[Biofuel] Mercury creeps back in
When you add the other sources of mercury into the equation, like smokestack emissions from power plants and from mercury laced fish like tuna, swordfish, or any large fish, we are all getting too much mercury into our bodies. Even some inland lakesand rivers containsignificant mercury so that their fish are contaminated. As long as our gov continues to allow mercury into our environment and lets vaccination makers voluntarily stop using mercury based thimerosal,we are all at risk. Scrubbers and other techniques can be used to reduce airborne mercury but they cost money for the power companies. The gov could tell all vaccination makers to stop using thimerosal or face fines and jail-time but instead allows its use. Corporate coddling by the White House and Congress is a grave problem in the USA. Peace, D. Mindock The Age of Autism: Mercury creeps back in By DAN OLMSTED WASHINGTON, March 17 (UPI) -- New calculations suggest children today can be exposed to more than half the mercury that was in vaccines in the 1990s, even though manufacturers began phasing it out in 1999. Adjusted for a child's body weight at the time of the shots, there's virtually no reduction at all, according to this analysis. The source: Flu vaccines, which have been recommended for millions more kids over 6 months old and pregnant women in the past few years. Most of those shots still contain the mercury-based preservative called thimerosal that some fear is behind a huge rise in autism diagnoses. "It's been under the radar and it's allowed health officials to say, 'We've taken it out of all the childhood vaccines,'" said Dr. David Ayoub, an Illinois anti-thimerosal activist who put the data together along with Maryland researchers David Geier and Dr. Mark Geier. "They don't consider influenza one of the mandated childhood vaccines yet," Ayoub said. But because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention now recommends flu shots for all pregnant women and all children between 6 months and age 5, doctors routinely give them. The CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics urged in 1999 that manufacturers remove thimerosal from childhood vaccines amid concerns over mercury exposure from shots including hepatitis B and the diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus combination shot. "Because any potential risk is of concern, the Public Health Service, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and vaccine manufacturers agree that thimerosal-containing vaccines should be removed as soon as possible," they said in a joint statement at the time. Since then, however, the CDC has significantly broadened its flu-shot recommendations. And the "coverage" rate -- the percent of those who actually get the recommended shots -- is rising as well. The thrust of the numbers compiled by Ayoub and the Geiers: By 5, children exposed to an all-thimerosal schedule of flu shots would get 53 percent of the mercury the same kids got from all shots in 1999, they concluded. Ayoub then calculated cumulative weight-adjusted mercury exposures at less than 5 years of age. That shows kids getting 36.34 micrograms of mercury per kilogram of body weight in 1999 -- and 33.2 from the influenza vaccine recommendations in 2006, or only about 10 percent less. Of course, a lot has happened since 1999. Chiefly, the independent, prestigious Institute of Medicine ruled out thimerosal, and vaccines in general, as a cause of autism and said it wasn't worth the research money to keep exploring. On the other hand, a University of Washington researcher showed twice as much ethyl mercury that comes from thimerosal gets trapped in the brain as does methyl mercury that comes from fish and pollution, and it stays there indefinitely. And the CDC study most often invoked to show that thimerosal isn't linked to autism was later pronounced a "neutral study" by its principal author, meaning more research is needed. Plus, the autism rate has started to drop in California since thimerosal was removed. Finally, as we've pointed out, the CDC continues to research whether thimerosal causes autism -- that hasn't been "ruled out," nor has any other cause, a spokesman told us earlier this year. ___ 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] I need some information about coal gassification simulation
I am using the program Aspen, I view some possibilities about equation Redlich-Kwong and I think that it's betteer to analysed the system with Gibbs Free Energy. I need some helps, how to implementation e miscellaneous gas, that produced from e gassifier. Who can help me? Thanks a lot. Best regards Ezio ___ 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] Fw: This is program that could easily go awry
This is a program that appears innocent and well-intentioned but, giventhe USgov's new militaristic bent, could be used forpopulation control. Peace, D. Mindock Subject: This is a program that could easily go awry. The National Animal ID program was originally designed to give the big beef producers help in getting export markets which required disease controls. The idea is that every single livestock animal in the United States will be identified and tagged. All livestock animal movements will be tracked, logged and reported to the government. The benefit is to the big factory farms who probably do need this type of regulation. They get to do single ID’s for large groups of animals. Small farmers, pet owners and homesteaders will have to tag and track every single animal. All chickens, goats, pot belly pigs etc. will need to be tagged and identified usingRFID tags or people fined 1K per critter!!! Every chicken, though agribiz gets a break of course. It appears to be created to control the food supply, make organics out of the question, make it nearly impossible to get organic garden supplies and stop the slow food movement. Visit http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/index.shtmlMore info at: http://nonais.org/ ALERTS! (from www.nonais.org) USDA Fraud Alert! NY to Microchip Dogs Cats VA kills Backyard Poultry Producers AL NAIS Legislation Congress Voting on Local Label Control More USDA Signup Fraud! WA NAIS Meeting Please drop by the Drudge Report. Scroll part way down the page to the tips section and leave a feedback suggesting that they should investigate the Government’s excessive regulations of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). For a quick overview they can visit http://NoNAIS.org/handout to get up to speed on the topic. In addition to an executive summary of the harm of NAIS to small farmers and homesteaders the handout also contains links to the USDA documents. Get the word out! ___ 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] The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse
It's been posted before, but no matter. For more, see: http://snipurl.com/nt4o [Biofuel] The End of Dollar Hegemony Thu Mar 16 2006 http://snipurl.com/nt4p [Biofuel] Why Iran's oil bourse can't break the buck Best Keith urls: http://snipurl.com/nt4q [Biofuel] The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11613.htm The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse NEWS YOU WON'T FIND ON CNN Abstract: the proposed Iranian Oil Bourse will accelerate the fall of the American Empire. By Krassimir Petrov, Ph.D. I. Economics of Empires 01/19/06 Gold Eagle -- -- A nation-state taxes its own citizens, while an 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] Milled oilseed bodiesel processing
Hi Todd and all Still, I find it hard to believe that the feedmeal wouldn't have a soap content that wouldn't necessarily be there. Then again, they have been known to feed cement to livestock. So what's a little soap? How much FFA would there be? It shouldn't be very much, there might not be a lot of soap. Maybe a little soap would help clean out all the other crap they feed livestock these days. (Sorry.) I suppose from the crazy angle livestock feed formulaters see things you could do some tests with that amount of soapstock in ruminant diets and if it didn't kill them outright you could say there's no evidence that it does any harm so you could flog it to farmers in good faith. (Eg, The rendering industry admits that rendered feeds carry detectable levels of salmonella and other disease organisms, but insists the amounts fed are too small to cause a problem.) You're right about the cement - here's a cattle feeding timeline: http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/page267.cfm History of Rendering: Cattle Cannibalism in the USA 1970s At this point, cattle are consuming rendered fats, but their proteins are from grains and soybeans--viewed as costly and wasteful. A search for alternative substances leads to such ingredients in animal feed as: sewage sludge, treated manure, agricultural wastes, retail food wastes, slaughterhouse and tannery wastes, industrial wastes such as sawdust, wood chips, twigs and even ground-up newspapers and cardboard boxes, cement dust from kilns, sludge from municipal composting plants, water from electric generating plants that used fluidized combustion of coal, and waste water from nuclear power stations, the Four Ds--dead, dying, disabled, and diseased animals, moisture-damaged or maggot-infested grains, foods contaminated by rodents, roaches, or bird excreta. Doesn't mention soap though. There's this, however, FWIW: http://www.regional.org.au/au/gcirc/1/241.htm Glycerol as a by-product of biodiesel production in Diets for ruminants Glycerol of different purities can be included in mixed diets for ruminants up to 10% of the dry matter as a substitute for rapidly fermentable starch sources, e. g., wheat or tapioca, without negatively affecting ruminal environment, ruminal nutrient turnover and whole-tract digestibilities of organic matter constituents. I suppose you could reclaim the methanol and neutralise the lye. I wouldn't do it but I wouldn't feed any of this stuff to cows, cows eat grass IMHO. Anyway, that's the by-product and what's left of what would have been the seedcake, but what's left might not always be an issue, it depends on the feedstock, livestock feed isn't always a factor. I've been thinking about this for awhile, I think there might be a way to do it. I wouldn't go about it the same way as Haas though. It's on my to-do list, it's been there for quite a long time, getting a bit closer to the top. All this stuff does get done in the end, the to-do list doesn't get any shorter, but the done list is much longer than the to-do list these days. Anyway I'll shut up about it until I've got something more to say. To-do-loo Keith Todd Swearingen bob allen wrote: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/04/new_method_simp.html [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Anybody got any info. on, what I'll call, 'in-situ' transesterification. I visited a place that made whole fat soy meal for animal feed, the whole fat means that the oil is not first extracted but kept and used as part of the feed. The process involved first millng the soy bean then, what looked like, roasting the meal. I'm interested to know what would happen if the milled soy was mixed with methoxide? We'll get some transesterification - how much? Would the remaining soy bits seperate from the ester with the glyc? How difficult would it be to seperate the glyc and soy cake? Could the soy cake still be used as feed? What do you think? Anything published on this? Regards, Duncan ___ 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] Microbes in BD
