[Biofuel] was... was..Bring loaded firearms aboard
Sounds cool, but big problem though. Where are you going to be able to fly these wackos with out causing collateral damage when one of them accidentally kills the pilot and the plane flys into a building a la WTC, For a general rule though, I think maybe two armed air marshals would be a good idea on all flights. I would feel safer flying, anyway. The world has changed and we have to to cope with the stark realities of dangerous times. regards tallex On 9/20/06, DHAJOGLO [LINK: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Tallex, Don't be too harsh... If they want an old west ariline where they can have shoot outs then they should be able to have it. Just because one nut case came up with it doesn't mean other nut cases wouldn't love to fly such an airline. They need a place to shoot each other while smoking and drinking, and at least they're secured in a metal tube away from the place I like to go to smoke and drink! hahaha. -dave On Wednesday, September 20, 2006 2:51 AM, AltEnergyNetwork wrote: Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 07:51:44 + From: AltEnergyNetwork To: [LINK: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: [Biofuel] was..Bring loaded firearms aboard Yes, I can imagine 2 passengers having a few drinks, then getting in to an arguement about something. One of them politely asks a flight attendant for a few rounds to take out the other one...what fun. I think I'll pass on those flights as well. Was this nut case, a conservative blogger by any chance? regards tallex Get your daily alternative energy news Alternate Energy Resource Network 1000+ news sources-resources updated daily http://www.alternate-energy.net Next Generation Grid http://groups.yahoo.com/group/next_generation_grid/ Tomorrow-energy http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tomorrow-energy/ Alternative Energy Politics http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Alternative_Energy_Politics/ Earth_Rescue_International http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Earth_Rescue_International/ ___ 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] was..Bring loaded firearms aboard
On 9/21/06, Thompson, Mark L. (PNB RD) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Paul you need to get your facts straight or at least your myths Or, Wikipedia does...Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabin_pressurization I agree that my first post was unresearched and overly dramatic. My second post was based on the above article. It is imposable to open an Door or Emergency exit while the plane is pressurized. The doors are larger than the openings they sit in. The air pressure keeps the closed. Ever noticed why the open inward then turned sideways, before it is pushed outside the aircraft. It is near impossible to take out a window in an jetliner. They between 3 and 5 layers thick and made from Polycarbonate, they will not blowout. A bullet will only punch a hole in them.United Flight 811 ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_811had a cargo door malfunction and open in flight at 23,000 feet causing several passengers to be sucked out, but it landed safely. The whole frame of the door and part of the fuselage came off. My point was that the bullet could make a larger hole, or it could weaken the skin of the plane and allow the door frame to lose integrity. My main point is that guns don't belong on airplanes. Any bullet fired in such a close space (aluminum tube) is pretty likely to hit something unintended, such as a innocent passengers, wires, fuel lines, fuel tanks, controls, engines etc etc. Your statement the you will die if the plane depressurizes is also false. You will become unconscious after 5-10mins at altitude and will die in 20+min, but by that time the pilot will have lowered the aircraft to a breathable altitude (15k or less) Now if your pilots are unable to do the maneuver, I guess you are out of luck.I think Payne Stewart's family would disagree. Your statements contradict each other. It is not entirely false if it is possible for the pilots to lose consciousness. Frostbite and blackouts become real problems in rapid decompression and the pilots are included. The fresh air compressors on modern jetliner could probability keep up with 20-30 bullets holds without loosing enough pressure to make people pass out. If you realy want rapid decompression, try flying on a real old Hawian Air lines plane or a bomb.I believe the Mythbusters used an old Hawaiian airlines jet on their episode on this subject. They were able to cause a window to pop out with a 9MM. Mark -- Thanks,PCHe's the kind of a guy who lights up a room just by flicking a switchThe genius of you Americans is that you never make clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves which make us wonder at the possibility that there may be something to them which we are missing. - Gamal Abdel Nasser ___ 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] meanwhile, in the US
Mike Weaver wrote: Willie Nelson and the boys were on the road, and they stopped them and found a pound and a half of marijuana. bin Laden is still loose, but we got Willie Nelson. --David Letterman It's a funny thing. I've always wanted to share this, and I guess here's as good a place as any. Stir the pot some perhaps. First time I heard of Bin Laden, it was in reference to Abu Nidal, and I honestly don't recall when, but it was during the Clinton years, prior to Clinton's failed missile attack. A lot of folks (mostly on the extreme so-called 'right') like to think that there was a Ollie North-Bin Laden issue. Not so, LtCol North named Abu Nidal, not Osama in his testamony. Anyway, I remember chuckling to myself way back when. Reason being, I imagined that org chart, with the 'big man' at the top, usually represented by a silhouette overlaid with a question mark. This being the 'big guy' behind the dastardy plan. Not knowing any arabic myself, I kinda thought that Osama Bin Laden (Osama being a common name) meant something like Joe The Terrorist as was in fact just a moniker for a generic unknown variable. I was actually suprised when a few years later, a face to fit the name finally surfaced, and then a man to fit the face, and a whole family to fit the man. I was not suprized at all to learn that the man, behind the face, tied to the name, was essentially a creation of the cia. Not suprized at all, in fact, I still wonder whether or not, this whole *thing* was a creation of the cia. And I wonder if wasn't a creation in attempt to put a name on the silhouette in the first place. It's a feeling I just can't shake off. ___ 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] was...was.. Bring loaded firearms aboard
I understand that illegal handguns seized in Canada are for the most part traced to US sources. We need more border security. Perhaps we should create a department of homeland security. Illegal weapons from the US are a threat to our national security. I move that we impose economic sanctions on the government of that country until they crack down on the flow of handguns and other weapons that are leaking across the border. The citizens of this country are being terrorized by the US as a result of these weapons. Joe AltEnergyNetwork wrote: snip Drive by shootings and gang killings hardly rate a mention in papers, yet in many countries like U.K, Canada, France and many others the death rate from firearm murders is a fraction of what it is in the U. S. Gun laws are much stricter and the result is much less slaughter. ___ 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] changes in titration values
Hi Golan, Did you take your titration sample from the top of the tank? If your oil has stood for a couple of months, it is quite likely that all the worst oil has settled to the bottom of your tank and the best to the top. I would expect your titrations to get progressively higher as you work your way through the tank of oil, eventually getting even higher than your original 2.4. Sorry no magic, just settling out. Hope this helps Bob - Original Message - From: Golan Shmuel To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 6:46 PM Subject: [Biofuel] changes in titration values hi! does any of you notice major difference in titration values in thesame oil before and after 1-2 months in stalling tank? i have anew 1000 liter black staling tank outside in the sun (it get very hot here in the summer 38-45 c July Aug) same oil that titrated 2.4 for few times before entering the tanktitrated 0.9 after few weeks in the tank ititrated over and over again for 8 times i change for fresh indicator twice but i still got the same result 0.9 i just made batch using 3.5+0.9 Noah and it pass the quality test (both methanolwashing) just fine any idea how this magic works? all the best Golan ___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] Science
