbage in 
> the US arsenal).  Was it not in thier interest? Was the wind going the 
> wrong way for the fallout?  Or did they perhaps exercise restraint?

At that time, what could they have done to Iraq that we weren't 
already doing?  It didn't make any sense from a military or 
geo-strategic point of view for the Israelis to retaliate, and would 
have only served to fracture the Arab contribution to the liberation 
of Kuwait.  (Which was a clever ploy on Mr. Hussein's part.  I give 
him credit for being clever in some things.)  In effect, Israel let US 
do the pummeling on their behalf, and Iraq received a far worse 
punishment during that conflict than Israel did by absorbing a few 
SCUD warheads.

>  And are you going to tell me that the Israelis are inherently more civilized 
> than the Persians?

What nonsense!  I'm trying to explain that we are ONE people, 
irrespective of our national identities.  The Persians are no 
different than we are in their composition and intellect, only 
different in language, religion and culture.  Those are minor things, 
really.


> And while we are on the subject of civility and 
> destruction let's not forget who's nation is currently bombing the crap 
> out of the cradle of civilization at the moment hmmm?

I'm a Christian BEFORE I'm an American, and I don't advocate 
violence.  But my nation is NOT Christian, so you can't expect its 
leadership to behave in a "turn the other cheek" and "feed your 
enemies" kind of way.  You posted a question concerning why the United 
States would worry about a nuclear capable Iran, and I offered several 
points for consideration.  Please do not confuse my understanding of 
the pathology with advocacy of it.


robert luis rabello
"The Edge of Justice"
Adventure for Your Mind
http://www.newadventure.ca

Ranger Supercharger Project Page
http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/


___
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] Nuclear War against Iran

[Joe Street]

robert luis rabello wrote:

  Joe Street wrote:

  
  
What's the big deal about Iran having nukes?

  
  
	That's a good question, and one worth considering carefully.  I think 
the threat of Iran possessing nuclear weapons is serious for Israel, 
Iraq AND for the United States.  As for what concerns Americans:
  

Any more serious than Isreal's possession of same for everyone else in
the area?



  
	1.  A nuclear Iran would force us to stop acting unilaterally in the 
Middle East, or at least, act with greater caution.

	2.  A nuclear Iran essentially eliminates the hegemony enjoyed by the 
US Navy in the littoral waters of the region.

	3.  A nuclear Iran increases the influence of that nation in a 
region, particularly among the Shia's in Iraq.

	4.  A nuclear Iran represents a credible threat against Israel, which 
may hasten or delay the onset of Dispensationalist "tribulation".

	5.  A nuclear Iran represents a potential threat to our access of 
crude oil.

	6.  A nuclear Iran will underscore the "righteous indignation" of the 
NeoCons, who will gleefully claim: "I told you so".

	7.  A nuclear Iran could not be prevented from proliferating the 
technology among other nations, as Pakistan and Korea have done.

	So, is there anything fundamentally wrong with any of this?  What 
exactly are we afraid of?

  
  
Why shouldn't they have 
them just like the others in the club? Who is to say "No you are not 
mature enough to have these things" ?? Certainly not the US which has 
actually used them on people.  " Do as I say, not as I do!"  LOL LOL
As long as people contuinue to invent and build weapons of terror, the 
only chance for peace is when everybody has one and therefore has an 
equal voice at the negotiating table. Things may actually get very 
civilized when every small nation has the ability to destroy the world.

  
  
	I disagree.  The words "civilized" and the concept of destroying the 
world should not be used in the same sentence!  We are ONE people, and 
all of us share the fatal flaw that we are ruthlessly capable of 
acting in our own self interest.  If we've used nuclear weapons in the 
conduct of warfare, I'm very confident we will do so again, especially 
if we feel we have no other option.  People in Iran would likely feel 
the same way.  