Paul, Thanks for the reply. I like the idea of treating a sample of clean BD w. the antimicrobial and then inoculating it with the cloudy stuff. I'll give it a try. My local auto parts store was all out of diesel antimicrobe stuff ... will get more in on Monday. When I asked if microbes were a common problem in diesel fuel, I was told that it's not common, but they do sell quite a bit of the stuff (antimicrobial). They were aware of filters getting clogged by little buggers, but didn't know if sales were to treat a problem or the prevent one. It stands to reason that if dino diesel is on the menu for some bacteria/fungi, and biodiesel is more biodegradable than dino diesel, it may well be in the metabolic repertoire of a greater variety, or at least more common microbes. I think that if the problem is microbes, it is good news. I was worried that my WVO was the problem ... maybe some new additive screwing up the works. I have made more than thirty 20gal (76L) batches w/o any problem. Others have probably made 100's of batches w/o cultivating microbes. If it is, in fact, microbes in the brew, I suspect they're in my wash tank . The reactor and settling tanks seem too hostile an environment for a soil or water contaminant to survive. I'll scrub the wash tank, run a batch w. oil from the same settling tank and see what happens. Thanks again, Tom - Original Message - From: Paul S Cantrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 9:39 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Microbes in BD Tom, It's all those little mad cows swimming around ;-) Seriously, have you tried treating the 'innoculated' jar with the anti-microbial to see if it clears up? Or, try a third jar that is innoculated and treated with anti-microbial? Is there a microbiologist on the list? On 3/18/06, Thomas Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello All, I suspect I have microbes in my recent batches of BD. After washing, I drained the BD and allowed it to settle. After a few days I noticed a whispy sediment on the bottom of the containers of fuel. I gave the batch another wash and cleaned my 5 gal. settling containers. The wash water was clear, but again the whispy sediment appeared after a few days. My next batch seemed to wash very well, but again, a whispy sediment can be observed after the BD is drained and allowed to settle. I brought a sample of the sediment to a local high school. We prepared a stained slide and observed a multitude of tiny uniformly-shaped spheres at 400X. I put 1 drop of the sediment in a glass jar w. 250ml of clear, uncontaminated BD and put 250ml of the same clear BD in an identical glass jar (control). Less than 24 hrs. later the innoculated jar is slightly cloudy w. a very fine sediment on the bottom and the control jar continues to be clear. - I started using WVO that includes some tallow. I noticed a post from JJN on 3/17/06 Re: Tallow: I am treating all my bio with both an anti fungal and anti oxidant treatment since I use tallow alot. 1. Any thoughts/similar experience? 2. If it's microbes of some sort, should I treat the fuel w. a diesel anti-microbial and then filter it? Will a 10 micron filter remove these critters? 3. If microbes are present, do I have to be concerned w. metabolic byproducts screwing up the fuel? 4. If not microbes, what's the whispy stuff? Thanks, Tom -- Thanks, PC He's the kind of a guy who lights up a room just by flicking a switch You can't have everything. Where would you put it? - Steven Wright ___ 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] Microbes in BD
Ken, Always good to hear from you. My in-laws own a bus company. In the past ten years they have literally gone through a million gallons of diesel fuel and their busses have logged millions of miles.During that time they have had only two separate occassions in which filters were clogged due to microbes in the fuel.It does not appear to be a common problem. On both occassions the busses had been out of sevice for a month or more and both had water in the fuel tanks. If it turns out that there are microbes in my recent batches, it is probably a fluke an oddity. But ifBD isbiodegradable in the soil and water, then something(s) in soil/watermust eat it.It's not hard for me to imagine how soil and water microbes could get into my wash tank. A couple of things to consider: 1. I use the final wash water of the previous batch as the first wash water of the next batch. If a contaminant was present in the previous batch it would be there for the next. 2. On each of the two occassions in which the whispy sediment appeared, I had let the final wash BD sit in the wash tank for almost a week before draining and drying it. If something was there tha t"liked it" it had some time to multiply. 3. The harsh alkali of unwashed BD might very well discourage subsequent growth of contaminants from a previous wash, but I had just taken to adding a small amount of phosphoric acid to the first wash to help wash soaps out and to thereby reduce the number of washes from four to three. A contaminant might now find the environment of the first wash to be less hostile. I rather like the idea of it being a microbe. I think I know how to deal with it. Stop using garden tools to stir the mix (kidding). Approach a reasonable level of cleanliness in making and storing BD. I also like the idea of the fuel being biodegradable, and not by some exotic thermophile, but by common soil and water organisms. Thanks for your time and thoughts, Tom - Original Message - From: Ken Provost To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 6:58 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Microbes in BD On Mar 18, 2006, at 8:35 AM, Thomas Kelly wrote: I normally heat the settled BD to about 125F to dry it.When I do this to wispy batchthe wispy stuff seems to clump and then rise to the surface in small globs. H..maybe somebody else here has seen this before -- it's a new one to me. Somehow I doubt microbes -- I think that would take months or years. -K ___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] Microbes in BD
Jim, I appreciate the reply. I am getting some of the antimicrobial stuff you suggested. Until then I'm experimenting. I have found that a very small amount of the sediment added to 250ml of clear BD cloudy BD w. increasing sediment. This is what makes me reasonably certain I have a microbe. This morning I heated a 10L sample of the contaminated BD to 125F (drying temp.) and another 10L sample to 150F. If sediment from these samples does not grow in clear, uncontaminated BD, then I will assume that the contaminant is killed/deactivated by these temps. I'll forego using the biocide unless the problem rears its ugly head in my car or heating system. I'll also be able to decontaminate my wash tank w. boiling water. Good day to you, Tom - Original Message - From: JJJN [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 10:31 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Microbes in BD Tom, Fungus is common in any regular diesel fuel and can be in any biofuel as well. It is not bad other than you will plug filters much faster and it can cause corrosion if it is the right type. Nothing is safe if it is not 100% dry (free water that is). All parts stores sell an anti fungal additive and its also an anti oxidant. If you store the bio for long periods ( like winter) then you might consider adding it to your stored fuel. It is not real expensive if used as directed. Keep in mind that after it is added to Biodiesel, the Biodiesel is no longer biodegradable and non toxic to the same degree that it was. So for this reason I like to add it to the truck not the freshly made stuff that I will use in a week or two. I don't know if fuel makers treat Diesel with it at the refinery or not, I wouldst think they would with the spill hazards it creates. ( It is toxic to fish in very small quantities) Any one got a good way of disinfecting a reactor ?? The best of luck! Jim Thomas Kelly wrote: Hello All, I suspect I have microbes in my recent batches of BD. After washing, I drained the BD and allowed it to settle. After a few days I noticed a whispy sediment on the bottom of the containers of fuel. I gave the batch another wash and cleaned my 5 gal. settling containers. The wash water was clear, but again the whispy sediment appeared after a few days. My next batch seemed to wash very well, but again, a whispy sediment can be observed after the BD is drained and allowed to settle. I brought a sample of the sediment to a local high school. We prepared a stained slide and observed a multitude of tiny uniformly-shaped spheres at 400X. I put 1 drop of the sediment in a glass jar w. 250ml of clear, uncontaminated BD and put 250ml of the same clear BD in an identical glass jar (control). Less than 24 hrs. later the innoculated jar is slightly cloudy w. a very fine sediment on the bottom and the control jar continues to be clear. - I started using WVO that includes some tallow. I noticed a post from JJN on 3/17/06 Re: Tallow: I am treating all my bio with both an anti fungal and anti oxidant treatment since I use tallow alot. 1. Any thoughts/similar experience? 2. If it's microbes of some sort, should I treat the fuel w. a diesel anti-microbial and then filter it? Will a 10 micron filter remove these critters? 3 . If microbes are present, do I have to be concerned w. metabolic byproducts screwing up the fuel? 4. If not microbes, what's the whispy stuff? Thanks, Tom ___ 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] The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0316-20.htm Published on Thursday, March 16, 2006 by the Baltimore Sun (Maryland) America's Nuclear Hypocrisy Undermines its Stance on Iran by Sanford Gottlieb Even as he was telling Iran not to produce nuclear weapons, President Bush was urging Congress to pay for a new nuclear weapon designed to destroy underground military facilities. Although the nuclear bunker-buster is still on the drawing board, Iran can be expected to charge the United States with atomic hypocrisy during the current war of words. No less than a conservative Republican from Ohio, Rep. David L. Hobson, has thwarted Mr. Bush's push for the bunker-buster for the past two years. Mr. Hobson chairs a House subcommittee that appropriates money for the nuclear weapons complex. He persuaded the House not to spend a cent for research on the bunker-buster. The Senate followed. What worries him most about this weapon, Mr. Hobson has said, is that some idiot might try to use it. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told a Senate subcommittee in April that 70 countries are pursuing activities underground. We don't have a capability of dealing with that, he testified. We can't go in and get at things in solid rock underground. Mr. Rumsfeld suggested he needs the relatively small bunker-buster to avoid using a large, dirty nuclear weapon. Yet at the time of his testimony, Mr. Rumsfeld probably saw a study from the National Academy of Sciences estimating that the small bunker-buster, if used in an urban area, could cause more than a million deaths. Pursuit of the bunker-buster and Mr. Rumsfeld's testimony confirm the administration's shift away from nuclear deterrence toward possible use of nuclear weapons in war. Under Mr. Bush's doctrine of pre-emption, the U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) has added missions to its war plans. STRATCOM's global strike plan foresees the use of nuclear weapons to pre-empt an imminent threat from weapons of mass destruction or to destroy an adversary's WMD stockpiles. The Pentagon's draft Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations describes these new missions. The draft was discovered on the Pentagon Web site in September by Hans Kristensen, now with the Federation of American Scientists. When Mr. Kristensen shared his find with the media, the draft disappeared from the Web site. But STRATCOM's war plans remain in force. You may win this year, Mr. Rumsfeld told Mr. Hobson in 2005, but we'll be back. Meanwhile, Congress has mandated that any future earth-penetrator weapon must be based on conventional explosives. The Pentagon had hedged its bets. In 2004, the Defense Department awarded a contract to Boeing to design and test a huge conventional bomb, to be known as the Massive Ordnance Penetrator. It would be the biggest conventional bomb in the U.S. arsenal, capable of demolishing multistory buildings with hardened bunkers and tunnel facilities. So why has the administration been pressing for a nuclear version? The United States still has a massive Cold War arsenal. About 5,000 hydrogen bombs and warheads are deployed on intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarines and bombers; another 5,000 are held in reserve. In addition, 600 to 700 tactical nuclear weapons are ready for battlefield use. Russia has fewer than 5,000 H-bombs deployed but many thousands more in reserve, and 3,000 tactical nuclear weapons. Many Russian nuclear weapons are not fully secured. Britain, France, China and Israel have several hundred nuclear weapons each. India and Pakistan are slowly building their arsenals. In addition to the bunker-buster, the Bush administration wants new nuclear warheads to replace old ones. Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, is dubious. He thinks the replacement process could be a back door to new warhead concepts, not what's needed when trying to persuade Iran to keep out of the nuclear club. A more meaningful approach, says Mr. Kimball, would be to slash the swollen U.S. and Russian arsenals. Yet under the Treaty of Moscow, by 2012, both nuclear behemoths could still deploy 2,200 long-range nuclear weapons, not counting those in reserve and tactical arms. The world will still bristle with the most destructive of weapons of mass destruction 22 years after the Cold War's end. That's not a prospect likely to dissuade the insecure leaders of Iran. Sanford Gottlieb, a former executive director of the National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy, is the author of Defense Addiction: Can America Kick the Habit? E-mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] © 2006 The Baltimore Sun It's been posted before, but no matter. For more, see: http://snipurl.com/nt4o [Biofuel] The End of Dollar Hegemony Thu Mar 16 2006 http://snipurl.com/nt4p [Biofuel] Why Iran's oil bourse can't break the buck Best Keith urls: http://snipurl.com/nt4q [Biofuel] The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse
[Biofuel] Latin America Unchained
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0317-26.htm Published on Friday, March 17, 2006 by CommonDreams.org Latin America Unchained: Will the U.S. Lose its Influence Over Countries That Have Paid Off Their IMF Loans? By Mark Engler For decades the International Monetary Fund (IMF) served as one of the key pillars of the Washington Consensus. Dominated by the White House, the Fund allowed successive administrations to control the economic policy of poorer countries in this hemisphere and beyond. Those nations wishing to buck a U.S. agenda of corporate globalization risked having their access to international loans cut off. The brutish IMF not only handled its own funds but also played gatekeeper for money from other creditors, such as the regional development banks. This power made the institution as hated throughout the global South as it was celebrated inside the Beltway. Maybe it's not surprising, then, that an increasingly progressive Latin America is starting to say good riddance. In recent months, major countries in the region have moved to pay off their loans to the IMF ahead of schedule and free themselves of direct oversight from the institution. Announcements in December from Argentina and Brazil, which are paying off $9.8 billion and $15.5 billion respectively, inaugurated the trend in the region. In addition, Bolivia was relieved of its outstanding obligations to the IMF by last year's debt relief agreement at the G8. The country's newly elected president, Evo Morales, has indicated that he may let his standby agreement with the IMF expire at the end of the month. The motivation for cutting ties has been explicitly political. The Latin American electorate is fed up with policies like privatization and curtailed social spending; these policies, hallmarks of IMF neoliberalism, have hit the countries' poor majorities hardest. It would be one thing if the Fund's prescriptions worked in creating economies that served their people. But in country after country, neoliberal economic mandates have produced lackluster growth at best and often have resulted in catastrophe. Argentina was once a poster child of IMF economics; that is, until its economy collapsed in 2001. As voters throughout the region demand change and put left-of-center governments into power, leaders like Argentinean President Néstor Kirchner proclaim that throwing off the chains of IMF debt constitutes an overdue victory--a move toward political sovereignty and economic independence. Interestingly, within the domestic political debates of Argentina and Brazil, the left has been critical of the decision to repay. Social movement activists argue that the debts, some of which had been accumulated by past military governments, were unjust and should be renounced outright. In Argentina, critics contend that the IMF should have to pay for a crisis it was largely responsible for creating. Instead, billions of dollars that could have been used for needed social programs are going back into the Fund's coffers. The activists may have had a solid argument. But now that the deals are going forward, it's time to assess their impact: Will freedom from the IMF lead to a truly independent economic path? On face, distance from the IMF will provide poor and middle-income countries with room to chart a more autonomous course. Still, there are complicating factors. Remaining debts to institutions like the Inter-American Development Bank and the World Bank can be used to leverage governments to impose neoliberal policies. In Brazil, where Lula da Silva's ostensibly progressive government has mostly adhered to the orthodox economic prescriptions of corporate globalization, political will to change may be lacking. Finally, the IMF will be able to continue giving its recommendations to other creditors. The power of such advice, however, is not what it once was. The IMF has lost a lot of clout in recent years, due in no small part to Argentina. Since taking power in the wake of the country's economic crisis, Kirchner has played hardball in negotiations with the IMF and private creditors. The strategy worked, allowing his government to negotiate a very favorable restructuring of its loans. Argentina standing up to the IMF was like an underdog knocking down the schoolyard bully. The aura of invincibility surrounding the Fund was dispelled, and the institution will likely never again inspire the same begrudging awe. Furthermore, as the failures of neoliberalism grow increasingly evident, creditors like the World Bank have been compelled to moderate their once-stringent conditions on loans. In a final critical development, the oil-rich government of Hugo Chávez in Venezuela has stepped forward to provide other Latin American leaders with financing they might otherwise have needed to beg from Washington. Venezuela already bought up $2.4 billion worth of Argentina's debt to help the country break
[Biofuel] Saddam Hussein turns the tables at US-run show trial
http://www.asiantribune.com/show_article.php?id=3070 Date : 2006-03-17 Saddam Hussein turns the tables at US-run show trial By Bill Van Auken - World Socialist Web Site The farcical trial of Saddam Hussein staged by the Bush administration and its Iraqi puppets was thrown into chaos when the deposed Iraqi president took the witness stand Wednesday. He used his intervention not to answer the charges laid against him in the court-whose legitimacy he has rejected from the beginning-but to speak directly to the Iraqi people, urging an end to sectarian bloodshed and a continuation of armed resistance to the US occupation of their country. My conscience tells me that the great people of Iraq have nothing to do with these strange and horrid acts, the bombing of the shrine of Imam Ali al-Hadi and Hassan al-Askari ... which led to the burning of mosques in Baghdad, which are the houses of God, and the burning of other mosques in other cities of Iraq, Hussein said. He continued his address, brushing aside attempts by the tribunal's chief judge, Raouf Abdel-Rahman to silence him: The bloodshed that they (the US occupation authorities) have caused to the Iraqi people only made them more intent and strong to evict the foreigners from their land and liberate their country ... Let the people resist the invaders and their supporters rather than kill each other ... Oh Iraqis, men and women... those who blew up the shrine are shameful criminals. By this time, Abdel-Rahman was shouting hysterically. No more political speeches. We are a criminal court, a judicial court, we don't have anything to do with political issues or anything like this. Testify, he demanded. Hussein replied, Political issues are what brought you and me here, and continued with his prepared remarks, which faded in and out as the agitated judge repeatedly cut off his microphone. He denounced the US government as criminals who came under the pretext of weapons of mass destruction and the pretext of democracy. Again the judge cut him off, demanding: You are a defendant in a major criminal case, concerning the killing of innocents. You