[Biofuel] The Trans Pacific Partnership - A Corporate Fascist Coup - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U56ZP3YrTM4 6 minutes 29 seconds video = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lC2RSYKoeuE 2 minutes 20 seconds video TPP Petition Delivery [About recent TPP secret negotiations held here in Ottawa. I recongize a few of the people in the videos.] ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] Ethanol Compatibility
Robert, I don't think you'll get much argument re: your contention that any OBDII vehicle can run E85, the question is for how long. I only waded through the study you cited, but some points should be made: 1. It looked at exhaust emissions from 16 vehicles comparing low ethanol/gasoline blends blends of 10%(E10), 15%(E15) and 20%(E20) to gasoline (E0). Changes in exhaust emissions indicated that the vehicles did make fuel:air adjustments i.e. they learned to run on the ethanol blends. The study did not include E85. 2. The authors state that the study did not include an operability component and while they point out that there were no observed leaks in any of the vehicles, they also state that the vehicles were only driven about 200 miles on the ethanol blends. 3. 6 of the 16 vehicles did not make adjustments at wide open throttle and emissions were consistently hotter as these vehicles ran at lean blends. None of this is real news. Here in the US we've been running our cars on E10 (gasohol) sine '83. A couple of years ago I bought a piece of lab equipment - a '99 Ford Ranger; flex fuel version. It loves E85. When I go from E10 to E85, you can hear the engine settle in to it. It almost instantly adjusts to whatever blend I feed it. The owner of the station that sells me the E85 told me that when he started selling E85 he filled up the tank of his family car. It ran a bit rough for a few miles, but then ran fine. He wouldn't run more than a tankful or two ... went on about seals and fuel lines. Same message from some reliable mechanics: E10 no problem. E85 is a different story. So, will newer model vehicles run on E85? Probably. We certainly want them to run at various temps and altitudes and for more than 200, 1000, or even 10,000 miles. Interesting info in the study you cited regarding small engines running on the lower ethanol blends. Many will not run on blends as low as E20 w/o adjustment ex raise fuel tank relative to engine and/or adjusting idle settings. Even with adjustments the engines run hot resulting in increased emissions of oxides of nitrogen and shorter lifespans for the engines. I'm not opposed to ethanol. I'm especially interested in ethanol that is produced at various levels of scale including homebrew utilizing feedstock from the waste stream. I look forward to the day when I can purchase E85 made from something other than food. Best to You, Tom I maintain that any OBDII vehicle can run E85. If your check engine light comes on, reset it and keep driving. (It's usually an O2 sensor that triggers the light.) The onboard computer WILL adapt. Here's what the NREL had to say on the matter: http://www.scribd.com/doc/117331392/Effects-of-Intermediate-Ethanol-Blends There are no E85 pumps in British Columbia. The best we can do is E10, which is only advertised as available at Husky. Robert Luis Rabello Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ceremonies and Celebrations video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV3k-s_sg1Q Meet the People video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txsCdh1hZ6c Crisis video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZedNEXhTn4 The Long Journey video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vy4muxaksgk This communication may be unlawfully collected and stored by the National Security Agency (NSA) in secret. The parties to this email do not consent to the retrieving or storing of this communication and any related metadata, as well as printing, copying, re-transmitting, disseminating, or otherwise using it. If you believe you have received this communication in error, please delete it immediately. - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4716 / Virus Database: 3986/7939 - Release Date: 07/28/14 ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] Ethanol Compatibility
Another reason to replace one's OBD (should one be so cursed) with a phantom system ... -D From: Thomas Kelly ontheh...@fairpoint.net To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org Sent: Tuesday, 29 July 2014, 16:30 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Ethanol Compatibility Robert, I don't think you'll get much argument re: your contention that any OBDII vehicle can run E85, the question is for how long. I only waded through the study you cited, but some points should be made: 1. It looked at exhaust emissions from 16 vehicles comparing low ethanol/gasoline blends blends of 10%(E10), 15%(E15) and 20%(E20) to gasoline (E0). Changes in exhaust emissions indicated that the vehicles did make fuel:air adjustments i.e. they learned to run on the ethanol blends. The study did not include E85. 2. The authors state that the study did not include an operability component and while they point out that there were no observed leaks in any of the vehicles, they also state that the vehicles were only driven about 200 miles on the ethanol blends. 