People in Iran aren't any less savvy than you are and if anyone thinks
so then I invite them to come and talk to some Iranian students
studying engineering at the University of Waterloo which is arguably
one of the world's notable engineering schools.  Could it be that there
are some vestiges of cutural bias in your mind to assume that the
intelligent people of another society are more willing to end the world
than our trusted leaders?  Oh I suppose thier countries could be run by
someone of less than stellar IQ if George Bush is any example.  So how
come Israel didn't launch in retaliation when Hussein was lobbing gas
fitted skud missiles and the patriots were flying here and there to
little effect (as is thier nature and all the other missile defence
garbage in the US arsenal).  Was it not in thier interest? Was the wind
going the wrong way for the fallout?  Or did they perhaps exercise
restraint?  And are you going to tell me that the Israelis are
inherently more civilized than the Persians? And while we are on the
subject of civility and destruction let's not forget who's nation is
currently bombing the crap out of the cradle of civilization at the
moment hmmm?

Joe




___
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] Ontario Alt Fuels (was US Guvmint to tax alternate fuel vehicles?)

[Keith Addison]

>Sorry, meant that last to go to Joe only.
>(must have second coffee before posting, must have second coffee before
>posting... bad e-mail user, bad e-mail user)

And WHERE, when a person needs it (often!), is the Undo button of 
Life??? Serious design flaw, IMHO, mumble mumble...

Keith


>--
>Darryl McMahon  http://www.econogics.com
>It's your planet.  If you won't look after it, who will?


___
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] Nuclear War against Iran

[Keith Addison]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11572.htm
More Lies about Iran

By Mike Whitney

01/15/06 "ICH" -- -- There's been a lot of rubbish written about 
Iran's "removing the seals" from its uranium enrichment equipment.

The fear-mongering western media have exploited the expression for 
all its worth. Even those who are normally skeptical of the 
Bush-propaganda machine are taken aback by this ominous-sounding 
phrase.

What gibberish!

How else does one make nuclear fuel for electric power plants if the 
fuel-producing mechanism is under lock and key?

The fear-engendering description provided in the news would have the 
reader believe that "diabolical" Iranians are ripping off the seals 
with crowbars so they can quickly assemble their secret nuclear 
stockpile to bomb Tel Aviv.

This is the worse type of demagoguery.

The fuel that is produced from these uranium enrichment reactors DOES 
NOT PRODUCE WEAPONS-GRADE MATERIAL. That requires thousands of 
centrifuges which Iran does not have.

At the same time, the nuclear watchdog agency, the IAEA, has on-site 
inspectors and cameras monitoring the entire process.

Everything is under constant observation.

Additionally, as nuclear weapons physicist, Gordon Prather states, 
"After almost three years of go-anywhere see-anything 
interview-anyone inspections, IAEA inspectors have yet to find any 
indication that Iran has-or ever had-a nuclear weapons program".

Get it???

No nukes! Not nowŠnot ever!

The public has been duped again by the intentionally misleading 
rhetoric and blatant lies of the MSM and the Bush administration to 
build the case for war with Iran. What could be more clear?

The public does have a choice, however; either they can accept the 
credible statements from the Nobel Prize-winning Mohammed Elbaradei, 
chief of the IAEA, or the spurious allegations of the Liar-and-Chief.

Which will it be?

"Removing the Seals?"

So, why were the seals put on the Iranian conversion equipment?

Was Iran being punished for violations to the NPT (Non Proliferation 
Treaty) for secretly developing nuclear weapons?

No, but this seems to be the conclusion of most people who haven't 
followed the issue closely.

The seals were put in place because the Iranian negotiators foolishly 
fell into a trap that was set by the EU-3. (England, France and 
Germany) Iran agreed to "confidence-building" measures that would 
placate the United States, which included "additional protocols" that 
were not demanded under the terms of the treaty or required by the 
IAEA. As it turns out, the EU used the extra concessions to make it 
look like Iran was violating the NPT after negotiations had ended.