The metal oxide is reduced during combustion operating as an oxidizer. This allows more fuel charge to be burned per stroke kind of like using nitrous oxide. Cerium particles come out in the exhaust rather than the oxide. Joe D. Mindock wrote: Joe, At http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=17367ch=nanotech they discuss using cerium oxide, not aluminum, in diesel fuel. I do worry about nano sized particles getting out into the air we breathe. If cerium or aluminum are catalysts that means they are not burnt and come out the exhaust, right? Any comments. Peace, D. Mindock - Original Message - From: Joe Street To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 10:31 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Science I meant about colloidal fuels. J D. Mindock wrote: Joe didn't let the cat out of the bag. It was already out: http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=14105ch=nanotechsc=pg=1 We have never needed peace more than now. Bush's dumb cowboy antics are making the US a heckava lot unsafer. Rep. Dennis Kucinich wants to establish a Dept of Peace. It is an idea that needs to become a reality soon. I say take 50% of the military budget and get the DoP going. Peace, D. Mindock P.S. From what I've read, nano sized particles are dangerous of and in themselves. The body doesn't know what to do with them. - Original Message - From: Joe Street To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 9:16 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Science Hey Robert; That's a fun message but aren't you using fiction to support your argument? Uhhh fiction you wrote! Kewl. I didn't know one could do this. I'll remember the technique next time we have our performance reviews or I get pulled over by the cops for speeding. LOL. Meanwhile.in the REAL world..weapons work alarmingly well as tools of fear and control. ( Let me say I wish everyone was nice enough that it was uneccesary to resort to imposed controlmaybe one day we'll evolve to that level I hope) A weapon as a deterrent? Of course. As I have said here before take a round table discussion, out of control with all the examples of bad behaviour. Now put a loaded .45 in the hands of EACH person at the table and see how quickly it gets quiet and downright civilized! Why do bullies seldom have to actually beat the crap out of someone? Because one or two examples like that serve to underline the threat and it is the fear of that implied threat which does the bullies work. Why does the US so desperately want to keep nukes out of the hands of all the countries that don't have them? ( even though the US has proven they aren't responsible enough to have them, having already anihilated so many human beings with the loathesome device) It is the bullies tool. See how well it works. Getting back to the science thread, the US navy is currently working on bombs using nano aluminum as a high explosive which generate a shockwave similar to a nuke but without the radiation. A clean nuke so to speak. Lovely eh? (Don't ask me how I know this.) All the death and destruction without the poison.( "well we ASSUME so") Kind of the opposite idea of the neutron bomb which leaves the structure and kills the life. DuhI guess they figured out a city that's too hot to enter isn't much of a prize. But this way it's doublegood. You level a city, wipe out your foes, and then you reap the profits of rebuilding everything. Or at least the elite members of your club do.(This is bitter sarcasm in case you didn't get that) To me this is scarier than nukes because going back to the round table analogy, you might have some sick bastard who is twisted enough and thinks he is fast enough to grab his .45 and blow away everyone else at the table before anyone can get him. With that type of weapon it is conceivable, and there is no blowback so to speak. But to make the analogy work better as a model for nukes you have to replace the .45 with hand grenades. Now nobody gets out of the room alive. Nano bombs are very likely to be used for this reason they are like big sicko .45s. Oh while I'm on the subject of disclosing military nano science secrets, they are currently also experimenting with colloidal jet fuels. Adding nano metals to jet fuel gives them something like an octane boost. But they didn't ask anyone if we mind them seeding the atmosphere with nano particles. We are all part of the experiment now like it or not. Nice eh? Oh BTW can anyone out there help me? I'm wondering what kind of filter I would use to clean 20nm junk out of the environment. Apparently the scientists who hypothesized what a great fuel could be also assumed the exhaust doesn't exist. Nobody knows
Re: [Biofuel] Science
Yes the Earth is our house. Kirk McLoren wrote: snip Use good housekeeping when working the cerium oxide so it isn't inhaled = or ingested. That's where alpha particles do their harm. ___ 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] was...was.. Bring loaded firearms aboard
Oh yeah? Well, the US is going to build a freakin' 3,000 mile long fence along the 49th with canadian lumber and Mexican workers!(Tongue firmly planted in cheek)On 9/22/06, Joe Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I understand that illegal handguns seized in Canada are for the mostpart traced to US sources.We need more border security.Perhaps weshould create a department of homeland security.Illegal weapons fromthe US are a threat to our national security. I move that we impose economic sanctions on the government of that country until they crackdown on the flow of handguns and other weapons that are leaking acrossthe border.The citizens of this country are being terrorized by the US as a result of these weapons.JoeAltEnergyNetwork wrote:snipDrive by shootings and gang killings hardly rate a mention in papers, yet in many countries like U.K, Canada, France and many others the death rate from firearm murders is a fraction of what it is in the U. S. Gun laws are much stricter and the result is much less slaughter. ___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel 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/ -- Thanks,PCHe's the kind of a guy who lights up a room just by flicking a switchThe genius of you Americans is that you never make clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves which make us wonder at the possibility that there may be something to them which we are missing. - Gamal Abdel Nasser ___ 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] changes in titration values
Golan, I have experienced similar results . not quite as dramatic a difference as yours. I don't know why, but it could bethat as water settles, some acids may settle with it. Heat definitely helps settle the water out. About 6 - 8 months ago I brought home WVO that looked good, but titrated 3.2g lye/L. It also had a peculiar (bad) smell when heated. I washed a sample of the WVO (w. water) and dried it. It titrated 2.2g lye/L. I spoke to the chef at the restaurant. She told me that the WVO came from a fryer they use tofry vegetables. I set up 2 settling tanks (200+L) one for the restaurant's french fry oil, the other for their veg fry oil. The veg-fry oil goes in 3 - 3.2 came out 6 weeks later (top 150+ gal) 2.4 Be careful to titrate each time you use the oil. There may be a gradient as you go down the tank. (Increasing titration#) Best of luck. Congratulations on the quality tests Tom - Original Message - From: Golan Shmuel To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 1:46 PM Subject: [Biofuel] changes in titration values hi! does any of you notice major difference in titration values in thesame oil before and after 1-2 months in stalling tank? i have anew 1000 liter black staling tank outside in the sun (it get very hot here in the summer 38-45 c July Aug) same oil that titrated 2.4 for few times before entering the tanktitrated 0.9 after few weeks in the tank ititrated over and over again for 8 times i change for fresh indicator twice but i still got the same result 0.9 i just made batch using 3.5+0.9 Noah and it pass the quality test (both methanolwashing) just fine any idea how this magic works? all the best Golan ___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] qulity tests help please
Golan, I use the methanol solubility test to test for whether there was a complete or incomplete reaction. The third layer you refer to in the wash test is soap. Even in a complete reaction you will have some soap. You would like to reduce the amount of soap you are producing (3 - 4 mm inthe wash test is too much) Causes of soap: 1. Water in oil/chemicals used 2.Too much caustic 3. Glycerine contamination - Is youroil dry/your chemicals pure? - Careful titration, calculations, measurement of caustic - Do you allow the glycerine mix to settle out for 8 hrs? (During my early batchesI was anxious to test the BD. I only waited 1 - 3 hours before draining the glycerine. I found that letting it settle overnight - less soap and quicker separation in the wash test.) Best of luck to you, Tom - Original Message - From: Golan Shmuel To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 1:51 PM Subject: [Biofuel] qulity tests help please hi any explanation for passing methanol tests perfectly but steal having third layer 3-4 mm in the wash tests happened to me in 3 last batch's thanks Golan ___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] Bring loaded firearms aboard
Doug Foskey wrote: I feel I really need to give the Australian Perspective on this: I have to disagree with Chip. I was raised around the premise that guns are unnecessary. I live in Australia where we have had gun removal legislation for many years. I have never felt the need to own a gun, I do not know anyone who actually does. Contrary to pro-gun propaganda, --well expressed and thought out point of view snipped Keeping *all* of these perspectives in mind, again, I have yet to be able to draw any overall conclusions, but some of my futher thoughts kinda break down to some age old questions. To make overly-broad statements about the United States is easy and cheap, pretty much anything you care to say about my homeland is true, or it not true, at least rooted in facts. I could go back and quote Plato and Aristotle on some of this, but that's just me trying to sound ponderous or something. At the end of the day, In the US at large, the west in general and the world more and more every day it seems, there is immense pressure for folks to put aside their very real day to day concerns, and focus on being good 'consumers'. In the US, very real laws are being judged on the merit the law has concerning consumerism. In my opinion, Consumerism is ranked by the US government as being of higher importance than arcane, and abstruse and 'hard-to-get' concepts such as freedom and liberty. Folks are being marketed to strongly to get them to identify with some 'brand' be that democrat, republican, pro this, anti that, and so on. Real debates get lost when folks set up straw men amongst like minded people in order to have a discussion (kinda like what I am doing now), and everything is buzz buzz buzz. I read somewhere recently, and I completely agree, that to view the rest of the world as a friend with whom you can have a real argument or debate with the intention to learn, or help learn is vastly preferrable to fighting with an enemy who must be destroyed. Sure, /sometimes/ there are folks who really do seek to us harm and from those folks, defense is not only appropriate, it is pretty much necessary. This I firmly believe. A defense mind you. In point of fact however, this isn't really germane. What is germane, here in the US, is that the latter point of view expressed above permeates all levels of the US society at large. From those folks illustrated by others who are off killing each other like it was free (usually at the bottom edge of the economic model) to those at the very peak who seem hell bent on killing everyone who won't bend to their collective world view. This whole concept of 'us and them' is getting very very tired. The stakes are so much higher now than they were even 100 years ago. There is no 'us and them' there is only us, and we are all we have, and we are all in this together. Homework: Pretty much all extreme points of view have a champion who is erudite and expressive. Pick a point of view that is as far removed from your own world view as you can, find the expert text on that point of view, and read it. cover to cover. Repeat once a year until you die. ___ 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] was...was.. Bring loaded firearms aboard