3. 6 of the 16 vehicles did not make adjustments at wide open throttle and emissions were consistently hotter as these vehicles ran at lean blends. None of this is real news. Here in the US we've been running our cars on E10 (gasohol) sine '83. A couple of years ago I bought a piece of lab equipment - a '99 Ford Ranger; flex fuel version. It loves E85. When I go from E10 to E85, you can hear the engine settle in to it. It almost instantly adjusts to whatever blend I feed it. The owner of the station that sells me the E85 told me that when he started selling E85 he filled up the tank of his family car. It ran a bit rough for a few miles, but then ran fine. He wouldn't run more than a tankful or two ... went on about seals and fuel lines. Same message from some reliable mechanics: E10 no problem. E85 is a different story. So, will newer model vehicles run on E85? Probably. We certainly want them to run at various temps and altitudes and for more than 200, 1000, or even 10,000 miles. Interesting info in the study you cited regarding small engines running on the lower ethanol blends. Many will not run on blends as low as E20 w/o adjustment ex raise fuel tank relative to engine and/or adjusting idle settings. Even with adjustments the engines run hot resulting in increased emissions of oxides of nitrogen and shorter lifespans for the engines. I'm not opposed to ethanol. I'm especially interested in ethanol that is produced at various levels of scale including homebrew utilizing feedstock from the waste stream. I look forward to the day when I can purchase E85 made from something other than food. Best to You, Tom I maintain that any OBDII vehicle can run E85. If your check engine light comes on, reset it and keep driving. (It's usually an O2 sensor that triggers the light.) The onboard computer WILL adapt. Here's what the NREL had to say on the matter: http://www.scribd.com/doc/117331392/Effects-of-Intermediate-Ethanol-Blends There are no E85 pumps in British Columbia. The best we can do is E10, which is only advertised as available at Husky. Robert Luis Rabello Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ceremonies and Celebrations video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV3k-s_sg1Q Meet the People video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txsCdh1hZ6c Crisis video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZedNEXhTn4 The Long Journey video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vy4muxaksgk This communication may be unlawfully collected and stored by the National Security Agency (NSA) in secret. The parties to this email do not consent to the retrieving or storing of this communication and any related metadata, as well as printing, copying, re-transmitting, disseminating, or otherwise using it. If you believe you have received this communication in error, please delete it immediately. - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4716 / Virus Database: 3986/7939 - Release Date: 07/28/14 ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] Ethanol Compatibility
On 7/29/2014 9:25 AM, Dawie Coetzee wrote: Another reason to replace one's OBD (should one be so cursed) with a phantom system ... -D I did, using a Megasquirt. Tuning for ethanol would be relatively straightforward. Now, if only distilling ethanol was legal in my jurisdiction . . . Robert Luis Rabello Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ceremonies and Celebrations video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV3k-s_sg1Q Meet the People video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txsCdh1hZ6c Crisis video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZedNEXhTn4 The Long Journey video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vy4muxaksgk This communication may be unlawfully collected and stored by the National Security Agency (NSA) in secret. The parties to this email do not consent to the retrieving or storing of this communication and any related metadata, as well as printing, copying, re-transmitting, disseminating, or otherwise using it. If you believe you have received this communication in error, please delete it immediately. - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4716 / Virus Database: 3986/7944 - Release Date: 07/29/14 ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Ruling banning nuclear reactor restarts translated into English, Korean, Chinese - AJW by The Asahi Shimbun
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/social_affairs/AJ201407130025 Ruling banning nuclear reactor restarts translated into English, Korean, Chinese July 13, 2014 By HIDEKI MUROYA/ Staff Writer An anti-nuclear citizens’ network has translated a Japanese court’s ruling blocking the restarts of two reactors into English, Korean and Chinese to spread the “universal values” of the judgment. Aileen Mioko Smith, the 64-year-old leader of the Kyoto-based anti-nuclear group Green Action, said she received a number of inquiries from nongovernmental groups in the United States and European embassies in Tokyo about the implications of the Fukui District Court’s landmark ruling on May 21. The court ordered Kansai Electric Power Co. not to restart the two reactors at its Oi nuclear power plant in Fukui