have to respond to this charge. In a sharp rejoinder, Hussein asked, What about those who are dying in Baghdad? Are they not innocents? Are they not Iraqis? ... Just yesterday, 80 bodies of Iraqis were discovered in Baghdad. Aren't they innocent? It was at this point that the judge ordered sound and video cut off entirely, blackening the screens of televisions tuned to the trial all over Iraq. The court has decided to turn this into a secret and closed session, he announced, ordering reporters to leave the chamber inside Baghdad's heavily fortified, US-controlled Green Zone. The trial had to be closed because the points made by Hussein are unassailable. The proceedings unquestionably represent a political show trial, staged by Washington in an effort to legitimize its invasion and occupation of Iraq. The court is the creation of an illegal act of aggression and its very existence constitutes a serious violation of international law, which explicitly bars occupying powers from imposing their own judicial bodies in the territories they occupy. The court is itself merely a façade for US military control over Iraq and the continuing abrogation of the sovereignty of its people. Behind the hand-picked judges, there is a battalion of US officials and lawyers who have orchestrated the entire affair. Even the television feed that the judge ordered shut down was set up by the US cable broadcasting company, Court TV, under a contract worked out by Washington. The more fundamental question posed by Hussein's intervention, of course is: what gives Washington the right to judge anyone for the crime of killing innocent Iraqis? There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein, whose Baathist regime defended the interests of the Iraqi ruling elite, carried out grave crimes against the Iraqi people. But the fact remains that at the time they were committed, his actions enjoyed the backing of Washington itself, which saw Iraq as a bulwark against Iran and far preferred Hussein over a revolutionary uprising of the oppressed Iraqi masses. Moreover, when it comes to the deaths of innocent Iraqis, those who set the policies of the US government have far eclipsed Saddam Hussein. By conservative estimates, over 100,000 Iraqis have died since the US invasion three years ago-more probable assessments put the figure at closer to a half a million. Since the first US war against Iraq 15 years ago, the death toll from US military action and the effects of punishing economic sanctions imposed at Washington's demand numbers well into the millions. The lives of millions more have been turned into a living hell by the US military occupation. Under these conditions, for those who carried out these policies to try the former Iraqi president on charges that he orchestrated the execution of 148
[Biofuel] Poorest Nations Hit Hardest by WTO Agenda, Study Finds
See: Winners and Losers: Impact of the Doha Round on Developing Countries By Sandra Polaski Publisher: Carnegie Endowment http://snipurl.com/ntf8 Full Text PDF (Black and White) http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/BWfinal.pdf --- http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0316-03.htm Published on Thursday, March 16, 2006 by Inter Press Service Poorest Nations Hit Hardest by WTO Agenda, Study Finds by Emad Mekay WASHINGTON - According to Winners and Losers by Sandra Polaski, a researcher with the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the so-called Doha Development Round, which launched the current trade World Trade Organisation talks, will not actually generate development benefits for poor nations as initially promised. The biggest losers are many Sub-Saharan African countries, already among the world's poorest, which could actually see a loss in income in the region of one percent. There are both net winners and net losers under different scenarios, and the poorest countries are among the net losers under all likely Doha scenarios, says the study. While critics of the 149-member World Trade Organisation (WTO) have long argued the same point, the findings of the report bolster their position even as the world's richest nations aggressively pursue new markets. The 116-page study is based on unemployment models in developing countries that separate agricultural labour markets from urban unskilled labour markets. Polaski, a former State Department trade official, worked with a team headed by Zhi Wang, a renowned statistical modeler who also previously worked for the U.S. government. She discussed their conclusions in Washington on Wednesday. Polaski's main finding is that free trade will produce only modest gains at the global level, on the order of a one-time rise in world income of between 40 to 60 billion dollars, or an increase of less than 0.2 percent of current global gross domestic product (GDP). The report says that the adjustment costs to which countries expose themselves when they commit to the free trade policies promoted by the industrialised nations could in fact be greater than the benefits. The Doha Round, so named for a meeting in the capital of Qatar in 2001, has stalled over a number of trade issues, and several meetings since have failed to jumpstart it. Last December's WTO ministerial meeting in Hong Kong made little progress in many contentious areas. The European Union and Japan have refused to offer significant new market access for agricultural goods, while the United States made its approval for further opening its markets conditional on that of the EU and Japan and of major developing countries, like India and Brazil. Washington has also resisted reducing trade-distorting domestic agricultural subsidies, a crucial demand for poor nations. India and Brazil, two key nations in the talks, say they will not be able to unlock trade in manufactured goods and services without concessions from rich nations on agriculture, among other demands. A mini-ministerial meeting held in Davos, Switzerland in late January and another meeting in London earlier this month both failed to change these negotiating dynamics. The Carnegie Endowment report says that one of the reasons developing nations are likely to suffer under the proposals currently on the table is that that many of the most economically powerful countries will continue to insist that any agreement must accommodate their interests. As a result, the Doha Round will probably achieve only modest changes in any sector, says the study. It says that at the country level, maximum gains or losses are about one percent of GDP for the most affected economies. It predicts the biggest winner to be China, with gains ranging from 0.8 to 1.2 percent of GDP under different scenarios. The biggest losers are many Sub-Saharan African countries, already among the world's poorest, which could actually see a loss in income in the region of one percent. On the all-important question of agricultural goods, the study finds that because many poor nations are net food importers and rely on low-productivity, small-scale subsistence farming, which is generally not competitive in global markets, the benefits of agricultural trade liberalisation will flow overwhelmingly to rich countries. Developing countries will also lose relative advantages that now exist under preferential trade deals, the study says. A few countries could gain in the agricultural arena, notably Brazil, Argentina, and Thailand, but more will suffer small losses from agricultural liberalisation. The losers include many of the poorest countries in the world, such as Bangladesh and the countries of East Africa. Middle Eastern and North African countries, Vietnam, Mexico and China would also experience losses. It is important not to overstate the possible gains from the Doha Round, as has been
[Biofuel] Emissions Scheme Improves Profits, Not Air
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0317-05.htm Published on Friday, March 17, 2006 by the Inter Press Service Emissions Scheme Improves Profits, Not Air by Julio Godoy PARIS - In France, the chemicals group Rhodia invested 20 million dollars in 1998 at its facility in Mullhouse near the border with Germany to reduce emissions of nitrous oxide, one of the most damaging greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases such as nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide and methane are believed to lead to warming of the atmosphere and consequently to disruption of climate patterns. In return for this small investment, Rhodia obtained carbon emission receipts (CERs) that are now valued at more than a billion dollars on the emission rights exchange system that has been operating in Europe for the past six months. The company made similar investments at its facilities in Onsan in South Korea and Paulinia in Brazil. Under the Kyoto protocol, reduction of emissions a company produces through investments in developing countries also counts as savings for the purpose of its domestic emissions market. Since the company has reduced emissions below permissible limits, it earned the right to sell its right to more emissions within its quota to companies producing more than their allowed limits. The extraordinary return on investment from the trade in CERs has brought Rhodia unexpected profit. The company has been struggling for years with high raw material prices and a general slowdown in economic growth. As the political accord to establish a market-led mechanism to trade in greenhouse gas emission rights was reached, it was normal that private corporations such as Rhodia try to profit financially from it, Rhodia director-general Jean-Pierre Clamadieu said at a press conference. The European Union, responsible for more than 22 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, has agreed to cut them by eight percent from the emission levels recorded in 1990. To that end the EU created a system of emission rights in 2002 allocated to each country in relation to its past emissions. Emission rights quotas can be traded on a special stock exchange system called Powernext based in Paris, which has been functional since June 2005. In January this year Powernext registered transactions of 1.9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emission rights, representing a growth of 163 percent over the average monthly volume traded between June and December 2005. The carbon emissions market is in expansion, you can talk of a bull market, Powernext marketing director Thierry Carol told IPS. While these figures suggest that the scheme is working successfully, environmental organisations say large firms are profiting from the scheme without producing a substantial reduction of emissions. In Germany the five big energy firms are adding the cost of emissions to the prices they are charging consumers, a WWF report says. WWF, an environmental group, estimates that the emission rights allocated to the five energy firms represent a maximum cost of some 400 million dollars a year. But by adding the emission rights to their price calculation, the energy firms are cashing in up to 10 billion dollars per year, the report adds. The profits for the five German energy providers could soar to more than 75 billion dollars for the period 2005 to 2112, Matthias Kopp, one of the authors of the WWF paper told IPS. The profits are completely legal. ___ 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] Foreign Corporations Backing Off
