Re: [Biofuel] Major advance in artificial photosynthesis could turn carbon emissions into desirable chemicals
Here's an alternative listing: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150416132638.htm -- ¡Ay, Pachamamita! ¡Eres la cosa más bonita! ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] Microbeads - Anybody got a source?
Hmm, no. You might start with websites that cater to DIY beauty hobbyists. You know, making your own soap and beauty creams and that sort of thing. Just thinking out loud, here. Sorry I can't be if more help. -- ¡Ay, Pachamamita! ¡Eres la cosa más bonita! ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] Anybody wants the biofuel gear of Journey to Forever?
Midori, Donating the library to Soil and Health was a great idea. They are a wonderful resource. There is a part of me that wants to take some or all of the processors, if only for posterity's sake. But this is unrealistic. It's a near certainty that I will not make use of them anytime soon. Hopefully someone can, though. -- ¡Ay, Pachamamita! ¡Eres la cosa más bonita! ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] Yale Environment 360: Solar Shingles Made from Common Metals Offer Cheaper Energy Option
P.S. -- Sorry folks, I didn't see what auto correct was doing. That's supposed to be *shingles*, not singles. . . . -- ¡Ay, Pachamamita! ¡Eres la cosa más bonita! ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] Yale Environment 360: Solar Shingles Made from Common Metals Offer Cheaper Energy Option
Yes, I realize solar singles have been around for a while. Almost a decade now. But until only pretty recently, they were quite expensive in comparison to conventional PV panels. Using coal as a cost benchmark is capricious and arbitrary. When paying our coal-generated electricity bill, is the cost of our roof included in there somewhere? The only real questions to be answered are: --What is the current efficiency of these alternative material singles? --How much less expensive (if at all) than normal PV singles are they at this time? -- ¡Ay, Pachamamita! ¡Eres la cosa más bonita! ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] Yale Environment 360: Solar Shingles Made from Common Metals Offer Cheaper Energy Option
All well and good. Of course, we need them now, and would have them by now if this ridiculous benchmark of being competitive with coal weren't causing artificial inertia. -- ¡Ay, Pachamamita! ¡Eres la cosa más bonita! ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] Low-Cost Solar Panel Captures Four Times More Energy Producing Solar Electricity Hot Water
I've wondered about these issues you mention. What is the threshold temperature, that you'd want to keep your PV below? On Sunday, February 8, 2015, Zeke Yewdall zyewd...@gmail.com wrote: It all depends on the temperatures of the thermal energy and whether you have a use for it. This is actually what I did my thesis research on, and I found that it generally resulted in way too much thermal energy for residential uses, and not high enough temperature of thermal energy (though mine did not have reflectors). In the summertime, when most residential settings have little use for thermal energy -- a little DHW needs is all -- then what you do you with it? With the reflectors, you don't have the option of not collecting it, because if you don't, the PV will overheat. Heat dumps are a pain in the neck (we use them on some solar thermal systems that cannot turn off the collectors sometimes, such as evacuated tube systems) I think it's a neat idea, but figuring out how to apply it in the real world will be the challenge. Z -- ¡Ay, Pachamamita! ¡Eres la cosa más bonita! ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] Anybody wants the biofuel gear of Journey to Forever?