Naturally,the wooden fence will be build by an aircraft company. Please fasten your seat belts and ignore the lakes behind the curtain. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Paul S CantrellSent: September 22, 2006 12:13 PMTo: biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSubject: Re: [Biofuel] was...was.. Bring loaded firearms aboardOh yeah? Well, the US is going to build a freakin' 3,000 mile long fence along the 49th with canadian lumber and Mexican workers!(Tongue firmly planted in cheek) On 9/22/06, Joe Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I understand that illegal handguns seized in Canada are for the mostpart traced to US sources.We need more border security.Perhaps weshould create a department of homeland security.Illegal weapons fromthe US are a threat to our national security. I move that we impose economic sanctions on the government of that country until they crackdown on the flow of handguns and other weapons that are leaking acrossthe border.The citizens of this country are being terrorized by the US as a result of these weapons.JoeAltEnergyNetwork wrote:snipDrive by shootings and gang killings hardly rate a mention in papers, yet in many countries like U.K, Canada, France and many others the death rate from firearm murders is a fraction of what it is in the U. S. Gun laws are much stricter and the result is much less slaughter. ___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/-- Thanks,PCHe's the kind of a guy who lights up a room just by flicking a switchThe genius of you Americans is that you never make clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves which make us wonder at the possibility that there may be something to them which we are missing. - Gamal Abdel Nasser ___ 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] Waste-to-energy idea smells like success in Gold River - Victoria Times Colonist - 2006.09.19
The possibility of Gold River opening its arms to Vancouver's trash doesn't faze the up-Island village's mayor, not after running the idea through a sniff test. What Green Island Energy proposes to burn in its planned Gold River power plant is not raw garbage, but combustible waste that has been processed into bales of what amounts to dryer fluff, says Craig Anderson. And that dryer fluff means upwards of 60 permanent, high-paying jobs in a community that hasn't had a lot to cheer about since its pulp mill closed in 1999. Anderson's comments come on the heels of the news that Green Island is among 23 outfits interested in disposing of Lower Mainland waste. Green Island, you may recall, was among 38 independent power projects awarded contracts by B.C. Hydro this summer. It plans to expand the power plant at the old Gold River pulp mill site, generating electricity that would be carried along existing transmission lines. It will be a biomass waste-to-energy plant, deemed environmentally friendly because it will mostly burn wood waste (which gives off greenhouse gases if left to rot) instead of fossil fuels. Some wood will come from Western Forest Products' new log-sorting operation at the old mill site, but most will be shipped in from up and down the Pacific coast -- from construction sites, furniture manufacturers, pine-beetle residue, land clearing ... You name it on the wood side, if it has no commercial value, we can combust it, says Green Island spokesman Bruce Clark, on the phone from Vancouver. The plant will also use what's known as refuse-derived fuel -- garbage that has had the nasty bits and recyclables screened out, then been shredded, formed into pellets or cubes and compressed into three-tonne bales cloaked in shrink wrap. Like wood waste, the use of refuse-derived fuel is deemed environmentally neutral. It's a processed fuel. It's not barges full of garbage, says Clark. It's not like a garbage incinerator that burns television sets. Please banish from your mind any visions of open barges, heaped with mountains of oozing Vancouver garbage, ready to be shovelled into the gaping maw of a smoke-belching burner. GIE assured us they will not be shipping raw garbage into Gold River, says Anderson. And state-of-the-art equipment should limit smokestack emissions. It's about one fiftieth of what the pulp mill put out, and they don't have the smell. Not everyone is so sure Green Island is all that green. We're from Missouri, says Peter Ronald, provincial co-ordinator of the B.C. Sustainable Energy Association. Biomass may not be dirty like coal, but what about wind power and other alternatives? Incremental efficiencies don't mean much when put in the broader energy-consumption context, he says. We've got to get off this accelerating curve of more, more, more. But Green Island maintains it offers an environmentally preferable alternative -- and keeping that status is to the company's advantage, says Clark. B.C. Hydro pays more for clean power, and Green Island anticipates being able to convert environmental certification into profits in other ways, too. Clark is one of a number of Canadian and American shareholders in Green Island. So is the pop singer Jewel, who posed for a photo-op with Premier Gordon Campbell when the Gold River proposal was made public in 2003. Jewel is less involved than she was, says Clark, but is still an investor, along with her mother, through their holding company Alternative Energy Group. Another equity partner will be named within a couple of months. We're thinking we may be able to break ground by early next year, says Clark. The Hydro contract says the plant must be open by September 2009, but Clark says it could be complete as early as the summer of 2008. It will be a while before it is decided whether Green Island will get any fuel derived from Lower Mainland garbage. The Greater Vancouver Regional District is looking for a way to dispose of trash that currently gets trucked to a Cache Creek landfill that is due to close in 2010. A GVRD request for expressions of interest elicited 23 replies this summer, including the one from Green Island. Sending clean waste to Gold River would cost the GVRD $30 a tonne, says Clark. The critical part is preparing it to our standards. All this is happening against a backdrop that has seen a variety of mostly rural communities across North America rebel at the notion of being used as dumping grounds for big-city waste. Mayor Anderson acknowledges that not everyone is thrilled with the optics of Gold River dealing with trash from the Big Smoke, even if it's just in the form of relatively clean fuel. He sees a touch of irony, though, in that Gold River itself sends its trash elsewhere: Our garbage goes to Campbell River. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to
Re: [Biofuel] [OT] was... was..Bring loaded firearms aboard
Tallex, Good question. They're not allowed to leave Texas airspace. So far, its more dangerous to eat spinach than it is to be flying with terrorists. So only one air marshal should be good. -dave On Friday, September 22, 2006 3:12 AM, AltEnergyNetwork wrote: Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 08:12:21 + From: AltEnergyNetwork To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: [Biofuel] was... was..Bring loaded firearms aboard Sounds cool, but big problem though. Where are you going to be able to fly these wackos with out causing collateral damage when one of them accidentally kills the pilot and the plane flys into a building a la WTC, For a general rule though, I think maybe two armed air marshals would be a good idea on all flights. I would feel safer flying, anyway. The world has changed and we have to to cope with the stark realities of dangerous times. regards tallex On 9/20/06, DHAJOGLO [LINK: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Tallex, Don't be too harsh... If they want an old west ariline where they can have shoot outs then they should be able to have it. Just because one nut case came up with it doesn't mean other nut cases wouldn't love to fly such an airline. They need a place to shoot each other while smoking and drinking, and at least they're secured in a metal tube away from the place I like to go to smoke and drink! hahaha. -dave On Wednesday, September 20, 2006 2:51 AM, AltEnergyNetwork wrote: Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 07:51:44 + From: AltEnergyNetwork To: [LINK: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: [Biofuel] was..Bring loaded firearms aboard Yes, I can imagine 2 passengers having a few drinks, then getting in to an arguement about something. One of them politely asks a flight attendant for a few rounds to take out the other one...what fun. I think I'll pass on those flights as well. Was this nut case, a conservative blogger by any chance? regards tallex Get your daily alternative energy news Alternate Energy Resource Network 1000+ news sources-resources updated daily http://www.alternate-energy.net Next Generation Grid http://groups.yahoo.com/group/next_generation_grid/ Tomorrow-energy http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tomorrow-energy/ Alternative Energy Politics http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Alternative_Energy_Politics/ Earth_Rescue_International http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Earth_Rescue_International/ ___ 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] was...was.. Bring loaded firearms aboard
I believe I already alluded to this as the Maple Curitan. haha. On Friday, September 22, 2006 11:13 AM, Paul S Cantrell wrote: Oh yeah? Well, the US is going to build a freakin' 3,000 mile long fence along the 49th with canadian lumber and Mexican workers! (Tongue firmly planted in cheek) ___ 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] From the BBC -- Biofuels: Green energy or grim reaper?