The EU strategy was a clever ploy that worked like a charm, but that 
doesn't change the facts:

IRAN HAS NOT VIOLATED ITS TREATY OBLIGATIONS, AND THE AGREEMENT WITH 
THE EU-3 WAS NEITHER BINDING NOR DESIGNED TO BE PERMANENT.

Iran has never given up its "inalienable right" (language of the NPT) 
to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.

Was Iran foolish to trust the EU-3? (not suspecting that Washington 
was orchestrating a media-coup behind the scenes)

Yes, they wereŠ but that is not a violation of the treaty; that's 
simply being deceived by some very brainy neocons.

Iran has completely cooperated with the IAEA to ensure that it stays 
within the rules and does not develop highly-enriched, weapons grade 
material.

Presently, Iran poses no threat to either its neighbors or the United States.

The Bush administration does not accept the 
internationally-recognized treaty rights of Iran because it believes 
that all law flows from Washington; a fact that is tragically evident 
in its torturing of prisoners, spying on American citizens, and its 
vast destruction of Iraq.

As long as the Bush-media, which serves as an annex to the political 
establish, can continue to hoodwink the American people with its 
alarmist misinformation; there's little chance that a war with Iran 
will be avoided.

(For those who really want to understand the truth about Iran's 
nuclear programs and the many fictions created in the press, there's 
no better place to start than the articles of nuclear physicist, Dr. 
Gordon Prather on antiwar.com.)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Gordon+Prather+antiwar.com+IR 
AN&btnG=Search

http://www.antiwar.com/prather/
Planting Evidence - by Gordon Prather

___
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] Nuclear War against Iran

[Keith Addison]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11569.htm

No need to panic over Iranian nukes

United Nations sanctions won't work but there's still plenty of time 
for patient talks.

By Gwynne Dyer

01/15/06 " Hamilton Spectator" -- -- When the International Atomic 
Energy Agency confirmed last Tuesday that Iran had broken the seals 
on its nuclear research facility at Natanz, many people reacted as if 
the very next step was the testing of an Iranian nuclear weapon.

In the ensuing media panic, we were repeatedly reminded that Iran's 
radical new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, declared just months ago 
that Israel should be "wiped off the map." How could such a lethally 
dangerous regime be allowed to proceed with its nuclear plans?

But talk is cheap and not to be confused with actions or even 
intentions. Ahmadinejad was quoting directly from the founder of 
Iran's Islamic revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini. But neither during 
Khomeini's life nor in the 16 years since his death has Iran made any 
effort to wipe Israel off the map, because to do so could mean the 
virtual extermination of the Iranian people.

Israel has held a monopoly on nuclear weapons in the Middle East 
since shortly after Ahmadinejad was born and now possesses enough of 
them to strike every Iranian and every Arab city of more than 100,000 
people simultaneously.

Ahmadinejad's comment was as foolish, but also ultimately as 
meaningless, as Ronald Reagan's famous remark into a microphone that 
he didn't know was open: "My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell 
you today that I have signed legislation that will outlaw Russia 
forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."

Nobody doubted that Reagan wanted the "evil empire" to be wiped from 
the face of the earth, but nobody seriously believed he intended to 
attack it. Russia had nuclear weapons too, and the U.S. would have 
been destroyed by its retaliation.

Ahmadinejad was not joking about wanting Israel to vanish, but he was 
expressing a wish, not an intention, because Iran has been thoroughly 
deterred for all of his adult life by the knowledge of those hundreds 
of Israeli nuclear warheads.

And Iran would still be deterred if it had a few nuclear weapons of 
its own, just as Reagan was deterred from striking the Soviet Union 
even though the United States had thousands of the things.

So why would Iran want nuclear weapons at all? Mostly national pride, 
plus a desire to keep up with the neighbours.

For Iran, nuclear weapons fall into the class of "nice to have" 
rather than life-or-death necessity. Israel cannot invade it, and 
even the United States would be reluctant to do so: It is a very big, 
mountainous and nationalistic country.