The library would also be of some interest to me. In particular, any works which never made it into e-book form on the JTF website. It would be most gratifying to contribute towards this aspect of Keith's work. Also, it my be feasible for me to host the website at some point in the near to mid term, if that is of interest to you. Probably around this time next year, at the soonest. If you need financial any help in the meantime, in terms of keeping the website up, please don't hesitate to ask. I'm sure there are many on the list, myself included, who would gladly help out. Best, --Chris On Tuesday, December 16, 2014, Thomas Irwin tom...@gmail.com wrote: Greetings, Depending on the shipping cost, I would be willing to take the small and the ethanol still. If you are getting rid of the library, I would be happy to add it to mine as a future reference for the group. I live in Montevideo, Uruguay. Let me know the shipping costs. I can probably pay via credit card if that is convenient. Sincerely, Tom Irwin On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Keith Addison ke...@journeytoforever.org javascript:; wrote: Dear biofuel friends, This is Midori, Japanese partner of Keith Addison. I'm looking for somebody who wants to have the biofuel gear of Journey to Forever, made by Keith. Because of many complications, they are still packed in a warehouse in Oxford, UK, together with Keith's 300+ books and other personal possessions. I really hate to dump them, but as a poor PhD student living in a small flat, I cannot keep them. So I hope somebody on the list to accept them and make good use of them. The gear should include the disassembled JTF biodiesel processors (90L, 15L, and mini-processors), and the ethanol still. http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_processor10.html http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_processor5.html http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_processor7.html They are disassembled, and might be missing tanks or some parts. I cannot guarantee because I didn't see how they were packed when Keith shipped them out before he died. Still, there should be enough to help you easily start biofuel project. We need the recipient to bear the expense of transfer and related cost. Some additional donation for the gear is also appreciated too because there's been lots of difficulty to retrieve Keith's possessions. I and Keith's close friends have been bearing the cost and trouble because we care of Keith and hate to waste his efforts. We plan to retrieve them from the wharehouse first, and sort them out (maybe in Cork, Ireland), then will ship the biofuel gear to those who want them. (IF somebody near Oxford UK could provide a storage place for about 70 boxes/220Cuft of goods including the JTF biofuel gear and Keith's library until March 2015 and help me sort them out, that would be really appreciated too - but I suppose I'm asking too much so don't worry about this bit). Please email me at i...@journeytoforever.org javascript:; (specify to Midori in the title) if you are interested. I really appreciate for your support and contribution for Keith over these years. Thank you so much. I hope we all remember Keith and what he taught us. Many thanks and best wishes, Midori Kyoto, Japan ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org javascript:; http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org javascript:; http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel -- ¡Ay, Pachamamita! ¡Eres la cosa más bonita! ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] I think this is important. Is Putin right? What do we do?
What Darryl said. -- ¡Ay, Pachamamita! ¡Eres la cosa más bonita! ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] The Future of the Biofuels mailing list, your input needed.
Yay! On Nov 20, 2014 5:50 PM, Chip Mefford c...@well.com wrote: Well, I gotta admit, I've gotten a huge response to my query, and honestly I wasn't expecting it. Aside from the responses you've all perhaps read, I've received many off-list as well. Okay, we'll leave it up. ___ 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] The Future of the Biofuels mailing list, your input needed.
I think I echo pretty much everybody else's responses thus far. My time is super limited right now, so I have little to contribute. I do see the updates that get posted, though, and read them. Please let us know what you decide. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] Keith Addison passed away