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13403 CorpWatch : WORLD: Foreign Corporations Backing Off by Diego Cevallos, Inter Press Service News Agency March 16th, 2006 Foreign Corporations Backing Off Diego Cevallos* MEXICO CITY, Mar 16 (Tierramérica) - Water rights groups say transnational corporations are increasingly sinking their teeth into Latin America's water services, but studies by the United Nations and other experts point to the contrary: these companies are backing off, and may not come back any time soon. Demands by governments and social movements, as in Argentina and Bolivia; the impossibility of charging for water services in some countries; and the implementation of legislation that prevents their participation in the water sector, as in Uruguay, have discouraged the transnationals. So now they are withdrawing from the region, or narrowing the scope of their services, because of what they see as high political and financial risks, says the latest UN World Water Development Report, presented ahead of the 4th World Water Forum, taking place in the Mexican capital Mar. 16-22. In the 1990s, the water transnationals invested some 25 billion dollars in developing countries in projects related to water management, especially in Latin America and Asia, says the report. But in recent years investment has been on the decline. It's difficult for private water companies to make money when consumers cannot pay for the service, says Gordon Young, coordinator of the World Water Assessment Programme, which produced the report. Although the study acknowledges that the performance of the private sector has not met the expectations of the donor countries or the developing countries' governments, in a conversation with Tierramérica Young argued that it would be a mistake to rule out private participation in water management. Observers consulted by Tierramérica said the retreat of the foreign companies from the Latin American water sector, where they arrived in the 1980s and 1990s encouraged by the privatising reforms of the governments, could be definitive. I don't think they'll be back. They're in the middle of a corporate reorganisation and shifting their resources to the much more lucrative energy sector, said Sara Grusky, researcher with the Washington-based non-governmental group Food and Water Watch. Powerful firms like the French Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux and Veolia Environnement (previously known as Vivendi), the British Thames Water and Spain's Aguas de Barcelona cut a path for themselves in the water markets of the developing world. According to Ralph Daley, director of the Canada-based International Network on Water, Environment and Health at the UN University, the private companies are leaving South America and other regions because the risks are too high. But water rights activists say that the wave of water privatisation is unstoppable, and they are preparing a series of actions parallel to the World Water Forum, an event they charge is promoting the participation of foreign companies in water management to the detriment of community participation. Water is a public good and a basic right that must not be subject to the logic of cost-benefit, which is why it should remain under management by the state and with community participation, Javier Bogantes, director of the non-governmental Latin American Water Tribunal, told Tierramérica. In Latin America, where there are huge water resources, for the most part it has been governments, municipalities and local authorities that have controlled water services. However, they were not able to ensure that everyone had access to the precious resource. Several studies indicate that around 77 million people in Latin America and the Caribbean lack adequate access to potable water, and just one out of six inhabitants has access to adequate sanitation. The Forum in Mexico is the fourth global water meet, following Morocco in 1997, Netherlands in 2000 and Japan in 2003. The main purpose is to come up with effective strategies to ensure universal and sustainable distribution of water resources, say the event's organisers. Hosting the Forum are the Mexican government of President Vicente Fox and the World Water Council, which was founded in the mid-1990s by representatives from the private, academic, scientific and civil society sectors. Miguel Solanes, regional adviser for legislation on water and public services for the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC, a UN agency), told Tierramércia that the time has come to recognise that there is a certain prudence with respect to privatisation of water services in the region. This cautious attitude is seen not only in the governments, but also in the transnational corporations, which did not much enjoy the situation they faced in Argentina or Bolivia, said Solanes. In the former, the company Aguas Argentinas, controlled
Re: [Biofuel] The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse
Meanwhile Back at the time of a major Bush-1 drug war in 1989, Hodding Carter pointed out that with increasing attention to the newly declared crisis by the administration and media, the public's estimate of the importance of the drug problem rose spectacularly. Today's big news is the drug war. The president says so, so television says so, newspapers and magazines say so, and the public says so. Today's big news is the possibility that Iran, the Little Satan, might some day acquire a nuclear weapon: the administration says so, the media say so, and now three times as many people regard Iran as the U.S.'s greatest menace than four months ago and 47 percent of the public agrees that Iran should be bombed if needed to prevent its acquiring any nuclear weapon capability. The system works this mobilization process like a well-oiled propaganda machine--which it is--and it can apparently sell almost anything in the way of justifying external violence to a large fraction of the populace, at least in the short run. -- From: Uncle Chutzpah and His Willing Executioners on the Dire Iran Threat: With Twelve Principles of War Propaganda in Ongoing Service By Edward S. Herman March 15, 2006 http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=67ItemID=9910 And ain't that just the problem. Best Keith It's been posted before, but no matter. For more, see: http://snipurl.com/nt4o [Biofuel] The End of Dollar Hegemony Thu Mar 16 2006 http://snipurl.com/nt4p [Biofuel] Why Iran's oil bourse can't break the buck Best Keith urls: http://snipurl.com/nt4q [Biofuel] The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11613.htm The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse NEWS YOU WON'T FIND ON CNN Abstract: the proposed Iranian Oil Bourse will accelerate the fall of the American Empire. By Krassimir Petrov, Ph.D. I. Economics of Empires 01/19/06 Gold Eagle -- -- A nation-state taxes its own citizens, while an 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] Fwd: Algae - was Re: [wastewatts] Re: Nuclear Power
Here's a DOE report. http://www.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/biodiesel_from_algae.pdf This reports sez that micro algae could produce quads (quadrillions) BTU's. Here's a bio diesel forum that alleges production of biodiesel from algae in ponds. http://forums.biodieselnow.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3153 There is also an utility company that along with other alternatives has been successfully growing algae via coal fired exhaust gases. However, the budget has yet to be approved for actual biodiesel production. Algae yields have been very high. However, fast growth does not guarantee optimized oil production. Regards, JQ Keith Addison wrote: Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 23:49:28 +0900 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [wastewatts] Re: Nuclear Power Hello Bobby Has anybody yet produced any biodiesel from green algae so far? Real biodiesel, not just theoretical biodiesel or if-only biodiesel. Best wishes Keith Addison Geoffrey, You (and others) are invited to join my group on growing algae to produce oil. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oil_from_algae/join Be warned that we do not have a time-tested recipe for you to follow. We are trying to figure out how to do it. Bobby On 3/14/06, Geoffrey Swenson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 02:29:03 +0900 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [wastewatts] Re: Nuclear Power Hello Bobby Thanks for the reply. Keith, You have brought up something I am very suspicious about. The government ran a study for almost 20 years and spent millions of your and my money. Well, not my money, I'm not US. I know about the study though. A Look Back at the U.S. Department of Energy's Aquatic Species Program-Biodiesel from Algae July 1998 By John Sheehan Terri Dunahay John Benemann Paul Roessler Prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Fuels Development http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy98/24190.pdf When they got to the point where they could make bio-diesel, even if only in small quantities, they folded the research. I am suspicious that they knew all along that there was some fatal flaw in this idea and was just milking the research tap for a nice research project with nice salaries. Then when it got to the point that they could produce some real world results, they announced it was going to be too expensive. Sounds like it could be a convenient cover for gracefully getting out of a project that they knew could not work. Maybe, stranger things have happened. Other objections were land and water requirements, and that it would use GMO algae with little chance of containing them. I hope that is just my paranoia about the government wasting our money and now that diesel costs twice as much (almost), the idea is worthwhile again. It's interesting that you still doubt that, even after running your group for a year or two. The good news: A professor was grossing about not having the centrifuge that he needed to get the oil out of the algae. The VP of a bio-diesel producer said, "I will buy the centrifuge if I get the first liter of algae oil." The professor agreed. So we should soon have a test. He plans to run 1/2 liter as SVO and to process the other 1/2 as biodiesel and feed both 1/2s to his truck. So we should soon have a tentative answer. Good luck! As of right now though, biodiesel from algae is not something that exists. I guess you can see that's the answer I expected, though I'd've been quite happy if you'd said it does exist. Success to the professor. I've heard that before though, that results are just round the corner, but nothing has ever come of it so far. There've been quite a few attempts by members of the Biofuel list over the years but they've all failed. Or so I presume - great hopes at first, then silence. What I find a bit amazing is that so many people see biodiesel from algae as THE solution - it will replace our existing use of fossil fuels, and I suppose then we can all go on guzzling for evermore without a care, there's no threat to the good old daily fix after all, phew! See a headline saying something like "How much land is needed to replace fossil fuels used for transportation?" and you know you'll be reading about biodiesel from algae soon. These days you see similar headlines all the time. And there isn't any such thing as biodiesel from algae. Replacing fossil-fuels use isn't an option anyway, sad to say. Actually, no, I'm not very sad to say that. It's mostly just waste, after all. "How much fuel can we grow? How much land will it take?" http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html#howmuch Please don't think I'm getting at what you're doing, backyard DIY biodiesel from algae would surely be worthwhile, or even a couple of