So, the Iranians have chipped away at the task of building the 
scientific and technological basis for a nuclear-weapons program in a 
desultory way for several decades, without ever getting really 
serious about it.

That is still the pattern. When the IAEA demanded that Iran explain 
certain irregularities in its nuclear power research program three 
years ago, the regime did not respond like North Korea, which 
immediately abrogated its membership in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation 
Treaty and went all out to build nuclear weapons as soon as possible.

Instead, Iran voluntarily allowed the IAEA to put seals on its 
nuclear research facilities.

Now it has removed those seals and plans to resume its research on 
nuclear power. This will also enhance its capacity to work on nuclear 
weapons eventually, but that can't be helped.

The current American campaign to impose United Nations sanctions on 
Iran is doomed to fail, because it is not breaking the law.

As a signatory of the NPT, it is fully entitled to develop nuclear 
power for peaceful purposes, including the technology for enriching 
uranium, even though that also takes it much of the way to a 
nuclear-weapons capability. In any case, it is practically 
unimaginable that all the veto-holding powers on the UN Security 
Council would agree to impose sanctions on a major oil-producer on 
the mere suspicion that it ultimately intends to break the law.

And there is no need for such a dramatic confrontation. Iran has 
never been in a great rush to get nuclear weapons.

Even if the CIA is unduly optimistic in assuming that Tehran is still 
10 years away from a bomb, there is still plenty of time and room for 
patient negotiation. And no need for the current histrionics.

Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose articles 
are published in 45 countries.

Copyright 1991-2005, The Hamilton Spectator


___
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] GMC on the right track with PAD?

[Zeke Yewdall]

Well,  I thought it was considered the realm of wacko hippies to live
in a solar powered school bus instead of a fixed house.  or at least
that's the reaction I get to mine.And when you come down to it,
that's what GMC has proposed building.



On 1/10/06, Chip Mefford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul S Cantrell wrote:
> >
> >   GMC PAD Wins The 2006 Los Angeles Vehicle Design Challenge
> >
>
> I gotta tell ya, it's an intriguing concept for folks
> who are not homesteaders. A bit over the top.
>
> ___
> 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] question on glycerin

[Bioclaire Nederland]

 

  Hi all,
  For some stupid reason I lost a lot of 
  e-mail.
  I had somewhere in my postbox usefull information 
  about burning glycerin. Not with logs or so, but liquid.
  Can somebody tell me where to find this 
  information again on the list or so ?
   
  Thanks,
  Pieter
___
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] Nuclear War against Iran

[robert luis rabello]

Joe Street wrote:

> What's the big deal about Iran having nukes?

That's a good question, and one worth considering carefully.  I think 
the threat of Iran possessing nuclear weapons is serious for Israel, 
Iraq AND for the United States.  As for what concerns Americans:

1.  A nuclear Iran would force us to stop acting unilaterally in the 
Middle East, or at least, act with greater caution.

2.  A nuclear Iran essentially eliminates the hegemony enjoyed by the 
US Navy in the littoral waters of the region.

3.  A nuclear Iran increases the influence of that nation in a 
region, particularly among the Shia's in Iraq.

4.  A nuclear Iran represents a credible threat against Israel, which 
may hasten or delay the onset of Dispensationalist "tribulation".

5.  A nuclear Iran represents a potential threat to our access of 
crude oil.

6.  A nuclear Iran will underscore the "righteous indignation" of the 
NeoCons, who will gleefully claim: "I told you so".

7.  A nuclear Iran could not be prevented from proliferating the 
technology among other nations, as Pakistan and Korea have done.

So, is there anything fundamentally wrong with any of this?  What 
exactly are we afraid of?