Midori, I am shocked and deeply saddened by this news. You have my heartfelt condolences. Ever since I discovered Journey to Forever, and became a sometimes active member of the list, I have held great respect and admiration for Keith. JTF and its various resources was really a remarkable accomplishment. Keeping it available online, is a fitting tribute. --Chris On Wednesday, November 5, 2014, Keith Addison ke...@journeytoforever.org wrote: Dear biofuel friends, Keith, who contributed so much to the handmade biofuel movement and related appropriate technology and organic movements, died of pneumonia in August 2014. This is Midori, Japanese partner of Keith Addison. My apology for being late to tell you this sad news. It took a while for me to recover from his death and rearrange related matters. Still continues.. I'd like to maintain his projects available online, in which Keith devoted so much - literally he devoted more than 10 years of his life to journeytoforever.org and biofuel mailinglists. I cannot contribute to it anymore, but at least I will keep them as they are, available to the public for coming years. Regarding to this mailinglist, I suppose he left the managing to somebody else around 2013 - please advise me how this is arranged now, off-list if it's more suitable. I now manage his emails at ke...@journeytoforever.org and I see more than 100 moderator requests piling up (most of them are Post by non-member to a members-only list). I also manage the domain name sustainablelists.org. Do we still need it for the list? Please advise. There have been so many issues on and around these mailinglists over the decade. Keith used to tell me hours about what's going on on the list, both happy and annoying issues. No matter what - I really appreciate for your support and contribution for Keith over these years. Thank you so much. I hope we all remember Keith and what he taught us. Many thanks and best wishes, Midori Kyoto, Japan - I can be reached at i...@journeytoforever.org. Please specify to Midori in the title. Thanks. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel -- ¡Ay, Pachamamita! ¡Eres la cosa más bonita! ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] CO2 concentration in atmosphere now 42% higher than before industrial age: World Meteorological Organization
We're going to be at 500ppm in the blink of an eye. On Sep 10, 2014 7:29 AM, Darryl McMahon dar...@econogics.com wrote: http://www.canadianunderwriter.ca/news/co2-concentration-in- atmosphere-now-42-higher-than-before-industrial-age-world- meteorological/1003244978/30sslyW42vwv682rM2vx/?ref= enews_CTECHutm_source=CTECHutm_medium=emailutm_campaign= CTECH-EN09102014 [Which is not to discount the increased methane contribution due to fracking for natural gas.] CO2 concentration in atmosphere now 42% higher than before industrial age: World Meteorological Organization By: John Heilprin - THE ASSOCIATED PRESS 2014-09-09 GENEVA - Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere reached a record high in 2013 and weather is becoming more extreme due to fossil fuel burning, the World Meteorological Organization warned Tuesday. As the heat-trapping gas blamed for the largest share of global warming, carbon dioxide rose to global concentrations of 396 parts per million last year, the biggest year-to-year change in three decades, the World Meteorological Organization said in an annual report. That's an increase of 2.9 ppm from the previous year and is 42 per cent higher than before the Industrial Age, when levels were about 280 parts per million. Based on the current rate, the world's carbon dioxide pollution level is expected to cross the 400 ppm threshold by 2016, said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. That is way beyond the 350 ppm that some scientists and environmental groups promote as a safe level and which was last seen in 1987. Greenhouse gas emissions are building up so fast that top climate scientists are becoming increasingly skeptical that countries across the globe will meet the goal they set at the 2009 Copenhagen climate summit of limiting global warming to about another 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) above current levels. In a draft report last month the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said it is looking more likely that the world will shoot past that point and by mid-century temperatures will increase by about another 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) compared to temperatures from 1986 to 2005. And by the end of the century that scenario will bring temperatures about 6.7 degrees warmer (3.7 degrees Celsius), it said. We know without any doubt that our climate is changing and our weather is becoming more extreme due to human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels, Jarraud said. Time is not on our side, for sure. To address the challenge, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has invited heads of state and other leaders to a Sept. 23 climate change summit in New York on the sidelines of the annual U.N. General Assembly. United States President Barack Obama has said he will attend to help spur new commitments from governments, industry and civil groups for reducing greenhouse gas emissions ahead of next year's global climate talks in Paris. The WMO report Tuesday said the rate of ocean acidification, which comes from added carbon absorbed by oceans, appears unprecedented at least over the last 300 million years. Between 1990 and 2013, carbon dioxide and other gas emissions caused a 34 per cent increase in the warming effect on the climate, the report said. The warming effect, or radiative forcing, measures the net difference between the sunlight that the Earth absorbs and the energy it radiates back into space. More absorption leads to higher temperatures. After carbon dioxide, methane has the biggest effect on climate. Atmospheric concentrations of methane reached a new high of 1,824 parts per billion in 2013, up 153 per cent from pre-industrial levels of about 700 parts per billion. About 40 per cent of the methane comes from natural sources such as termites and wetlands, but the rest is due to cattle breeding, rice agriculture, fossil fuel burning, landfills and incineration, according to the agency. ___ 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] WV chemical company fined $11, 000 for poisoning 300, 000 people's drinking water