[Biofuel] The Age of Autism: Pay no attention
It appears that our Center for Disease Control (CDC)has been "improved" by the Bushites. It no longer seems to know what its function is or was.Peace, D. Mindock P.S. Steely Dan is an all-time fave. The Age of Autism: Pay no attention By DAN OLMSTED There's a Steely Dan album called Pretzel Logic that could be the theme song of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as it struggles with concerns over vaccines and autism. At least in our view, it is a bit twisted -- logically speaking -- to simultaneously spend taxpayer money to keep studying whether a mercury preservative causes autism, yet recommend that pregnant women and children get vaccines containing that preservative. Especially so when alternatives are available that are free of the preservative, called thimerosal. It is puzzling to urge, as the CDC did in 1999, that thimerosal ought to be phased out as soon as possible from all childhood vaccines used in the United States -- yet successfully fight efforts this year by state legislatures to codify a ban. It is peculiar to issue an "Autism Alarm," as the CDC did in 2004 -- then publish a 72-page annual report in 2005 that mentions the perils of Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, cryptosporidiosis, leprosy and the four people "killed by rabies transmitted through transplanted organs or tissues in 2004," yet never use the word autism, not once. (Check it out at www.cdc.gov/cdc.pdf) Perhaps the oddest, though subtlest, anomaly is the seeming resistance by the CDC to the idea that the autism rate might be declining. Our last column reported a new study that suggests it could well be. The study's authors are firmly convinced a drop in autism cases in two separate government databases -- one run by the CDC, the other by the state of California -- proves thimerosal is the big culprit in autism. That's a step we're not ready to take, to the consternation of some in the anti-thimerosal movement. But wouldn't even tentative signs of a decrease, for whatever conceivable reason, be welcome and hopeful? Instead, the CDC seems keen to clobber any suggestion that autism might be declining. In Thursday's Boston-area Herald News Tribune, reporter Jon Brodkin quotes Dr. Robert Davis, director of the immunization safety group at the CDC, as saying: "I don't think this study can really be taken to provide any evidence one way or another." Davis also said one of the databases the study authors used -- the CDC's own Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System -- is unreliable because anyone can report any health problem as a possible vaccine side effect. Fair enough, but new cases in that database seem to be declining in tandem with new cases in California's special education system. And those California numbers are widely regarded as the most reliable count of full-syndrome, professionally diagnosed autism cases in the United States. P.S.: The most recent figures from the U.S. Department of Education also dropped. But so what, say the CDC and others who are on record (and, let's face it, on the line) backing thimerosal to the hilt and asserting there is no connection between vaccines and autism. "The Department of Education numbers are skewed, another official said, because the DOE did not make autism a separate diagnosis until the 1990s," Brodkin reported. "That led to an artificial increase because children who previously had different diagnoses were then considered autistic, said Dr. Marie McCormick, a Harvard professor who chaired an Institute of Medicine committee that dismissed any link between vaccines and autism." What's intriguing is how all this dovetails with comments made last summer by Dr. Julie Gerberding, director of the CDC, at a press conference in Washington set up to defend vaccine safety. Here is the question she was asked: "Can you address the ... California study that basically showed that there was an increase in autism in direct relation to the 1990s when the series of vaccines were increased, and now since thimerosal has been taken out there is a slight decrease in autistic cases?" Responded Gerberding: "The California study, as you know, is an ongoing study and they are addressing the estimates of autism prevalence on a quarterly basis, sort of like the stock market bounces around a little bit. The most recent reading from that study is in fact that the rates are increasing, they have not shown a decline." That's one way to look at it. Here's another, from reporter Thomas Maugh II in The Los Angeles Times on July 13: "The number of newly diagnosed cases of autism in California, which had been skyrocketing for more than a decade, has leveled off and may even be declining, according to new data compiled by the state Department of Developmental Services." Some parents who listened in on Gerberding's comments did not like comparing the autism rate to the stock market. But the bigger issue is the odd, official resistance to the idea
[Biofuel] A Third-Party Path to Centrist Power
FYI - In watching the nationalDemocrats' often disappointing and flaccid behavior these days,a lot of folks often ask me - what's the alternative to the Democratic Party? The answer is thatit doesn't have to be an either/or, zero-sumalternative with fusion voting. Attached is my newest piece in the San Francisco Chronicle which shows how one third party is using this system to build up very real, very centrist and very progressive power in one of America's largest states. - D. Sirota__http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/03/15/EDGH1HO34I1.DTLSan Francisco Chronicle - March 15, 2006Fusion's Third-Party Path to the CenterBy David SirotaWHEN ALAN GREENSPAN makes predictions, the political establishment listens. So eyebrows raised last month when the former Federal Reserve chairman said we may see the rise of a third party that appeals to America's "center." Though he acknowledged that our system is rigged against third parties, there is evidence Greenspan may be right. That evidence is not Ross Perot, Ralph Nader or Jesse Ventura: it's the Working Families Party (WFP), and it provides a model for centrist third-party power everywhere.Based in New York, the WFP has become a major force in one of America's largest states. That's no small accomplishment. New York may have a liberal reputation, but it sports deep hues of both urban blue and rural red. The WFP's platform almost exclusively promotes kitchen-table economic positions, such as supporting higher wages, preventing outsourcing and expanding health care. The WFP does not focus on forcing voters to make impossible choices between minor and major parties. Instead, it takes advantage of New York being one of eight states allowing minor parties to cross-endorse major-party candidates.In this "fusion" system, candidates appear on the ballot lines of all the parties that endorse them. The WFP, thus, leverages power by selectively awarding its line to candidates who support its agenda. So, for example, Hillary Clinton in 2000 received 102,000 votes for U.S. Senate on the WFP line, meaning 102,000 people sent her a message that their support was contingent on her supporting the WFP's agenda. According to WFP Executive Director Dan Cantor, this message gets louder down the ballot. "We brand our endorsed candidates right on the ballot so that voters who might not know the candidate still know how to vote on the important issues," he says.In its eight-year existence, the WFP has substantially increased its vote count, meaning candidates now compete for the party's endorsement by trying to out-do opponents in supporting the WFP's agenda. The result is real third-party power -- not just aspirations. In 2004, for instance, the WFP used a strategic endorsement to get Republican lawmakers to override GOP Gov. George Pataki's veto of a minimum-wage increase. Similarly, last week the WFP successfully pressured both major parties to introduce legislation forcing businesses such as Wal-Mart to provide better benefits to workers.Major parties usually hate third parties. But major-party, WFP-backed candidates don't because they get a boost. In 2002, for instance, Democrat Tim Bishop upset U.S. Rep. Felix Grucci, a New York Republican, by 2,700 votes. Bishop received 2,900 votes on the WFP line, meaning the WFP provided the margin of victory. That included 1,600 votes from people who simultaneously supported Bishop on the WFP line for Congress, and either Republican Pataki or right-wing billionaire Thomas Golisano for governor. These were conservative voters, who the WFP convinced to ticket-split in the race. "We're trying to help candidates win," Cantor says. "But, we're trying to help them win by defining the center as the place where common sense and progressive ideas live."Greenspan, a conservative, probably wasn't envisioning Cantor's "center" when he made his comments. But a February WFP poll shows the public certainly sees the WFP's agenda that way. Voters in two of the most closely-decided Bush states were read a description of the WFP as a party that fights on "pocketbook" issues "like the outsourcing of jobs to other countries, the cost of prescription drugs and increasing the minimum wage." Voters then rated the party on a scale where 1 was extremely liberal and 9 extremely conservative. Fifty-seven percent of voters labeled the WFP at 5 or above.Clearly, fusion parties can unify culturally diverse constituencies around an economically populist agenda. That's why, at the end of the 19th century, monied interests opposed to that agenda outlawed fusion parties in most states. As one industry-backed anti-fusion legislator said back then, "We don't mind fighting you one at a time, but the combination we detest."It is this "combination" that must again be legalized everywhere if we expect to see a national, sturdy -- and yes,
Re: [Biofuel] Fwd: Algae - was Re: [wastewatts] Re: Nuclear Power