Prefecture, saying that local residents can seek a halt to reactor operations because it is impossible for modern science to predict the scale of possible earthquakes. Smith said she was asked if the ruling could effectively stop the resumption of the Oi nuclear plant and how it would affect the safety screenings of nuclear plants by the Nuclear Regulation Authority. She said she was convinced that the ruling could be a “good wake-up call” for operators of nuclear power plants around the world, so she decided to post an English translation of the ruling on the Internet. Smith contacted Shaun Burnie, a 51-year-old nuclear adviser to Greenpeace Germany, and they commissioned an Australian to translate the ruling into English. Part of the translated ruling says: “… this court considers national wealth to be the rich land and the people’s livelihoods that have taken root there, and that being unable to recover these is the true loss of national wealth.” The ruling also says, “… the operation of nuclear power plants as one means of producing electricity is legally associated with freedom of economic activity and has a lower ranking in the Constitution than the central tenet of personal rights.” After the translation was posted on Greenpeace Japan’s website in June, it collected 2,420 “likes” on Facebook within 10 days. On the night of May 21, Kiyoko Mito, a 78-year-old plaintiff in the lawsuit, asked her Korean and Chinese friends to translate the Fukui District Court’s ruling. Mito wanted the ruling read by as many people as possible in East Asia, which is becoming increasing reliant on nuclear energy. According to Japan Atomic Industrial Forum Inc., 42 of the 81 nuclear power plants under construction around the world were located in Japan, South Korea, China and Taiwan at the beginning of this year. Mito asked Kim Bok-nyeo, a 51-year-old translator based in Seoul, to translate the Fukui court ruling. Lawyers representing plaintiffs in lawsuits demanding a suspension of nuclear reactors in South Korea also requested a translation. It took Kim 10 days to work out the Korean version. The ruling said plaintiffs who live within 250 kilometers of the Oi nuclear plant face real risks, and if that standard is applied to nuclear plants in South Korea, “there is no nuclear plant in South Korea that can operate,” Kim said. Mito, who once worked as a Japanese language teacher in China, asked a former colleague in the country for a Chinese translation of the ruling. After reading the ruling in Chinese, Taiwanese lawyer Cai Yaying, who represents plaintiffs demanding a suspension of nuclear plant operations, said Taiwanese courts must also take into account the potential risks to the lives of local residents. Lawyer Hiroyuki Kawai, who heads a network of plaintiff groups demanding the abolishment of nuclear energy, said it is “extremely rare” for a Japanese court ruling other than in patent cases to be translated into foreign languages. “The ruling has resonated with people around the world because it declared universal values by placing priority on the lives of people over the merits of nuclear energy,” Kawai said. The translated versions of the ruling are available at Green Action’s website (http://www.greenaction-japan.org/). ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Asad Ismi: Canadian Uranium Fuels Nuclear War
http://www.asadismi.ws/uranium.html Canada is Violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: Depleted Uranium Used in U.S. Missiles Comes from Canada An interview with Professor Jim Harding By Asad Ismi and Kristin Schwartz While the U.S. appears to be on the verge of attacking Iran just for having a nuclear reactor, Washington and its allies continue to be the biggest nuclear proliferators in the world. Chief among these nuclear allies is Canada, which provides up to 40% of the world’s uranium, the largest amount. Eighty percent of Canadian uranium is exported, with 76% going to the U.S. Canada has long been the main source of uranium for the U.S. nuclear arsenal, globally the largest and deadliest at 10,000 warheads and bombs. Washington has a first-strike nuclear policy and is actively preparing for nuclear war. It is also the only country that has actually used nuclear weapons--not once, but twice, on Japan in 1945. We recently spoke to Professor Jim Harding about Canada’s contribution to U.S. nuclear aggression. A nuclear war could, of course, wipe out all human life. Harding is a retired professor of environmental and justice studies at the University of Regina in Saskatchewan. He is author of the recent book, Canada’s Deadly Secret: Saskatchewan Uranium and the Global Nuclear System. * * * Q: Tell us about Canada’s role in the creation of the Western nuclear system. Harding: We were involved at the very front end of the Manhattan Project that created the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan. The uranium that was used in the atomic bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima was refined at the uranium conversion plant at Port Hope, Ontario, and the two sources were probably some from the Belgian Congo and some from the Port Radium mine that was reopened. But the early work with the CANDU reactor in Montreal at McGill University, and then at Chalk River, also played a role