> Why shouldn't they have 
> them just like the others in the club? Who is to say "No you are not 
> mature enough to have these things" ?? Certainly not the US which has 
> actually used them on people.  " Do as I say, not as I do!"  LOL LOL
> As long as people contuinue to invent and build weapons of terror, the 
> only chance for peace is when everybody has one and therefore has an 
> equal voice at the negotiating table. Things may actually get very 
> civilized when every small nation has the ability to destroy the world.

I disagree.  The words "civilized" and the concept of destroying the 
world should not be used in the same sentence!  We are ONE people, and 
all of us share the fatal flaw that we are ruthlessly capable of 
acting in our own self interest.  If we've used nuclear weapons in the 
conduct of warfare, I'm very confident we will do so again, especially 
if we feel we have no other option.  People in Iran would likely feel 
the same way.  Listening to the dragonspeak on Sunday morning talk 
shows yesterday confirms that we remain quite willing to put the 
entire world at risk in order to protect our "interests", just as some 
of the preachers on Sunday mornings claim that by doing so, we would 
be punishing the evil for their iniquity.  And on the other side, the 
jihadis who think that killing with car bombs serves God's purpose 
will likely view the detonation of a nuclear device in the same manner.

Until we change the heart of the human being, we remain at risk.  The 
future is ours to either build or destroy.  So, let's roll up our 
sleeves and let our hands be strong!

robert luis rabello
"The Edge of Justice"
Adventure for Your Mind
http://www.newadventure.ca

Ranger Supercharger Project Page
http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/


___
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] Nuclear War against Iran

[Joe Street]

ROFLMAO!  I had a sentance in there about india and then I deleted it. 
Funny how India is now welcomed into the fold eh?  Couldn't have
anything to do with China or Korea now could it? But what about India's
big gas deal with Iran, what will the US do for them on that score? 
Maybe once Iran is conquered it will be ok?

PSit was only a few minutes before I recieved the expected response
to my post (offlist) vis What about the looneys who will use them?  Ahh
we are such well heeled dogs and we learn the litany of fear so well
and repeat it in our minds so willingly!

J

Michael Redler wrote:

  Re: "...others in the club?"
   
  'Indo-US deal will make India a nuclear
power'
  Press Trust of India
  
  New Delhi, January
12, 2006
  
  Influential American Senator and former Democrat Presidential
candidate John Kerry on Thursday voiced support for the Indo-US deal.
   
  According to Kerry, implementation of the Indo-US deal on
civilian nuclear cooperation will mean grant of nuclear power status to
India.
   
  Kerry told a press conference here that the deal, with "enormous
benefits" bilaterally, cannot be seen only in the context of Indo-US
relations but had implications at the global level.
  Kerry, a member of the US Senate's Foreign Relations Committee,
said Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had told him during their meeting in
New Delhi on Wednesday that India would sign the Fissile Material
Control Treaty (FMCT).
   
  "I will be disingenuous to suggest that if the (Indo-US)
agreement (on civilian nuclear cooperation) comes through, it will not
grant nuclear power status to India. Obviously, it does," he said.
   
  http://www.hindustantimes.com/2006/Jan/15/181_1596711,001301790001.htm
   
  
  Joe Street <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  What's
the big deal about Iran having nukes? Why shouldn't they have them just
like the others in the club? Who is to say "No you are not mature
enough to have these things" ?? Certainly not the US which has actually
used them on people.  " Do as I say, not as I do!"  LOL LOL
As long as people contuinue to invent and build weapons of terror, the
only chance for peace is when everybody has one and therefore has an
equal voice at the negotiating table. Things may actually get very
civilized when every small nation has the ability to destroy the world.

Joe

Rexis Tree wrote:
So many wargames people playing and feel fun, superweapon
nuke shoot like no tomorrow. Maybe cybergames is the thing to save the
world, so people will only do virtual war, and then the real war never
happen.
  
Very true the deadliest war weapon is for peace, and very true that
when every single life on this planet is eliminated. And then the real
peace will arrive - just like Mars, no life, no water, nothing. 
  
Peace, is just like a joke.