Hello James Here's a DOE report. http://www.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/biodiesel_from_algae.pdf This reports sez that micro algae could produce quads (quadrillions) BTU's. Could. But don't. Not one BTU so far. Here's a bio diesel forum that alleges production of biodiesel from algae in ponds. http://forums.biodieselnow.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3153 Marc Carduso of Ecogenics said similar things here at the Biofuel list a while back. He referred to photographs at his website which as far as we could see showed some duckweed and not much else. He was asked directly if he was producing oil from algae and didn't answer directly. He also had quite grand plans for making biodiesel and if you went to his website you'd think they were more than just plans, but that's all they were at the time, he was still struggling with his first test batches. I'm not saying he hasn't since produced biodiesel from algae but I wouldn't argue with your choice of the word alleges. There is also an utility company that along with other alternatives has been successfully growing algae via coal fired exhaust gases. However, the budget has yet to be approved for actual biodiesel production. Algae yields have been very high. However, fast growth does not guarantee optimized oil production. Yes, announced in June last year with much glee from algae fans saying things like Algae biodiesel is here! But it isn't, is it? Not yet. And if it's going to take coal fired exhaust gases to feed the stuff I think I can live without it. Whatever, biodiesel from algae is not something that exists. Not yet. Not yet, not yet, not yet. I think you just read the first few lines of this post. If you'd gone a bit further before springing to the defence of algae you'd have seen that it's the DOE report you refer to that we're discussing, along with why the project was abandoned before it produced anything. And that Bobby Emory, who's been running a Yahoo group specifically on algae biodiesel for a couple of years now, says no biodiesel has yet been produced from algae, and he still has doubts that it will work. (But it's just around the corner.) Give it a read, it's still there. This has been going on for years now. People seem to fall in love with the idea of endless biodiesel from algae and seem quite undeterred by the fact that nobody's made any yet. Most peculiar, IMHO. Also it seems you're not allowed to say that or they think you're a bad guy who hates algae and you don't want to save the world. Well, I don't want to save SUVs, that's true, but I'm not a man who hates algae, nor indeed biodiesel made from it, if only there were such a thing, but there's not. I just said at Wastewatts that I'd support small-scale biodiesel from algae technology efforts because it could provide another option, not replace the existing options. The more options the better. I wonder though what algae might have to offer other than fabulously high yields which have never been demonstrated. After all, zero BTU in 30 years of searching is not a very high yield. But even if it turns out to be truly 15,000 gallons per acre or whatever, yields are not everything, they're not even important in some cases. Yield is just one aspect. By all accounts it's difficult stuff to handle, lots of people have tried, including right here, and nobody's managed it yet. If there turns out to be an easy way maybe there's an application in say inner-city areas maybe, but then that sounds a bit like the people who propose growing food for poor people in inner cities in indoor hydroponics farms, citing great yield data, but it turns out roof gardens and city gardens and city farms are a much better idea, for a lot of reasons, and they're very productive anyway. There's no magic bullet. Best Keith Regards, JQ Keith Addison wrote: Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 23:49:28 +0900 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [wastewatts] Re: Nuclear Power Hello Bobby Has anybody yet produced any biodiesel from green algae so far? Real biodiesel, not just theoretical biodiesel or if-only biodiesel. Best wishes Keith Addison Geoffrey, You (and others) are invited to join my group on growing algae to produce oil. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oil_from_algae/join Be warned that we do not have a time-tested recipe for you to follow. We are trying to figure out how to do it. Bobby On 3/14/06, Geoffrey Swenson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 02:29:03 +0900 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [wastewatts] Re: Nuclear Power Hello Bobby Thanks for the reply. Keith, You have brought up something I am very suspicious about. The government ran a study for almost 20 years and spent millions of your and my money. Well, not my money, I'm not US. I know about the study though. A Look Back at the U.S. Department of Energy's Aquatic Species
[Biofuel] Respond on coal gassification
hi i think i might be able to help you on this one, i am working for sasol in south africa and coal gassification is one of our major processes, now if you can tell me exactly what you need to know i can organise that information for you. thanks Alex [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am using the program Aspen, I view some possibilities about equation Redlich-Kwong and I think that it's betteer to analysed the system with Gibbs Free Energy. I need some helps, how to implementation e miscellaneous gas, that produced from e gassifier. Who can help me? Thanks a lot. Best regards Ezio ___ 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/ ___ For super low premiums, click here http://www.webmail.co.za/dd.pwm http://www.webmail.co.za the South African FREE email service ___ 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] Fwd: Algae - was Re: [wastewatts] Re: Nuclear Power
The algae production experiment done with coal fired exhaust has clean up stack emissions greatly. I will contact you if I see first hand biodiesel production. They just got their funding 3 mos. late. I'd been assisting the project with diesel genset selection. Regards, JQ Keith Addison wrote: Hello James Here's a DOE report. http://www.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/biodiesel_from_algae.pdf This reports sez that micro algae could produce quads (quadrillions) BTU's. "Could". But don't. Not one BTU so far. Here's a bio diesel forum that alleges production of biodiesel from algae in ponds. http://forums.biodieselnow.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3153 Marc Carduso of Ecogenics said similar things here at the Biofuel list a while back. He referred to photographs at his website which as far as we could see showed some duckweed and not much else. He was asked directly if he was producing oil from algae and didn't answer directly. He also had quite grand plans for making biodiesel and if you went to his website you'd think they were more than just plans, but that's all they were at the time, he was still struggling with his first test batches. I'm not saying he hasn't since produced biodiesel from algae but I wouldn't argue with your choice of the word "alleges". There is also an utility company that along with other alternatives has been successfully growing algae via coal fired exhaust gases. However, the budget has yet to be approved for actual biodiesel production. Algae yields have been very high. However, fast growth does not guarantee optimized oil production. Yes, announced in June last year with much glee from algae fans saying things like "Algae biodiesel is here!" But it isn't, is it? Not yet. And if it's going to take coal fired exhaust gases to feed the stuff I think I can live without it. Whatever, biodiesel from algae is not something that exists. Not yet. Not yet, not yet, not yet. I think you just read the first few lines of this post. If you'd gone a bit further before springing to the defence of algae you'd have seen that it's the DOE report you refer to that we're discussing, along with why the project was abandoned before it produced anything. And that Bobby Emory, who's been running a Yahoo group specifically on algae biodiesel for a couple of years now, says no biodiesel has yet been produced from algae, and he still has doubts that it will work. (But it's just around the corner.) Give it a read, it's still there. This has been going on for years now. People seem to fall in love with the idea of endless biodiesel from algae and seem quite undeterred by the fact that nobody's made any yet. Most peculiar, IMHO. Also it seems you're not allowed to say that or they think you're a bad guy who hates algae and you don't want to save the world. Well, I don't want to save SUVs, that's true, but I'm not a man who hates algae, nor indeed biodiesel made from it, if only there were such a thing, but there's not. I just said at Wastewatts that I'd support small-scale biodiesel from algae technology efforts because it could provide another option, not replace the existing options. The more options the better. I wonder though what algae might have to offer other than fabulously high yields which have never been demonstrated. After all, zero BTU in 30 years of searching is not a very high yield. But even if it turns out to be truly 15,000 gallons per acre or whatever, yields are not everything, they're not even important in some cases. Yield is just one aspect. By all accounts it's difficult stuff to handle, lots of people have tried, including right here, and nobody's managed it yet. If there turns out to be an easy way maybe there's an application in say inner-city areas maybe, but then that sounds a bit like the people who propose growing food for poor people in inner cities in indoor hydroponics farms, citing great yield data, but it turns out roof gardens and city gardens and city farms are a much better idea, for a lot of reasons, and they're very productive anyway. There's no magic bullet. Best Keith Regards, JQ Keith Addison wrote: Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 23:49:28 +0900 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [wastewatts] Re: Nuclear Power Hello Bobby Has anybody yet produced any biodiesel from green algae so far? Real biodiesel, not just theoretical biodiesel or if-only biodiesel. Best wishes Keith Addison Geoffrey, You (and others) are invited to join my group on growing algae to produce oil. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oil_from_algae/join Be warned that we do not have a time-tested recipe for you to follow. We are trying to figure out how to do it. Bobby On 3/14/06, Geoffrey Swenson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip
[Biofuel] Making BD with tallow only