with the production of plutonium for the bomb that was used in Nagasaki, because they were trying two different ways to create nuclear weapons. The CANDU design that is now in 18 reactors in Ontario was actually created because of its capacity to produce weapons-grade plutonium. So that was shipped out of Chalk River into the U.S., I believe, into the 1960s. And the U.K.’s weapons program was also based on research at McGill and the prototype reactor that ended up as the CANDU. So Canada is right smack at the beginning of both the U.S. and U.K.’s nuclear weapons programs, and the history of nuclear weapons begins with these. We can’t seem to get it through our consciousness that we are not just used by the Anglo-American imperial system; we were willing compatriots in the creation of nuclear weapons. Q: How did Canada help build the U.S. nuclear arsenal? Harding: The arms race is already in place by 1946, a year after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs are dropped. The U.S. has the Strategic Air Command system in place, with the strategy of carrying atomic weapons towards Russia as a supposed deterrent, but of course Russia doesn’t have the atomic bomb at this point. And when the USSR actually develops the atomic bomb by 1949, the U.S. moves to the H-bomb and the whole thing escalates. Canada is at the centre of that, because we are one of the main sources of uranium, both at Elliot Lake and Uranium City, for the U.S. arms race escalation from about 1953 on. So every speck of uranium that was mined out of northern Ontario and northern Saskatchewan went into nuclear weapons, mostly the U.S. ones, although a few contracts also went to Britain. That went on till 1966, and in some cases those contracts carried to the end of the 1960s. So, for that whole period, the 1950s and the 1960s, Canada is a major uranium fuel source for the escalation of the nuclear arms race. Q: How is Canada violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? Harding: Canada signed this treaty in 1970 and claimed that it would not be using uranium for weapons production. We now know that uranium out of Saskatchewan has been diverted through the depleted uranium (DU) system and has been fuelling the weapons stream. The public, I think, is largely unaware that we are still complicit directly in the weapons stream. It’s a tricky thing to track, but it goes something like this: After refining the uranium at Port Hope, we send it to the enriching system in the U.S. This system integrates both the military and the industrial uses of nuclear power. The U.S. Department of Energy and the Pentagon both take uranium from this system. The uranium that is to be used in electrical generating nuclear reactors is concentrated to about 5%. This is uranium-235. About nine-tenths of the mass of what’s left after enrichment is called depleted uranium. This is then available to the Pentagon to use for weapons. And it’s not really depleted. That’s a misnomer. It’s still uranium. It’s
Re: [Biofuel] Ethanol Compatibility
Will a phantom system and/or Megasquirt adjust on the fly to varying ethanol concentrations? (E0 through E100) On 7/29/2014 9:25 AM, Dawie Coetzee wrote: Another reason to replace one's OBD (should one be so cursed) with a phantom system ... -D I did, using a Megasquirt. Tuning for ethanol would be relatively straightforward. Now, if only distilling ethanol was legal in my jurisdiction . . . Robert Luis Rabello Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ceremonies and Celebrations video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV3k-s_sg1Q Meet the People video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txsCdh1hZ6c Crisis video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZedNEXhTn4 The Long Journey video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vy4muxaksgk This communication may be unlawfully collected and stored by the National Security Agency (NSA) in secret. The parties to this email do not consent to the retrieving or storing of this communication and any related metadata, as well as printing, copying, re-transmitting, disseminating, or otherwise using it. If you believe you have received this communication in error, please delete it immediately. - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4716 / Virus Database: 3986/7944 - Release Date: 07/29/14 ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] Ethanol Compatibility
On 7/29/2014 2:55 PM, Thomas Kelly wrote: Will a phantom system and/or Megasquirt adjust on the fly to varying ethanol concentrations? (E0 through E100) No, I don't believe so. That's where the factory flex fuel system really shines. Robert Luis Rabello Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ceremonies and Celebrations video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV3k-s_sg1Q Meet the People video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txsCdh1hZ6c Crisis video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZedNEXhTn4 The Long Journey video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vy4muxaksgk This communication may be unlawfully collected and stored by the National Security Agency (NSA) in secret. The parties to this email do not consent to the retrieving or storing of this communication and any related metadata, as well as printing, copying, re-transmitting, disseminating, or otherwise using it. If you believe you have received this communication in error, please delete it immediately. - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4716 / Virus Database: 3986/7945 - Release Date: 07/29/14 ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Emails show secrecy on federal oilsands probe | Toronto Star