So freaking lame. Corporate welfare knows no bounds. On Jul 9, 2014 4:18 PM, Darryl McMahon dar...@econogics.com wrote: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/08/wv-chemical-company-fined-11000-for- poisoning-30-peoples-drinking-water/ [Perhaps I have too high an opinion of myself, but I would like to think that if someone poisoned my drinking water, the value assigned to the punishment would be more than 4 cents. video and links in on-line article] WV chemical company fined $11,000 for poisoning 300,000 people's drinking water By David Edwards Tuesday, July 8, 2014 14:06 EDT The federal government announced this month that a West Virginia chemical company would be fined $11,000 for a spill earlier this year that poisoned the drinking water for 300,000 people in the state. According to a citation document obtained by The Charleston Gazette, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) hit Freedom Industries with a $7,000 fine for keeping chemicals in diked areas that were not liquid tight. The administration fined Freedom an addition $4,000 for not providing employees with a proper hand railing to walk over the storage dikes. About 300,000 people were left without drinking water when coal cleaning chemicals leaked on Jan. 9. A recent survey found that one in five people reported health issues after the chemical spill. The Marshall University Center for Business and Economic Research estimated in February that the spill would cost businesses $61 million. Freedom Industries, which filed for bankruptcy earlier this year, has not said whether it would appeal the fines. Watch the video below from Russia Today, broadcast June 24, 2014. ___ 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] Do-it-yourself biodiesel : Don't try this at home
This sounds like a shill piece. On Jun 24, 2014 3:31 PM, Darryl McMahon dar...@econogics.com wrote: http://www.therecord.com/news-story/4595225-do-it-yourself- biodiesel-don-t-try-this-at-home/ [FUD. Why is there an implicit assumption that motivated people of average intelligence can't learn how to do something without obtaining some certification of the knowledge? Yes, bad things do occasionally happen when 'amateurs' dabble with things with sharp edges - like knives. However, we have also had recent cases of commercial biodiesel plants catching fire.] Do-it-yourself biodiesel : Don't try this at home By Gordon Paul KITCHENER -- Only chemistry experts should try to make biodiesel, a chemist says after a batch exploded near Heidelberg last week. I wouldn't try to fly a plane or perform surgery, said David Archibald of FloChem Ltd. in Guelph. I wouldn't drive a city bus, try to arrest a criminal or put out a fire. Archibald used to work at one of the biggest biodiesel plants in Canada. Now he's a chemist and account manager at FloChem, which distributes chemicals to companies. Chemistry is really fun and exciting and cool, Archibald said. The things you can do are tremendous. But like everything, if you aren't trained, and if you don't know what you are doing, people can get hurt ... badly. Luke Martin, 23, was making hundreds of litres of biodiesel -- a cheap fuel used to power older diesel engines -- in Marvin Weber's barn south of Heidelberg last Tuesday night. The batch exploded and sparked a fire that destroyed the 30,000-square-foot barn and its contents. Damage topped $250,000. Martin escaped with singed eyebrows. Making biodiesel for your own use is legal and Archibald said many people are doing it. There's lots of them around. It's almost like a hobby for them. Most have no clue of the chemical hazards they're dealing with. Inevitably, these people end up in barns, using inappropriate tanks and hoses, with no temperature or vapour control. There are many accidents, all of which might be prevented. Biodiesel is made from three easy-to-find ingredients: used vegetable oil, potassium hydroxide and methanol. Archibald, a University of Waterloo graduate with a degree in chemistry and biology, blames the explosion on whoever sold Martin the methanol, a flammable liquid. Somebody sold some guy on a farm 45-gallon drums of methanol without checking to make sure they knew what the heck they were doing. We don't sell cigarettes and alcohol to minors, and we shouldn't sell flammable chemicals to untrained individuals. FloChem doesn't sell methanol but several area companies do. Archibald's company belongs to the Canadian Association of Chemical Distributors, which