Original Article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5369284.stm Send your comments: http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=3971edition=2ttl=20060922184357 Jeffrey A McNeely Biofuels could end up damaging the natural world rather than saving it from global warming, argues Jeff McNeely in the Green Room. Better policies, better science and genetic modification, he says, can all contribute to a greener biofuels revolution With soaring oil prices, and debates raging on how to reduce carbon emissions to slow climate change, many are looking to biofuels as a renewable and clean source of energy. The European Union recently has issued a directive calling for biofuels to meet 5.75% of transportation fuel needs by 2010. Germany and France have announced they intend to meet the target well before the deadline; California intends going still further. This is a classic "good news-bad news" story. Of course we all want greater energy security, and helping achieve the goals (however weak) of the Kyoto Protocol is surely a good thing. However, biofuels - made by producing ethanol, an alcohol fuel made from maize, sugar cane, or other plant matter - may be a penny wise but pound foolish way of doing so. Consider the following: The grain required to fill the petrol tank of a Range Rover with ethanol is sufficient to feed one person per year. Assuming the petrol tank is refilled every two weeks, the amount of grain required would feed a hungry African village for a year Much of the fuel that Europeans use will be imported from Brazil, where the Amazon is being burned to plant more sugar and soybeans, and Southeast Asia, where oil palm plantations are destroying the rainforest habitat of orangutans and many other species. Species are dying for our driving If ethanol is imported from the US, it will likely come from maize, which uses fossil fuels at every stage in the production process, from cultivation using fertilisers and tractors to processing and transportation. Growing maize appears to use 30% more energy than the finished fuel produces, and leaves eroded soils and polluted waters behind Meeting the 5.75% target would require, according to one authoritative study, a quarter of the EU's arable land Using ethanol rather than petrol reduces total emissions of carbon dioxide by only about 13% because of the pollution caused by the production process, and because ethanol gets only about 70% of the mileage of petrol Food prices are already increasing. With just 10% of the world's sugar harvest being converted to ethanol, the price of sugar has doubled; the price of palm oil has increased 15% over the past year, with a further 25% gain expected next year.Little wonder that many are calling biofuels "deforestation diesel", the opposite of the environmentally friendly fuel that all are seeking. With so much farmland already taking the form of monoculture, with all that implies for wildlife, do we really want to create more diversity-stripped desert? Others are worried about the impacts of biofuels on food prices, which will affect especially the poor who already spend a large proportion of their income on food. Biotech boost So what is to be done? The first step is to increase our understanding of how nature works to produce energy. Amazingly, scientists do not yet have a full understanding of the workings of photosynthesis, the process by which plants use solar energy to absorb carbon dioxide and build carbohydrates. Biotechnology, its reputation sullied by public protests over GM foods, may make important contributions. According to the science journal Nature, recombinant technology is already available that could enhance ethanol yield, reduce environmental damage from feedstock, and improve bioprocessing efficiency at the refinery. The Swiss biotech firm Syngenta is developing a genetically engineered maize that can help convert itself into ethanol by growing a particular enzyme. Others are designing trees that have less lignin, the strength-giving substance that enables them to stand upright, but makes it more difficult to convert the tree's cellulose into ethanol. Some environmentalists are worried that these altered trees will cross-breed with wild trees, resulting in a drooping forest rather than one that stands tall and produces useful timber and wildlife habitat. In the longer run, biotech promises to help convert wood chips, farm wastes, and willow trees into bioethanol more cheaply and cleanly, thereby helping meet energy needs while also improving its public image. Public stake But that is not nearly enough; bioenergy is too important to be left in the hands of the private sector. Many of the social and environmental benefits of bioenergy are not priced in the market, so the public sector needs to step in to ensure
Re: [Biofuel] amazing himalayan salt
Kirk, This is an absolutely fascinating study; especially to one with a basic knowledge of membrane structure, co-transport systems and cytology. I would think in the 20+ years since this particular study (1984) there would have been follow-up work on the use of Cesium, Rubidium, and possibly Potassium supplements in the treatment of cancer. I know next to nothing about specific cancer treatments. I would be interested to know of any follow-up work by others in the field. I think that the section devoted to diet and lowered cancer rates is particularly relevant to the current discussion. The fact that both Hopi and Pueblo Indians of Arizona with diets high in "all essential minerals than conventional foods" including higher levels of potassium, rubidium and cesium have dramatically lower cancer rates than the US populationas a whole, is striking.The author statesthat when Pueblo Indians diet changed and they began to consume more from supermarkets, their cancer rates went up. The author of the study states: "It must be emphasized here that the high incidence of cancer is not due to what is in the supermarket foods, but rather to what is not in it." (I don't know how he determined this; no reference). "It is essentially lacking rubidium and cesium and low in potassium." What concerns me re: dietary Cesium andRubidium and anti-cancer activity, isthe following: "The minimal dosage for curative action has not been determined. It has been observed by several physicians that the administration of 0.5 g per day of CsCl will actually enhance the rate of tumor growth. This is to be expected, since this low amount is sufficient only to raise the cell pH into the high mitosis range. The data so far reveal that any quantity of 3.0 g or above will be effective." That's a lot of volcanic ash!!! Tom - Original Message - From: Kirk McLoren To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 1:16 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] amazing himalayan salt http://www.mwt.net/~drbrewer/highpH.htm Reprinted from Pharmacology Biochemistry Behavior, v. 21, Suppl., 1, by A. Keith Brewer, Ph.D.," The High pH Therapy for Cancer, Tests on Mice and Humans," pp. 1-5, Copyright 1984, with permission from Elsevier Science. Single copies of the article can be downloaded and printed for the reader's personal research and study. BREWER, A. K. The high pH therapy for cancer tests on mice and humans. PHARMACOL BIOCHEM BEHAV 21: Suppl. 1, 1-5. 1984.---Mass spectrographic and isotope studies have shown that potassium, rubidium, and especially cesium are most efficiently taken up by cancer cells. This uptake was enhanced by Vitamins A and C as well as salts of zinc and selenium. The quantity of cesium taken up was sufficient to raise the cell to the 8 pH range. Where cell mitosis ceases and the life of the cell is short. Tests on mice fed cesium and rubidium showed marked shrinkage in the tumor masses within 2 weeks. In addition, the mice showed none of the side effects of cancer. Tests have been carried out on over 30 humans. [Please note: these tests were not conducted by Dr. Brewer.] In each case the tumor masses disappeared. Also all pains and effects associated with cancer disappeared within 12 to 36 hr; the more chemotherapy and morphine the patient had taken, the longer the withdrawal period. Studies of the food intake in areas where the incidences of cancer are very low showed that it met the requirements for the high pH therapy. As for the American Cancer Society page about cesium chloride it no longer states 150 grams as ld50 for a human. It is now more technically written.http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3X_Cesium_Chloride.asp?sitearea=ETO --- Homeopathy is a minor part of alternative medicine and not espoused by many alternative physicians. I think naturopathy is the actual medicine we had prior to Rockefeller - pharma corporations and pharma grants to pharma doctoring schools. So you are being glib at best. Kirk bob allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kirk McLoren wrote: No - the beta carotene is water soluble.want to bet? I guess you wouldn't trust me, but regardless, I worked with the stuff last spring, I had a student examine the UV spectra of beta carotene (dissolved in benzene) vs the spectrum of red palm oil. the are essentially identical. the point is I know that the stuff water insoluble. Just look at the chemical structure- its a hydrocarbon.BETA-CAROTENESOLUBILITY IN WATER, insoluble. pH. VAPOR DENSITY. REFRACTIVE INDEX ... One molecule of beta-carotene splits into two molecules of vitamin A and thus ...www.chemicalland21.com/lifescience/foco/BETA-CAROTENE.htm - 65k - Cached - Similar
Re: [Biofuel] amazing himalayan salt
if herbs dont work, then why is willow tea a painkiller? Jason ICQ#: 154998177 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: bob allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 7:41 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] amazing himalayan salt Terry Dyck wrote: Hi Bob, Joe is right; herbs are better than synthetic drugs for the simple reason that you just mentioned, drugs have side effects. might herbs not have side effects because they don't to anything anyway? (actually they do have side effects when properly tested) The problem with herbs is, as I have said before, there is little to no proof of efficacy for the vast majority of them. I not saying they don't work, I am just saying that scientific evidence for efficacy is lacking. So proof of efficacy is what any one wants to say, even if they have an agenda to get rich on someone elses gullibility. The ones I have heard of most recently which have undergone rigorous testing have produced mixed results at best. re: saw palemetto for prostate problems http://www.herbalgram.org/default.asp?c=sawpalmBPH In the new trial reported in NEJM, conducted at the University of California at San Francisco, 225 men (112 in saw palmetto group; 113 placebo) 49 years of age or older with moderate to severe BPH were randomly assigned to groups who took a leading saw palmetto extract (160mg twice daily, the normal dose shown effective in over 21 clinical trials) or a matching placebo capsule. The patients made 8 study visits over a one-year period to assess changes in the AUASI scores (this is the primary outcome of the trial), maximal urine flow, post-void residual urine volume, prostate size, and other health-related outcomes. On average, participants in both the saw palmetto and the placebo groups improved over the one-year duration of the trial, but there were no significant differences in the rates of improvement overall between the two groups as measured by the AUASI. re: st john's wort for depression http://nccam.nih.gov/news/2002/stjohnswort/q-and-a.htm The trial found no statistically significant difference between St. John's wort and placebo on improvement in HAM-D scores or percentage of complete responses. The percentage of participants in remission from major depression at the end of the 8-week initial treatment phase was approximately 24 percent for St. John's wort and about 32 percent for placebo. Overall, the percentage of participants who improved either partially or completely was about 38 percent for St. John's wort and 43 percent for placebo. These findings suggest that St. John's wort is not effective for the treatment of major depression in adults with a moderate level of symptoms. This conclusion is supported