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/07/29/emails_show_secrecy_on_federal_oilsands_probe.html Emails show secrecy on federal oilsands probe Proposed answers from Environment Canada to questions about a 2013 oilsands leak triggered emails suggesting the ministry “limit information” given to media. Photos provided by a government scientist show the site of an oil spill in Cold Lake, Alta. When the spill came to light, reporters pressed federal and provincial authorities for more information. The proposed answers from Environment Canada's enforcement branch triggered a flurry of inter-department emails, including one that proposed limiting information about how long it took to investigate the leak. By: Mike De Souza Ottawa Bureau, Published on Tue Jul 29 2014 OTTAWA—Environment Canada’s enforcement branch asked a spokesman to “limit information” given to reporters about how long it took to launch a federal investigation into a serious Alberta oilsands leak last summer. The comments were included in more than 100 pages of emails obtained by the Star that were generated in response to questions from journalists last summer about the mysterious leak in Cold Lake, Alta., that now totals about 1.2 million litres of bitumen emulsion, a mixture of heavy oil and water. The incident itself was not publicly disclosed until a report by the Star in July 2013. More than 100 animals died near the site of the spill, which continues to release heavy oil above the surface, one year later. The company, Canadian Natural Resources Limited, had reported three other leaks in May and June 2013 from nearby sites using technology involving high-pressure steam in deep wells to pump out bitumen, the heavy oil mixed with sand beneath forests in northern Alberta. After the spill came to light, reporters began pressing both provincial and federal authorities for more information. One of the media requests, sent to Environment Canada on Aug. 15, asked a series of questions about law enforcement in the oilsands and whether the ministry’s officers were at the site to investigate. The questions and the proposed answers from the ministry’s enforcement branch triggered a flurry of emails between public relations specialists, assistant deputy ministers and a Justice Department lawyer. It also led up to an Aug. 26 briefing, requested by the office of Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq. On Aug. 28, the department responded to the media questions, confirming it had opened an investigation. The next day, the department asked Aglukkaq’s office to approve sending additional details to reporters confirming it learned about the incident on June 27 and that its enforcement officers arrived at the site on July 3. The enforcement branch then suggested withholding dates. “I think we should limit the information to only the date we received notification,” wrote Kevin Buerfeind, a director of wildlife enforcement for the region in an Aug. 29 email. “The date an investigation is opened is arbitrary — is it when the officer formed reasonable grounds or the date he actually put in the paperwork (?) — they can be different.” On Aug. 30, Environment Canada declined to send information about the dates, instead resending the Aug. 28 media statement that confirmed it had opened an investigation. The department confirmed to the Star last week that an investigating officer created the CNRL investigation file on Aug. 30 in the department’s database. Environment Canada spokesman Mark Johnson said the enforcement branch found grounds to launch an investigation “around” July 10. He said the courts have generally accepted that most investigations begin when an officer determines there are reasonable grounds, not when he or she opens the computer file. Johnson added that the officers doing on-site work don’t always have access to computers and could be delayed in creating a new file for cases such as these depending on their workload. He also said it was a normal law enforcement practice to withhold other information, such as the on-site inspection report, in order to preserve the integrity of an investigation. One year earlier, Johnson had rejected some of the answers approved by the chief enforcement officer at Environment Canada, Gord Owen. Johnson wrote that the statements needed to be “beefed up” due to direction from the Aug. 26 briefing with Aglukkaq’s office. “Folks, what you’ve provided here is the exact same response as we already gave to MO (minister’s office) on Monday. As I recall, the result from the briefing yesterday was that the . . . responses were to be beefed up — but this is no change,” Johnson wrote on Aug. 27, in response to colleagues providing him with suggested answers to questions from the media. “Please advise ASAP, MO wants this resolved.” Aglukkaq declined to comment, but her office sent the Star a statement that its staff “regularly request