  
  

___
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] Nuclear War against Iran

[Michael Redler]

Re: "...others in the club?"     'Indo-US deal will make India a nuclear power'Press Trust of IndiaNew Delhi, January 12, 2006  Influential American Senator and former Democrat Presidential candidate John Kerry on Thursday voiced support for the Indo-US deal.     According to Kerry, implementation of the Indo-US deal on civilian nuclear cooperation will mean grant of nuclear power status to India.     Kerry told a press conference here that the deal, with "enormous benefits" bilaterally, cannot be seen only in the context of Indo-US relations but had implications at the global level.  Kerry, a member of the US Senate's Foreign Relations Committee, said Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had told him during their meeting in New Delhi on
 Wednesday that India would sign the Fissile Material Control Treaty (FMCT).     "I will be disingenuous to suggest that if the (Indo-US) agreement (on civilian nuclear cooperation) comes through, it will not grant nuclear power status to India. Obviously, it does," he said.     http://www.hindustantimes.com/2006/Jan/15/181_1596711,001301790001.htm     Joe Street <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:  What's the big deal about Iran having nukes? Why shouldn't they have them just like the others in the club? Who is to say "No you are not mature enough to have these things" ?? Certainly not the US which has actually used them on people.  " Do as I say, not as I do!"  LOL LOLAs
 long as people contuinue to invent and build weapons of terror, the only chance for peace is when everybody has one and therefore has an equal voice at the negotiating table. Things may actually get very civilized when every small nation has the ability to destroy the world.JoeRexis Tree wrote:   So many wargames people playing and feel fun, superweapon nuke shoot like no tomorrow. Maybe cybergames is the thing to save the world, so people will only do virtual war, and then the real war never happen.Very true the deadliest war weapon is for peace, and very true that when every single life on this planet is eliminated. And then the real peace will arrive - just like Mars, no life, no water, nothing. Peace, is just like a joke.___
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] [Fwd: Lovelock: "We are past the point of no return"]

[Darryl McMahon]

Forwarding from another list.

 Original Message 

>From The Independent Online


/Start of article

[Headline] Environment in crisis: 'We are past the point of no return'

[Introduction] Thirty years ago, the scientist James Lovelock worked out 
that the Earth possessed a planetary-scale control system which kept the 
environment fit for life. He called it Gaia, and the theory has become 
widely accepted. Now, he believes mankind's abuse of the environment is 
making that mechanism work against us. His astonishing conclusion - that 
climate change is already insoluble, and life on Earth will never be the 
same again.

By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor
Published: 16 January 2006

The world has already passed the point of no return for climate change, 
and civilisation as we know it is now unlikely to survive, according to 
James Lovelock, the scientist and green guru who conceived the idea of 
Gaia - the Earth which keeps itself fit for life.

In a profoundly pessimistic new assessment, published in today's 
Independent, Professor Lovelock suggests that efforts to counter global 
warming cannot succeed, and that, in effect, it is already too late.

The world and human society face disaster to a worse extent, and on a 
faster timescale, than almost anybody realises, he believes. He writes: 
" Before this century is over, billions of us will die, and the few 
breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the 
climate remains tolerable."

In making such a statement, far gloomier than any yet made by a 
scientist of comparable international standing, Professor Lovelock 
accepts he is going out on a limb. But as the man who conceived the 
first wholly new way of looking at life on Earth since Charles Darwin, 
he feels his own analysis of what is happening leaves him no choice. He 
believes that it is the self-regulating mechanism of Gaia itself - 
increasingly accepted by other scientists worldwide, although they 
prefer to term it the Earth System - which, perversely, will ensure that 
the warming cannot be mastered.

This is because the system contains myriad feedback mechanisms which in 
the past have acted in concert to keep the Earth much cooler than it 
otherwise would be. Now, however, they will come together to amplify the 
warming being caused by human activities such as transport and industry 
through huge emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2 ).