by another recently reported placebo-controlled study (Shelton, et al., 2001). Herbs are actually foods. It is only confusing because our modern day society has put herbs into capsules. Originally herbs were only eaten just as we eat vegetables. Herbs do work but people have to be patient and they have to know about the whole part of healing; such as eliminating junk foods, exercise, stress elimination, promoting a strong immune system, etc. the problem now is you are introducing way to many variables. was it the herb or the exercise or the stress elimination or what? Should'nt you be able to show an effect in isolation? When one does a placebo controlled study, you should have equal amts of the aforementioned variables in both groups so they cancel out. I believe it was Hippocrites who wrote: Let food be your medicine hippocrites didn't know about aspirin ;- Terry Dyck From: bob allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] amazing himalayan salt Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 16:18:35 -0500 Howdy Joe, Mike, et al Joe Street wrote: Hi Mike; There is a part of me ( the part I like to think is wise) that tends to trust what comes out of mother nature's laboratory much more than the industrial product. This is why I use butter not margarine. better the devil you know than the devil you don't know? (butter, saturated fat and cholesterol vs margarine, trans fats) This is why I prefer herbs over medicines most medicines are herbs, or modeled after them and are purer and more predictable, with known side effects, at least after time to accumulate statistically relevant data. The problems with herbs as I see it is two fold- frequently there is a lack of proven efficacy and secondly, dosage is unclear. Amounts of efficacious agents varies from species to species and even plant to plant depending on where/how it is grown. and organic foods over factory. agreed, with the exception of factory Organic ala recent spinach issue This voice is always whispering that the more raw something is, the closer it is
Re: [Biofuel] WHAT REALLY HAPPENED ON SEPT 11
the pentagon took a cruise missile, thats all there is to that one. but i am inclined to agree with the fact that an insulated, fueled heat source will gather heat to the structural failure point. i have seen it in my own tinkerings as well. (just not on such a frightening scale) Jason ICQ#: 154998177 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: robert and benita rabello [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 9:38 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] WHAT REALLY HAPPENED ON SEPT 11 D. Mindock wrote: Robert, The towers and bldg 7 are just part of a larger puzzle. You want to believe the buildings all fell down the same exact way, go ahead. They didn't fall in the exact same way, but the reasons they collapsed are similar. I've explained this in another post. But what of the numerous explosions throughout the buildings after they were hit by the airliners and before they fell? Fire, ignited by the impact, spread rapidly through the building. Anything that could burn, did. I've seen hillsides explode when ignited by fire. I've seen fire move so fast that deer are engulfed in flames trying to flee. Fire is unpredictable. At the time, I was surprised the towers stayed up as long as they did. What about the molten steel found in the basement? There's a LOT of energy in the mass of material cascading 110 floors to the ground. All of the friction, coupled with the heat of the fire itself, was insulated from dissipating and concentrated by the debris on top of it. I've seen bits of charcoal still hot enough to glow buried in wood stove ash days after the last fire in the stove. Molten steel in the basement of the WTC is not remarkable. What about the puffs of smoke on the floor levels below the falling floors above? One of the buildings collapsed from the center first. What you're observing in the photos is overpressure and debris escaping in a lateral direction from the force of overhead compression. What about the very high temperatures recorded in the rubble, much higher than jet fuel is capable? Vigorously rub your hands together and you'll increase the temperature of your skin much higher than is normal, too. The vast mass of material falling that distance will create tremendous friction. Why did bldg 7 fall in the same manner as the towers even though its construction was not the same as the towers? The middle floors on building 7 were on fire for a long time. Even the fire department realized they were going to lose that building and pulled their firefighters away. Your Occam's Razor is being severely overused. I don't think so. The WTC collapse makes more sense to me than does the explanation for the Pentagon. And the towers were a minor part of 9/11's strange occurances. What about Able Danger? Why was this info ignored by the 9/11 Commission? Etc., etc. You need to look at the whole series of bizarre dots to get the whole picture. There are MANY unanswered questions. There are MANY pieces to the puzzle that don't fit. I am unsatisfied with the official story of that day, but I don't have a problem understanding that fire from two fully loaded airliners brought down the WTC buildings. robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.5/451 - Release Date: 9/19/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.6/453 - Release Date: 9/20/2006 ___ 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] WHAT REALLY HAPPENED ON SEPT 11
i had to sit through five and a half hours of replay after replay of the towers collapsingthat daymy seinor year in high school. they did NOT fall straight and squarely down, but made all sorts of funky angles beginning at the HUGE SMOKING HOLE in the side of each building. i personally believe that the WTC was not rigged to go, but i DO believe that thegovernment ALLOWED the attacksto happen unimpeded. the pentagon OTOH was hit by a cruise missile just to keep up appearances. JasonICQ#: 154998177MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: robert and benita rabello To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 3:34 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] WHAT REALLY HAPPENED ON SEPT 11 Kirk McLoren wrote: Unfortunately since you arent qualified to judge what you read you accept information based on authority. What nonsense!!! Wrap your mind around something written by an engineering firm: "DID THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS ACTUALLY IMPLODE?No. They collapsed in an uncontrolled fashion, causing extensive damage to surrounding structures, roadways and utilities. Although when viewed from a distance the towers appeared to have telescoped almost straight down, a closer look at video replays reveal sizeable portions of each building breaking free during the collapse, with the largest sections--some as tall as 30 or 40 stories--actually laying out in several directions. The outward failure of these sections is believed to have caused much of the significant damage to adjacent structures, and smaller debris caused structural and cosmetic damage to hundreds of additional buildings around the perimeter of the site. WHY DID THEY COLLAPSE?Each 110-story tower contained a central steel core surrounded by open office space, with 18-inch steel tubes running vertically along the outside of the building. These structural elements provided the support for the building, and most experts agree that the planes impacting the buildings alone would not have caused them to collapse. The intense heat from the burning jet fuel, however, gradually softened the steel core and redistributed the weight to the outer tubes, which were slowly deformed by the added weight and the heat of the fire. Eventually, the integrity of these tubes was compromised to the point where they buckled under the weight of the higher floors, causing a gravitational chain reaction that continued until all of the floors were at ground level. DID THE TERRORISTS PLANT ANY BOMBS IN THE BUILDINGS IN ADVANCE TO GUARANTEE THEIR DEMISE?To our knowledge there is no evidence whatsoever to support this assertion. Analysis of video and photographs of both towers clearly shows that the initial structural failure occurred at or near the points where the planes impacted the buildings. Furthermore, there is no visible or audible indication that explosives or any other supplemental catalyst was used in the attack. HOW DOES THIS EVENT COMPARE WITH A NORMAL BUILDING IMPLOSION?The only correlation is that in a very broad sense, explosive devices (airplanes loaded with fuel) were used to intentionally bring down buildings. However it can be argued that even this vague similarity relates more to military explosive demolition than to building implosions, which specifically involve the placement of charges at key points within a structure to precipitate the failure of steel or concrete supports within their own footprint. The other primary difference between these two types of operations is that implosions are universally conducted with the utmost concern for adjacent properties and human safety---elements that were horrifically absent from this event. Therefore we can conclude that what happened in New York was not a building implosion. You won't likely be happy with this, but that's because you're looking for a conspiracy that is far better explained by ineptitude. That is a close second to voting on the truth. It seems odd you see organised control in the hydrocarbon industry yet the possibility of a Pearl Harbor type episode in the 9-11 disaster is incomprehensible. No, it's not incomprehensible at all. We were attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. Airplanes filled the sky over Pearl Harbor and dropped torpedos and bombs on our ships. Many of those ships were sunk in the attack. There's a lot of evidence suggesting a degree of threat awareness at the upper echelons of government, but it wasn't staged by covert American intelligence operatives, the Mossad, or even a bunch of anti-government loonies. There was no "conspiracy". There was a cause / effect relationship between Japanese torpedos, bombs and sunken ships. Likewise, we all witnessed airplanes being flown into buildings on September 11,
Re: [Biofuel] This why i want to get rid of my wood stove and heat with BD
Mike Weaver wrote: How about a Kuma? After trying to find a Kuma online and getting an error message, I was finally able to get through today. Kuma makes wood stoves, and there are a lot of really good wood stoves available in Canada. What I need is a gasifying boiler, like this one: http://alternateheatingsystems.com/woodboilers.htm They're a little cheaper than Tarm gasifiers, but not by much! Add stainless construction and a tempering valve and they're right up there, too . . . However, given the natural gas crisis that's soon to be upon us, these will be in high demand. I'd like to get one before the prices go way up! AHS also has a multi-fueled boiler, with a Riello oil burner option. That would be perfect for biodiesel, I think. robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Bring loaded firearms aboard