Hi, first of all, thank you very much to all of you for sharing your knowledge and experience, this list has been very useful to me. Im a small producer ofBD in the norh part of Mexico, we have madeBD for a few months with WVO only and we hadgreat results following the Aleks Kac acid-base formula, with some little changes. We tried the same formula for making BD with tallowonly, but we obtained very bad results, after all the process the tallow gets back to its original shape, hard white fat, like nothing happened to it. Anyone knows what can i do to make a good reaction with the tallow?Thanks a lotfor your time. Yahoo! Mail Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.___ 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] A Third-Party Path to Centrist Power
Andrew, I don't know how this is happening. You are in my address book, but I definitely do not put your email address in the "To" text box. Anyway I deleted your name from the address book of Outlook Express. Let's hope this solves the problem. Peace, D. Mindock P.S. As of this moment, only biofuel is in the "To" entry. Let's see what happens... - Original Message - From: Andrew Netherton To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 4:17 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] A Third-Party Path to Centrist Power Hello,I have received a number of e-mails from you that have also been directed to the biofuels mailing list. I already subscribe to the list, and do not appreciate the duplication. Please remove my address from your records and direct your e-mails solely to the mailing list. Thank you. Andrew On 3/19/06, D. Mindock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FYI - In watching the nationalDemocrats' often disappointing and flaccid behavior these days,a lot of folks often ask me - what's the alternative to the Democratic Party? The answer is thatit doesn't have to be an either/or, zero-sumalternative with fusion voting. Attached is my newest piece in the San Francisco Chronicle which shows how one third party is using this system to build up very real, very centrist and very progressive power in one of America's largest states. - D. Sirota__http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/03/15/EDGH1HO34I1.DTL San Francisco Chronicle - March 15, 2006Fusion's Third-Party Path to the CenterBy David SirotaWHEN ALAN GREENSPAN makes predictions, the political establishment listens. So eyebrows raised last month when the former Federal Reserve chairman said we may see the rise of a third party that appeals to America's "center." Though he acknowledged that our system is rigged against third parties, there is evidence Greenspan may be right. That evidence is not Ross Perot, Ralph Nader or Jesse Ventura: it's the Working Families Party (WFP), and it provides a model for centrist third-party power everywhere.Based in New York, the WFP has become a major force in one of America's largest states. That's no small accomplishment. New York may have a liberal reputation, but it sports deep hues of both urban blue and rural red. The WFP's platform almost exclusively promotes kitchen-table economic positions, such as supporting higher wages, preventing outsourcing and expanding health care. The WFP does not focus on forcing voters to make impossible choices between minor and major parties. Instead, it takes advantage of New York being one of eight states allowing minor parties to cross-endorse major-party candidates.In this "fusion" system, candidates appear on the ballot lines of all the parties that endorse them. The WFP, thus, leverages power by selectively awarding its line to candidates who support its agenda. So, for example, Hillary Clinton in 2000 received 102,000 votes for U.S. Senate on the WFP line, meaning 102,000 people sent her a message that their support was contingent on her supporting the WFP's agenda. According to WFP Executive Director Dan Cantor, this message gets louder down the ballot. "We brand our endorsed candidates right on the ballot so that voters who might not know the candidate still know how to vote on the important issues," he says.In its eight-year existence, the WFP has substantially increased its vote count, meaning candidates now compete for the party's endorsement by trying to out-do opponents in supporting the WFP's agenda. The result is real third-party power -- not just aspirations. In 2004, for instance, the WFP used a strategic endorsement to get Republican lawmakers to override GOP Gov. George Pataki's veto of a minimum-wage increase. Similarly, last week the WFP successfully pressured both major parties to introduce legislation forcing businesses such as Wal-Mart to provide better benefits to workers.Major parties usually hate third parties. But major-party, WFP-backed candidates don't because they get a boost. In 2002, for instance, Democrat Tim Bishop upset U.S. Rep. Felix Grucci, a New York Republican, by 2,700 votes. Bishop received 2,900 votes on the WFP line, meaning the WFP provided the margin of victory. That included 1,600 votes from people who simultaneously supported Bishop on the WFP line for Congress, and either Republican Pataki or right-wing billionaire Thomas Golisano for governor. These were conservative voters, who the WFP convinced to ticket-split in the race. "We're trying to help candidates win," Cantor says. "But, we're trying to help them win by defining the center
Re: [Biofuel] Fwd: Algae - was Re: [wastewatts] Re: Nuclear Power
Hello James The algae production experiment done with coal fired exhaust has clean up stack emissions greatly. A different subject. I will contact you if I see first hand biodiesel production. They just got their funding 3 mos. late. I'd been assisting the project with diesel genset selection. Meanwhile however, not yet. Best Keith Regards, JQ Keith Addison wrote: Hello James Here's a DOE report. http://www.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/biodiesel_from_algae.pdf This reports sez that micro algae could produce quads (quadrillions) BTU's. Could. But don't. Not one BTU so far. Here's a bio diesel forum that alleges production of biodiesel from algae in ponds. http://forums.biodieselnow.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3153 Marc Carduso of Ecogenics said similar things here at the Biofuel list a while back. He referred to photographs at his website which as far as we could see showed some duckweed and not much else. He was asked directly if he was producing oil from algae and didn't answer directly. He also had quite grand plans for making biodiesel and if you went to his website you'd think they were more than just plans, but that's all they were at the time, he was still struggling with his first test batches. I'm not saying he hasn't since produced biodiesel from algae but I wouldn't argue with your choice of the word alleges. There is also an utility company that along with other alternatives has been successfully growing algae via coal fired exhaust gases. However, the budget has yet to be approved for actual biodiesel production. Algae yields have been very high. However, fast growth does not guarantee optimized oil production. Yes, announced in June last year with much glee from algae fans saying things like Algae biodiesel is here! But it isn't, is it? Not yet. And if it's going to take coal fired exhaust gases to feed the stuff I think I can live without it. Whatever, biodiesel from algae is not something that exists. Not yet. Not yet, not yet, not yet. I think you just read the first few lines of this post. If you'd gone a bit further before springing to the defence of algae you'd have seen that it's the DOE report you refer to that we're discussing, along with why the project was abandoned before it produced anything. And that Bobby Emory, who's been running a Yahoo group specifically on algae biodiesel for a couple of years now, says no biodiesel has yet been produced from algae, and he still has doubts that it will work. (But it's just around the corner.) Give it a read, it's still there. This has been going on for years now. People seem to fall in love with the idea of endless biodiesel from algae and seem quite undeterred by the fact that nobody's made any yet. Most peculiar, IMHO. Also it seems you're not allowed to say that or they think you're a bad guy who hates algae and you don't want to save the world. Well, I don't want to save SUVs, that's true, but I'm not a man who hates algae, nor indeed biodiesel made from it, if only there were such a thing, but there's not. I just said at Wastewatts that I'd support small-scale biodiesel from algae technology efforts because it could provide another option, not replace the existing options. The more options the better. I wonder though what algae might have to offer other than fabulously high yields which have never been demonstrated. After all, zero BTU in 30 years of searching is not a very high yield. But even if it turns out to be truly 15,000 gallons per acre or whatever, yields are not everything, they're not even important in some cases. Yield is just one aspect. By all accounts it's difficult stuff to handle, lots of people have tried, including right here, and nobody's managed it yet. If there turns out to be an easy way maybe there's an application in say inner-city areas maybe, but then that sounds a bit like the people who propose growing food for poor people in inner cities in indoor hydroponics farms, citing great yield data, but it turns out roof gardens and city gardens and city farms are a much better idea, for a lot of reasons, and they're very productive anyway. There's no magic bullet. Best Keith Regards, JQ Keith Addison wrote: Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 23:49:28 +0900 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [wastewatts] Re: Nuclear Power Hello Bobby Has anybody yet produced any biodiesel from green algae so far? Real biodiesel, not just theoretical biodiesel or if-only biodiesel. Best wishes Keith Addison Geoffrey, You (and others) are invited to join my group on growing algae to produce oil. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oil_from_algae/join Be warned that we do not have a time-tested recipe for you to follow. We are trying to figure out how to do it. Bobby On 3/14/06, Geoffrey Swenson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 02:29:03 +0900 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Keith
Re: [Biofuel] Making BD with tallow only
I suggest that you use the Base - Base method, It woirks best for me when using animal fats. The acid base method is better for WVO. Jorge De Leon wrote: Hi, first of all, thank you very much to all of you for sharing your knowledge and experience, this list has been very useful to me. Im a small producer of BD in the norh part of Mexico, we have made BD for a few months with WVO only and we had great results following the Aleks Kac acid-base formula, with some little changes. We tried the same formula for making BD with tallow only, but we obtained very bad results, after all the process the tallow gets back to its original shape, hard white fat, like nothing happened to it. Anyone knows what can i do to make a good reaction with the tallow? Thanks a lot for your time. Yahoo! Mail Use Photomail http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=38867/*http://photomail.mail.yahoo.com to share photos without annoying attachments. ___ 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/