It means that the harmful consequences of human beings damaging the 
living planet's ancient regulatory system will be non-linear - in other 
words, likely to accelerate uncontrollably.

He terms this phenomenon "The Revenge of Gaia" and examines it in detail 
in a new book with that title, to be published next month.

The uniqueness of the Lovelock viewpoint is that it is holistic, rather 
than reductionist. Although he is a committed supporter of current 
research into climate change, especially at Britain's Hadley Centre, he 
is not looking at individual facets of how the climate behaves, as other 
scientists inevitably are. Rather, he is looking at how the whole 
control system of the Earth behaves when put under stress.

Professor Lovelock, who conceived the idea of Gaia in the 1970s while 
examining the possibility of life on Mars for Nasa in the US, has been 
warning of the dangers of climate change since major concerns about it 
first began nearly 20 years ago.

He was one of a select group of scientists who gave an initial briefing 
on global warming to Margaret Thatcher's Cabinet at 10 Downing Street in 
April 1989.

His concerns have increased steadily since then, as evidence of a 
warming climate has mounted. For example, he shared the alarm of many 
scientists at the news last September that the ice covering the Arctic 
Ocean is now melting so fast that in 2005 it reached a historic low point.

Two years ago he sparked a major controversy with an article in The 
Independent calling on environmentalists to drop their long-standing 
opposition to nuclear power, which does not produce the greenhouses 
gases of conventional power stations.

Global warming was proceeding so fast that only a major expansion of 
nuclear power could bring it under control, he said. Most of the Green 
movement roundly rejected his call, and does so still.

Now his concerns have reached a peak - and have a new emphasis. Rather 
than calling for further ways of countering climate change, he is 
calling on governments in Britain and elsewhere to begin large-scale 
preparations for surviving what he now sees as inevitable - in his own 
phrase today, "a hell of a climate", likely to be in Europe up to 8C 
hotter than it is today.

In his book's concluding chapter, he writes: "What should a sensible 
European government be doing now? I think we have little option but to 
prepare for the worst, and assume that we have passed the threshold."

And in today's 

Re: [Biofuel] Nuclear War against Iran

[Joe Street]

What's the big deal about Iran having nukes? Why shouldn't they have
them just like the others in the club? Who is to say "No you are not
mature enough to have these things" ?? Certainly not the US which has
actually used them on people.  " Do as I say, not as I do!"  LOL LOL
As long as people contuinue to invent and build weapons of terror, the
only chance for peace is when everybody has one and therefore has an
equal voice at the negotiating table. Things may actually get very
civilized when every small nation has the ability to destroy the world.

Joe

Rexis Tree wrote:
So many wargames people playing and feel fun, superweapon
nuke shoot like no tomorrow. Maybe cybergames is the thing to save the
world, so people will only do virtual war, and then the real war never
happen.
  
Very true the deadliest war weapon is for peace, and very true that
when every single life on this planet is eliminated. And then the real
peace will arrive - just like Mars, no life, no water, nothing.
  
  
Peace, is just like a joke.
  

___
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] Ontario Alt Fuels (was US Guvmint to tax alternate fuel vehicles?)

[Darryl McMahon]

Sorry, meant that last to go to Joe only.
(must have second coffee before posting, must have second coffee before 
posting... bad e-mail user, bad e-mail user)

-- 
Darryl McMahon  http://www.econogics.com
It's your planet.  If you won't look after it, who will?


___
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] Ontario Alt Fuels (was US Guvmint to tax alternate fuel vehicles?)

[Darryl McMahon]

Sorry to be so long getting back to you on this.  Got busy with things 
from the conference, that Christmas thing, and now the federal election 
campaign, and all the other windmills I tilt at as a matter of course.

The registry has been a labour of love, trying to get the message out 
that on-road EVs, and electric tractors exist and work, today and 
historically.  Emphasis on the word 'labour'.