which jason? are we going to have to use initials now too? Jason ICQ#: 154998177 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 4:49 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Bring loaded firearms aboard Hello Jason I have to agree with Chip. But Chip says this: Suffice to say, I am a whole lot /less/ ignorant of this very very large scale issue. I haven't yet been able to draw any defined conclusions from this. I do however, believe that informed rationality precludes either polar position on this issue. And you say this: I was also raised around guns. I live in Arizona where we have had concealed carry legislation for many years. I have a permit and carry 95% of the time. Contrary to anti-gun propaganda, I don't find myself roaming the streets looking for a confrontation. I have prepared myself and given myself the tools to defend myself, my family and others if need be. I just hope that day will never come. If it does, I will be ready. How can adopting a polar position (pro-guns) be agreeing with him? The subject of guns in America has been thrashed out here several times before, there is quite a lot of material in the archives about it, I suggest you spend a little time there checking it out. It does not support polar positions. All Contrary to anti-gun propaganda really means is: Here's a bit of pro-gun propaganda instead, IMHO. No, not saying you're lying, propaganda is not lies (though it can be), but facts or not it's coming from a polarised position. Best Keith Addison Journey to Forever KYOTO Pref., Japan http://journeytoforever.org/ Biofuel list owner -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chip Mefford Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 10:38 AM To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Bring loaded firearms aboard Perhaps it's because over my near-on 50 years, I've been around liguor and guns my whole life, and see no threat. Like many folks of my background and upbringing, I am a member of the so-called 'gun culture'. Perhaps I could be button-holed as a reticent gun nut. But I'm just not that much of a nut. In my short time in this life, I have done a lot of things. Amongst these things are having served active military duty and served as a law enforcement officer. I have had a *lot* of firearms training in my day, but even the military and law enforcement training hardly taught me anything I hadn't already known since the age of about 12 thanks in great part to the civilian marksmanship program. All that said, for most of my life, I've heard background noise about the 'problem of small arms' and paid it little heed. I've seen ignorance in action (and I really don't mean that in a pejorative sense, but rather in a literal sense) and the ignorance that surrounds the issues inherent in the use of arms is too huge to measure. To this end, I decided there was a lot about the 'problem of small arms' that I just didn't get, that played deeply into my ignorance. So I got to work studying it on the heels of the paper put out by the WHO a number of years back. Suffice to say, I am a whole lot /less/ ignorant of this very very large scale issue. I haven't yet been able to draw any defined conclusions from this. I do however, believe that informed rationality precludes either polar position on this issue. ___ 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/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.6/453 - Release Date: 9/20/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.6/453 - Release Date: 9/20/2006 ___ 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] WHAT REALLY HAPPENED ON SEPT 11
oh, come on! hundredsof tons of debris and building laying downthousandsof tons of impactforce after falling that far wont bend steel? even 2 inch diameter #8 bolts and those monsterous rivets they used would give out under that kind of onslaught. JasonICQ#: 154998177MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Tom Irwin To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 4:15 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] WHAT REALLY HAPPENED ON SEPT 11 Hi Joe and All, I really don´t want to believe this. That´s part of the problem. But the buildings fell unusually fast, from film and stopwatch just about at freefall speeds. I would have thought if most of the structural steel was okay, except for the areas where the fires were, wouldn´t they have slowed the descent? From: Joe Street [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 10:08:53 -0300Subject: Re: [Biofuel] WHAT REALLY HAPPENED ON SEPT 11That's a very good point Kirk. I wonder how do the civil engineers deal with that bit?Andrew?JoeKirk McLoren wrote: To fall straight down means the failures supposedly caused by heat all happened at the same time. In the real world theylean to the failed side and then forces cause more failures. It is a very tricky business making them fall straight down. KirkAndrew Lowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:snip .I studied Civil Engineering with a major in Structures and Analysis not Medicine with a major in Psychiatry so I'll leave the reader to make their own judgements on the rest of this.Regards,Andrew Lowe B.Eng(Civil) ___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/ No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.6/453 - Release Date: 9/20/2006 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.6/453 - Release Date: 9/20/2006 ___ 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] WHAT REALLY HAPPENED ON SEPT 11
I have to disagree. A friend of mines father was working a few blocks away and saw the plane come in. That was how I found out the 9/11 events happened (I do not watch tv very much). Now maybe the made a cruise missle up to look like a plane, but it surely was a plane looking object that hit. Jeromie Jason Katie wrote: the pentagon took a cruise missile, thats all there is to that one. but i am inclined to agree with the fact that an insulated, fueled heat source will gather heat to the structural failure point. i have seen it in my own tinkerings as well. (just not on such a frightening scale) Jason ICQ#: 154998177 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: robert and benita rabello [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 9:38 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] WHAT REALLY HAPPENED ON SEPT 11 D. Mindock wrote: Robert, The towers and bldg 7 are just part of a larger puzzle. You want to believe the buildings all fell down the same exact way, go ahead. They didn't fall in the exact same way, but the reasons they collapsed are similar. I've explained this in another post. But what of the numerous explosions throughout the buildings after they were hit by the airliners and before they fell? Fire, ignited by the impact, spread rapidly through the building. Anything that could burn, did. I've seen hillsides explode when ignited by fire. I've seen fire move so fast that deer are engulfed in flames trying to flee. Fire is unpredictable. At the time, I was surprised the towers stayed up as long as they did. What about the molten steel found in the basement? There's a LOT of energy in the mass of material cascading 110 floors to the ground. All of the friction, coupled with the heat of the fire itself, was insulated from dissipating and concentrated by the debris on top of it. I've seen bits of charcoal still hot enough to glow buried in wood stove ash days after the last fire in the stove. Molten steel in the basement of the WTC is not remarkable. What about the puffs of smoke on the floor levels below the falling floors above? One of the buildings collapsed from the center first. What you're observing in the photos is overpressure and debris escaping in a lateral direction from the force of overhead compression. What about the very high temperatures recorded in the rubble, much higher than jet fuel is capable? Vigorously rub your hands together and you'll increase the temperature of your skin much higher than is normal, too. The vast mass of material falling that distance will create tremendous friction. Why did bldg 7 fall in the same manner as the towers even though its construction was not the same as the towers? The middle floors on building 7 were on fire for a long time. Even the fire department realized they were going to lose that building and pulled their firefighters away. Your Occam's Razor is being severely overused. I don't think so. The WTC collapse makes more sense to me than does the explanation for the Pentagon. And the towers were a minor part of 9/11's strange occurances. What about Able Danger? Why was this info ignored by the 9/11 Commission? Etc., etc. You need to look at the whole series of bizarre dots to get the whole picture. There are MANY unanswered questions. There are MANY pieces to the puzzle that don't fit. I am unsatisfied with the official story of that day, but I don't have a problem understanding that fire from two fully loaded airliners brought down the WTC buildings. robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.5/451 - Release Date: 9/19/2006 ___ 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] Bring loaded firearms aboard
the ideas either for or against guns are entirely subjective. i was raised in a household where guns are no more than a tool for collecting food. like any power tool, when handled improperly, they will cause injury or possible death, but with adequate training and maintenance they can be effectively used for hunting purposes. when they are not in use, they are either disassembled, or locked away, or both. in this respect, i do not consider guns to be dangerous weapons, or even weapons at all, in the hands of someone who believes the same as myself. Jason ICQ#: 154998177 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Chip Mefford [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 12:20 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Bring loaded firearms aboard Doug Foskey wrote: I feel I really need to give the Australian Perspective on this: I have to disagree with Chip. I was raised around the premise that guns are unnecessary. I live in Australia where we have had gun removal legislation for many years. I have never felt the need to own a gun, I do not know anyone who actually does. Contrary to pro-gun propaganda, --well expressed and thought out point of view snipped Keeping *all* of these perspectives in mind, again, I have yet to be able to draw any overall conclusions, but some of my futher thoughts kinda break down to some age old questions. To make overly-broad statements about the United States is easy and cheap, pretty much anything you care to say about my homeland is true, or it not true, at least rooted in facts. I could go back and quote Plato and Aristotle on some of this, but that's just me trying to sound ponderous or something. At the end of the day, In the US at large, the west in general and the world more and more every day it seems, there is immense pressure for folks to put aside their very real day to day concerns, and focus on being good 'consumers'. In the US, very real laws are being judged on the merit the law has concerning consumerism. In my opinion, Consumerism is ranked by the US government as being of higher importance than arcane, and abstruse and 'hard-to-get' concepts such as freedom and liberty. Folks are being marketed to strongly to get them to identify with some 'brand' be that democrat, republican, pro this, anti that, and so on. Real debates get lost when folks set up straw men amongst like minded people in order to have a discussion (kinda like what I am doing now), and everything is buzz buzz buzz. I read somewhere recently, and I completely agree, that to view the rest of the world as a friend with whom you can have a real argument or debate with the intention to learn, or help learn is vastly preferrable to fighting with an enemy who must be destroyed. Sure, /sometimes/ there are folks who really do seek to us harm and from those folks, defense is not only appropriate, it is pretty much necessary. This I firmly believe. A defense mind you. In point of fact however, this isn't really germane. What is germane, here in the US, is that the latter point of view expressed above permeates all levels of the US society at large. From those folks illustrated by others who are off killing each other like it was free (usually at the bottom edge of the economic model) to those at the very peak who seem hell bent on killing everyone who won't bend to their collective world view. This whole concept of 'us and them' is getting very very tired. The stakes are so much higher now than they were even 100 years ago. There is no 'us and them' there is only us, and we are all we have, and we are all in this together. Homework: Pretty much all extreme points of view have a champion who is erudite and expressive. Pick a point of view that is as far removed from your own world view as you can, find the expert text on that point of view, and read it. cover to cover. Repeat once a year until you die. ___ 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/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.6/453 - Release Date: 9/20/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.6/453 - Release Date: 9/20/2006 ___ 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
Re: [Biofuel] From the BBC -- Biofuels: Green energy or grim reaper?