trumpets responsible distribution. That includes a presale, on-site safety inspection of the customer's facilities. You should know where your product's going -- cradle to grave, Archibald said. Biodiesel is not difficult to make, he said, but it is hard to make safely. It's very simple to get the materials, it's very simple to physically do the process. A lot of people get in pretty deep -- they get up to a pretty big scale -- without any idea of the risks they're taking. If you're going to make a litre of biodiesel on your countertop as a chemistry project, sure. ... Scaling your process up to something industrial-sized? I think you need a chemical engineer or chemist. You need somebody who understands health and safety. Martin had made biodiesel 15 to 20 times without a problem. This time, he thinks he mixed the methanol and potassium hydroxide too soon. Pressure built up and a small explosion sparked the fire. Later, methanol barrels in the barn exploded. I wouldn't jump on a tractor and run a plow, Archibald said. I don't know how to do that. I wouldn't think that just because I tilled my garden in the backyard I can do that. ___ 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] Performance, emissions, and heat losses of palm and jatropha biodiesel blends in a diesel engine
This seems to imply a large loss of combustion efficiency, with a lot of (noncombusted) fuel going out the tailpipe. Is the engine running for sinistral vs. biodiesel really so different? On May 28, 2014 11:26 AM, Darryl McMahon dar...@econogics.com wrote: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0926669014002660?np=y Industrial Crops and Products Volume 59, August 2014, Pages 96-104 Performance, emissions, and heat losses of palm and jatropha biodiesel blends in a diesel engine M.J. AbedinCorresponding author contact information, E-mail the corresponding author, H.H. Masjuki, M.A. KalamCorresponding author contact information, E-mail the corresponding author, A. Sanjid, S.M. Ashrafur Rahman, I.M. Rizwanul Fattah Centre for Energy Sciences, Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Received 22 January 2014, Revised 30 April 2014, Accepted 4 May 2014, Available online 27 May 2014 Highlights * Performance, emission and heat losses are investigated in a diesel engine. * 10% and 20% blends of palm and jatropha biodiesel are compared with Diesel. * Engine power decreases 2.3% to 10.7% and fuel consumption increases 19.0% to 26.4%. * Biodiesel reduces Carbon monoxide and Hydro carbon emissions up to 30.7%. * Nitrogen oxides emission decreases for palm but increases for jatropha blends. Abstract After the successful implementation of B5, 5% palm (Elaeis guineensis) based biodiesel, in Malaysia on June 1, 2011, the Malaysian government is now looking to phase out B5 by replacing it with B10 or even a higher blending ratio. Being non-edible feedstock, jatropha (Jatropha curcas) can play a vital role along with the existing palm oil. This experiment was conducted in a four-cylinder diesel engine fuelled with B5, 10%, and 20% blends of palm (PB10 and PB20) and jatropha (JB10 and JB20) biodiesel and compared with fossil diesel at full load and in the speed range of 1000 to 4000 RPM. The brake power was decreased on average 2.3% to 10.7% while operating on 10% and 20% blends of palm and jatropha biodiesel. An average of 26.4% BSFC increment was observed for PB20 and JB20 blends. An average of 30.7% carbon monoxide (CO) and 25.8% hydrocarbon (HC) emission reductions were found for 20% blends. On average, the nitrogen oxides (NOx) emission is decreased by 3.3% while operating on PB10 and PB20 blends, whereas it is increased by 3.0% while operating on JB10 and JB20 blends. Abbreviations BSFC, brake specific fuel consumption [g/KW h]; B5, 5% palm biodiesel + 95% diesel; B10, 10% biodiesel (any) + 90% diesel; FAME, fatty acid methyl ester; FFA, free fatty acid; LPG, liquefied petroleum gas; LHV, lower heating value [kJ/kg]; PB10, 10% palm biodiesel + 90% diesel; PB20, 20% palm biodiesel + 80% diesel; IC, internal combustion; JB10, 10% jatropha biodiesel + 90% diesel; JB20, 20% jatropha biodiesel + 80% diesel; RPM, revolution per minute Keywords Diesel engine; Performance; Emission; Heat loss; Biodiesel ___ 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] Continuous Process Transforms Algae to Biogas
Hmm. Could this work? So far, all the algae energy hype has been just that, hype. Algae can give you a great biofuel, but just doesn't scale up. It's a small is 'beautifuel' thing. On Feb 25, 2014 11:22 AM, Darryl McMahon dar...