In the registry, I provide basic information only.  If people want more, 
I can act as the matchmaker between owner and interested person.  One 
thing I don't provide is the full name of individuals on the registry. 
This is to avoid unwelcome visits by those that could use the name and 
locale to determine where something of value resides.

Since your post, I have been exposed to this facility.
http://www.frappr.com/ev

It's only a beta site, so no guarantees it will survive.  Also, it 
appears to be associated with Google, about which I have reservations. 
However, it is likely more intuitive than my text-based registries, and 
it puts the workload on the individual owner, not a "moderator".  It 
also allows the owner to control what information is provided.  I have 
had a couple of tractor owners ask me to put "for sale" information into 
their entries for the electric tractor list, and I have declined. 
(Because it is more work for me, because it means providing contact 
information on the list for some individuals, which invites inquiries 
from readers why that information is not provided for the tractor 
closest to them.)

There will come a point that the registries will outlive their 
usefulness.  For example, I don't try to list electric-assist bikes - 
too many of them.

I did say hello to the Pacific for you, if only in Vancouver harbour.  I 
had a lovely dinner overlooking the water my one free evening, when I 
went and rode the SkyTrain - the longest automated, zero-emissions, 
transit system in the world.  Built by Bombardier, operating in Canada.

I still have not seen Gattaca.  I guess I should rent it sometime. 
Maybe after the election.  I also loved the lines of the FIAT Spyder.  I 
tried to negotiate the purchase of a hulk sitting in a field of a friend 
of my father's in my early teen years, before my EV epiphany.  The 
Porsche 914 is attractive, but never stirred me the way the Spyder did. 
  Porsche conversion is currently dead with bad controller.  Got it into 
the garage, but weather and my schedule have prevented me getting 
further than basic diagnostics and unreciprocated inquiries to the 
manufacturer and dealer.

I think our local biodiesel group is losing steam.  Really poor turnout 
at the last meeting, especially by those with action/reporting items. 
Also, we put a lot of stock in one guy who wanted to set up a website 
and e-mail list, which has been flaky.  So, I don't see anyone else in 
that group making the effort to research rules on biodiesel by 
jurisdiction - most of them want to buy cheap / enviro fuel - not many 
"doers" in the crowd.  I guess that puts a couple more "windmills" in my 
path.

With the Cons(ervatives) leading in the polls, I had a look at their 
enviro policy over the weekend (at the request of a friend). 
Disappointing.  However, they do at least promise minimum 5% biodiesel 
and ethanol in the motive fleet fuel supply by 2010.  Everything else is 
motherhood statements, doublespeak and gobbledygook.

One other thing that has come up recently in Ontario is the provision 
for pilot programs in the MTO.  I'll be pursuing this on behalf of 
electric power-assist bikes in the next few weeks, continuing with a 
conference call this afternoon, and hopes of legalizing these bikes in 
Ontario under the pilot project provisions by the end of May this year. 
  I don't know if biodiesel fuel would be considered different enough to 
warrant MTO attention under this provision or not, and what it might 
gain us if it did.


Joe Street wrote:
> Excellent Darryl;
> 
> Thanks for the post.  I'll talk to the alt fuels group here at UW and 
> see what I can find out about what the research title affords them.  I 
> know the solar car for example does not even require a license to be 
> driven on the road.  I welcome your input from your experience with the 
> registry. Also give us a recap on the conference when you return. I want 
> an electric car.  I was watching the movie GATACCA on the weekend and it 
> looked like a '70's vintage Fiat spyder that they were portraying as an 
> electric vehicle in one of the scenes.  It inspired me to get one and 
> take the engine out..what a classy ride that woud be.  Say hello to 
> the Pacific for me and tell her I miss her.
> 
> Joe
> 
> Darryl McMahon wrote:
> 
>> Joe,
>> I think there is some merit to this.  Certainly a description of the 
>> rules that do exist (and proposed as we become aware of them) for each 
>> jurisdiction with Canada would be useful.  It's something I had in 
>> mind for the Ottawa co-op when I lent