[OPINION] this is crap. [EDUCATED GUESS] this guy assumes ethanol and soy are the only viable feedstocks. [FACT] they are not. [OPINION]Mr. McNeelyhas not looked into his options very well, /and/ biofuels are only a stopgap measure to give us a few more decades to come up with a decent workingsolution. as for using fossil fuels to harvest ethanol crops, i would say it is a nessecary evil until the harvesting equipment can be fueled entirely by alternatives. there is by default going to be some turnover time. JasonICQ#: 154998177MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Randall To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 2:18 PM Subject: [Biofuel] From the BBC -- Biofuels: Green energy or grim reaper? Original Article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5369284.stm Send your comments: http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=3971edition=2ttl=20060922184357 Jeffrey A McNeely Biofuels could end up damaging the natural world rather than saving it from global warming, argues Jeff McNeely in the Green Room. Better policies, better science and genetic modification, he says, can all contribute to a greener biofuels revolution With soaring oil prices, and debates raging on how to reduce carbon emissions to slow climate change, many are looking to biofuels as a renewable and clean source of energy. The European Union recently has issued a directive calling for biofuels to meet 5.75% of transportation fuel needs by 2010. Germany and France have announced they intend to meet the target well before the deadline; California intends going still further. This is a classic "good news-bad news" story. Of course we all want greater energy security, and helping achieve the goals (however weak) of the Kyoto Protocol is surely a good thing. However, biofuels - made by producing ethanol, an alcohol fuel made from maize, sugar cane, or other plant matter - may be a penny wise but pound foolish way of doing so. Consider the following: The grain required to fill the petrol tank of a Range Rover with ethanol is sufficient to feed one person per year. Assuming the petrol tank is refilled every two weeks, the amount of grain required would feed a hungry African village for a year Much of the fuel that Europeans use will be imported from Brazil, where the Amazon is being burned to plant more sugar and soybeans, and Southeast Asia, where oil palm plantations are destroying the rainforest habitat of orangutans and many other species. Species are dying for our driving If ethanol is imported from the US, it will likely come from maize, which uses fossil fuels at every stage in the production process, from cultivation using fertilisers and tractors to processing and transportation. Growing maize appears to use 30% more energy than the finished fuel produces, and leaves eroded soils and polluted waters behind Meeting the 5.75% target would require, according to one authoritative study, a quarter of the EU's arable land Using ethanol rather than petrol reduces total emissions of carbon dioxide by only about 13% because of the pollution caused by the production process, and because ethanol gets only about 70% of the mileage of petrol Food prices are already increasing. With just 10% of the world's sugar harvest being converted to ethanol, the price of sugar has doubled; the price of palm oil has increased 15% over the past year, with a further 25% gain expected next year.Little wonder that many are calling biofuels "deforestation diesel", the opposite of the environmentally friendly fuel that all are seeking. With so much farmland already taking the form of monoculture, with all that implies for wildlife, do we really want to create more diversity-stripped desert? Others are worried about the impacts of biofuels on food prices, which will affect especially the poor who already spend a large proportion of their income on food. Biotech boost So what is to be done? The first step is to increase our understanding of how nature works to produce energy. Amazingly, scientists do not yet have a full understanding of the workings of photosynthesis, the process by which plants use solar energy to absorb carbon dioxide and build carbohydrates. Biotechnology, its reputation sullied by public protests over GM foods, may make important contributions. According to the science journal Nature, recombinant technology is already available that could enhance ethanol yield, reduce environmental damage from feedstock, and improve bioprocessing efficiency at the refinery. The Swiss biotech firm Syngenta is developing a genetically engineered maize that
Re: [Biofuel] WHAT REALLY HAPPENED ON SEPT 11
Jason,Have you ever been to the Pentagon? You just don't get the magnitude and scale of that structure until you are there.Please explain Picture 13: http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/pentagon_20020316.htmlCruise missiles do NOT make fireballs like this one, it was the fuel:http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/pentagon_hit.gif A cruise missile would not have clipped a light pole, which fell on a cab, nor do cruise missiles have black boxes.On 9/22/06, Jason Katie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:the pentagon took a cruise missile, thats all there is to that one. but i am inclined to agree with the fact that an insulated, fueled heat source willgather heat to the structural failure point. i have seen it in my owntinkerings as well. (just not on such a frightening scale)Jason -- Thanks,PCHe's the kind of a guy who lights up a room just by flicking a switchThe genius of you Americans is that you never make clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves which make us wonder at the possibility that there may be something to them which we are missing. - Gamal Abdel Nasser ___ 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] 2 new additions
i have some fantastic news this week. on sunday, september 17th at 16:42 and 16:45 my small (yet excessively loud) twin sons Ryken and Xavier were born. katie is healthy, albeit tired, and the boys are on a steady track to coming home next week. (theyre in the nursery until they can regulate their own body temperatures) Jason ICQ#: 154998177 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.6/453 - Release Date: 9/20/2006 ___ 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] 2 new additions
correction- 20:42 and 20:45 Jason ICQ#: 154998177 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Jason Katie [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 11:52 PM Subject: [Biofuel] 2 new additions i have some fantastic news this week. on sunday, september 17th at 16:42 and 16:45 my small (yet excessively loud) twin sons Ryken and Xavier were born. katie is healthy, albeit tired, and the boys are on a steady track to coming home next week. (theyre in the nursery until they can regulate their own body temperatures) Jason ICQ#: 154998177 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.6/453 - Release Date: 9/20/2006 ___ 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/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.6/453 - Release Date: 9/20/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.6/453 - Release Date: 9/20/2006 ___ 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] From the BBC -- Biofuels: Green energy or grim reaper?
[OPINION] this is crap. Agree. [EDUCATED GUESS] this guy assumes ethanol and soy are the only viable feedstocks. [FACT]they are not. [OPINION] Mr. McNeely has not looked into his options very well, /and/ biofuels are only a stopgap measure to give us a few more decades to come up with a decent working solution. as for using fossil fuels to harvest ethanol crops, i would say it is a nessecary evil until the harvesting equipment can be fueled entirely by alternatives. there is by default going to be some turnover time. More fossil fuels than that Jason, those are industrialised monocrops, heavily dependent on fossil-fuel inputs far beyond just fuelling the machinery. Sustainable biofuels produced this way are not sustainable, but then neither is industrialised monocropping, and not just because of all the fossil-fuel inputs. The other mistake he makes is to think that industrialised grain crops feed people, and that making ethanl from them deprives those people of food. That's the basic mistake all these guys make - we could call it the Pimentel syndrome. Re who, or rather what, industrialised grain feeds, please see: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_food.html Biofuels - Food or Fuel? http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html Is ethanol energy-efficient? But this is a trendy view at the moment, a way of showing you're ahead of the game: ie, showing people who're even more ignorant than you are that you're ahead of them. One might call it the Monbiot syndrome. If we can't produce biofuels sustainably, then we can't produce food sustainably either, but we can, and are. Not that way though. Best Keith Jason ICQ#: 154998177 MSN: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Randall To: mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.orgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 2:18 PM Subject: [Biofuel] From the BBC -- Biofuels: Green energy or grim reaper? Original Article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5369284.stmhttp://news.bbc .co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5369284.stm Send your comments: http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=3971edition=2 ttl=20060922184357http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?thread ID=3971edition=2ttl=20060922184357 Jeffrey A McNeely Biofuels could end up damaging the natural world rather than saving it from global warming, argues Jeff McNeely in the Green Room. Better policies, better science and genetic modification, he says, can all contribute to a greener biofuels revolution With soaring oil prices, and debates raging on how to reduce carbon emissions to slow climate change, many are looking to biofuels as a renewable and clean source of energy. The European Union recently has issued a directive calling for biofuels to meet 5.75% of transportation fuel needs by 2010. Germany and France have announced they intend to meet the target well before the deadline; California intends going still further. This is a classic good news-bad news story. Of course we all want greater energy security, and helping achieve the goals (however weak) of the Kyoto Protocol is surely a good thing. However, biofuels - made by producing ethanol, an alcohol fuel made from maize, sugar cane, or other plant matter - may be a penny wise but pound foolish way of doing so. Consider the following: The grain required to fill the petrol tank of a Range Rover with ethanol is sufficient to feed one person per year. Assuming the petrol tank is refilled every two weeks, the amount of grain required would feed a hungry African village for a year Much of the fuel that Europeans use will be imported from Brazil, where the Amazon is being burned to plant more sugar and soybeans, and Southeast Asia, where oil palm plantations are destroying the rainforest habitat of orangutans and many other species. Species are dying for our driving If ethanol is imported from the US, it will likely come from maize, which uses fossil fuels at every stage in the production process, from cultivation using fertilisers and tractors to processing and transportation. Growing maize appears to use 30% more energy than the finished fuel produces, and leaves eroded soils and polluted waters behind Meeting the 5.75% target would require, according to one authoritative study, a quarter of the EU's arable land Using ethanol rather than petrol reduces total emissions of carbon dioxide by only about 13% because of the pollution caused by the production process, and because ethanol gets only about 70% of the mileage of petrol Food prices are already increasing. With just 10% of the world's sugar harvest being converted to ethanol, the price of sugar has doubled; the price of palm oil has increased 15% over the past year, with a further 25% gain expected next year. Little wonder that many are calling biofuels deforestation diesel, the opposite of the
Re: [Biofuel] Bring loaded firearms aboard
which jason? are we going to have to use initials now too? :-) Naah, he knows which Jason it is, and so do you, and I suspect so does everyone else. Best Keith Jason ICQ#: 154998177 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 4:49 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Bring loaded firearms aboard Hello Jason I have to agree with Chip. But Chip says this: Suffice to say, I am a whole lot /less/ ignorant of this very very large scale issue. I haven't yet been able to draw any defined conclusions from this. I do however, believe that informed rationality precludes either polar position on this issue. And you say this: I was also raised around guns. I live in Arizona where we have had concealed carry legislation for many years. I have a permit and carry 95% of the time. Contrary to anti-gun propaganda, I don't find myself roaming the streets looking for a confrontation. I have prepared myself and given myself the tools to defend myself, my family and others if need be. I just hope that day will never come. If it does, I will be ready. How can adopting a polar position (pro-guns) be agreeing with him? The subject of guns in America has been thrashed out here several times before, there is quite a lot of material in the archives about it, I suggest you spend a little time there checking it out. It does not support polar positions. All Contrary to anti-gun propaganda really means is: Here's a bit of pro-gun propaganda instead, IMHO. No, not saying you're lying, propaganda is not lies (though it can be), but facts or not it's coming from a polarised position. Best Keith Addison Journey to Forever KYOTO Pref., Japan http://journeytoforever.org/ Biofuel list owner -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chip Mefford Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 10:38 AM To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Bring loaded firearms aboard Perhaps it's because over my near-on 50 years, I've been around liguor and guns my whole life, and see no threat. Like many folks of my background and upbringing, I am a member of the so-called 'gun culture'. Perhaps I could be button-holed as a reticent gun nut. But I'm just not that much of a nut. In my short time in this life, I have done a lot of things. Amongst these things are having served active military duty and served as a law enforcement officer. I have had a *lot* of firearms training in my day, but even the military and law enforcement training hardly taught me anything I hadn't already known since the age of about 12 thanks in great part to the civilian marksmanship program. All that said, for most of my life, I've heard background noise about the 'problem of small arms' and paid it little heed. I've seen ignorance in action (and I really don't mean that in a pejorative sense, but rather in a literal sense) and the ignorance that surrounds the issues inherent in the use of arms is too huge to measure. To this end, I decided there was a lot about the 'problem of small arms' that I just didn't get, that played deeply into my ignorance. So I got to work studying it on the heels of the paper put out by the WHO a number of years back. Suffice to say, I am a whole lot /less/ ignorant of this very very large scale issue. I haven't yet been able to draw any defined conclusions from this. I do however, believe that informed rationality precludes either polar position on this issue. ___ 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] From the BBC -- Biofuels: Green energy or grim reaper?
Hello members, In Malaysia alone there are miilions of tonnes of cellulosic materials availablevirtually free of cost or even credit atreplanting which is rated at 3% per annum from which many derivatives can be obtained. Currently these are not being exploited. They are openly burnt resulting in smog which envelopeseverything. We all live in smog when it does not rain which is pretty much all the time. Not counting padi waste and other agriculture products.Wasn't it Christ who said:"the harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few". I think we are still in backwoods even though our politicians claim we are quite forward now. lolJason Katie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [OPINION] this is crap. [EDUCATED GUESS] this guy assumes ethanol and soy are the only viable feedstocks. [FACT] they are not. [OPINION]Mr. McNeelyhas not looked into his options very well, /and/ biofuels are only a stopgap measure to give us a few more decades to come up with a decent workingsolution. as for using fossil fuels to harvest ethanol crops, i would say it is a nessecary evil until the harvesting equipment can be fueled entirely by alternatives. there is by default going to be some turnover time. JasonICQ#: 154998177MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED]- Original Message - From: Randall To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 2:18 PM Subject: [Biofuel] From the BBC -- Biofuels: Green energy or grim reaper?Original Article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5369284.stmSend your comments: http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=3971edition=2ttl=20060922184357 Jeffrey A McNeely Biofuels could end up damaging the natural world rather than saving it from global warming, argues Jeff McNeely in the Green Room. Better policies, better science and genetic modification, he says, can all contribute to a greener biofuels revolutionWith soaring oil prices, and debates raging on how to reduce carbon emissions to slow climate change, many are looking to biofuels as a renewable and clean source of energy. The European Union recently has issued a directive calling for biofuels to meet 5.75% of transportation fuel needs by 2010. Germany and France have announced they intend to meet the target well before the deadline; California intends going still further. This is a classic "good news-bad news" story. Of course we all want greater energy security, and helping achieve the goals (however weak) of the Kyoto Protocol is surely a good thing. However, biofuels - made by producing ethanol, an alcohol fuel made from maize, sugar cane, or other plant matter - may be a penny wise but pound foolish way of doing so. Consider the following:The grain required to fill the petrol tank of a Range Rover with ethanol is sufficient to feed one person per year. Assuming the petrol tank is refilled every two weeks, the amount of grain required would feed a hungry African village for a year Much of the fuel that Europeans use will be imported from Brazil, where the Amazon is being burned to plant more sugar and soybeans, and Southeast Asia, where oil palm plantations are destroying the rainforest habitat of orangutans and many other species. Species are dying for our driving If ethanol is imported from the US, it will likely come from maize, which uses fossil fuels at every stage in the production process, from cultivation using fertilisers and tractors to processing and transportation. Growing maize appears to use 30% more energy than the finished fuel produces, and leaves eroded soils and polluted waters behind Meeting the 5.75% target would require, according to one authoritative study, a quarter of the EU's arable land Using ethanol rather than petrol reduces total emissions of carbon dioxide by only about 13% because of the pollution caused by the production process, and because ethanol gets only about 70% of the mileage of petrol Food prices are already increasing. With just 10% of the world's sugar harvest being converted to ethanol, the price of sugar has doubled; the price of palm oil has increased 15% over the past year, with a further 25% gain expected next year.Little wonder that many are calling biofuels "deforestation diesel", the opposite of the environmentally friendly fuel that all are seeking. With so much farmland already taking the form of monoculture, with all that implies for wildlife, do we really want to create more diversity-stripped desert? Others are worried about the impacts of biofuels on food prices, which will affect especially the poor who already spend a large proportion of their income on food. Biotech boost So what is to be done? The first step is to increase our understanding of how nature works to produce energy. Amazingly, scientists do not yet have a full understanding of the workings of photosynthesis, the process by which plants use solar energy to absorb carbon dioxide and build carbohydrates.