@econogics.com wrote: http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/Continuous- Process-Transforms-Algae-to-Biogas-2014-02-24/ Microalgae derived biogas is becoming an increasingly promising alternative to fossil fuels. Over the past years, researchers at the Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI) and EPFL have been developing SunCHem, a resource and energy efficient process, to cultivate microalgae and convert them into synthetic natural gas, a biofuel that is fully compatible with today's expanding gas grid. In an article published in Catalysis Today, they present one of the first continuous biomass to biogas conversion technologies. While it takes nature millions of years to transform biomass into biogas, it takes the SunCHem process less than an hour. The secret behind this feat is a process called hydrothermal gasification. First, algae-rich water is heated under pressure to a supercritical liquid state, to almost 400 degrees Celsius. In this supercritical state, the water effectively dissolves the organic matter contained in the biomass, while inorganic salts become less soluble and can be recovered as a nutrient concentrate. By gasifying the remaining solution in the presence of a catalyst, it is then split into water, CO2, and the methane rich biogas. Although the approach is still about five to seven times too expensive to compete with natural gas, microalgae evade much of the criticism that other biofuel sources face. They can be grown in raceway ponds built on non-arable land, without competing with agricultural food production. And although the algae need water to grow in, they are not picky. Depending on the species, they can grow in freshwater or saltwater, and in the future, they could potentially even be used to treat wastewater. A study published last year estimated that, for each unit of energy spent to produce the biogas, between 1.8 and most optimistically 5.8 units of energy could be produced. To save resources, cut costs, and increase the overall efficiency of the process, the entire system can be run in a closed loop. Some nutrients such as phosphate are limited resources, which we can recover when we gasify the biomass. Feeding them back into the water that we grow the algae in has a spectacular effect on their growth, says Mariluz Bagnoud, one of the two lead authors of the publication. For the publication, the researchers proved the feasibility of running the system as a continuous process. But they also found that feeding back water and nutrients over long durations leads to a degradation of the system's performance. We detected the deactivation of the catalyst used in the gasification process and we expect the accumulation of trace amounts of aluminum, says Bagnoud. The toxicity of the aluminum on the microalgae depends on the pH. By cultivating the algae at a neutral pH, these toxic effects can essentially be eliminated, she says. Now, the next steps will involve fine-tuning the process to increase the longevity of the catalyst, which is deactivated by the sulfur contained in the microalgae, she concludes. ___ 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
[Biofuel] David Suzuki's Fukushima Warning Is Dire And Scary
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/11/04/david-suzuki-fukushima-warning_n_4213061.html David Suzuki has issued a scary warning about Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant, saying that if it falls in a future earthquake, it's bye bye Japan and the entire west coast of North America should be evacuated. The Nature of Things host made the comments in a talk posted to YouTube after he joined Dr. David Schindler for Letting in the Light, a symposium on water ecology held at the University of Alberta on Oct. 30 and 31. An excerpt of the talk shows Suzuki outlining a frightening scenario that would result from the destruction of the nuclear plant. Fukushima is the most terrifying situation I can imagine, he said. Three out of the four plants were destroyed in the earthquake and in the tsunami. The fourth one has been so badly damaged that the fear is, if there's another earthquake of a seven or above that, that building will go and then all hell breaks loose. And the probability of a seven or above earthquake in the next three years is over 95 per cent. Suzuki said that an international team of experts needs to go into the Fukushima plant and help fix the problem, but said the Japanese government has too much pride to admit that. I have seen a paper which says that if in fact the fourth plant goes under in an earthquake and those rods are exposed, it's bye bye Japan and everybody on the west coast of North America should evacuate, he said. If that isn't terrifying, I don't know what is. Suzuki's warning came as radiation from the Fukushima plant has been detected in northern Alaska and along the west coast , CBC News reported. Radiation in Alaskan waters could reach Cold War levels, said Douglas Dasher, a researcher at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, although John Kelley, a professor emeritus at the same university, doesn't seem as certain that it will reach dangerous levels for humans. The data they will need is not only past data but current data, and if no one is sampling anything then we won't really know it, will we, he told the network. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] Climate Change 2013: Where We Are Now - Not What You Think
Goods article, in terms of presenting the data and critiquing the climate denial movement. But almost depressingly disappointing in the way it nosedived into a sales pitch at the very end, with fuzzy math and false equivalencies. There's no doubt a strong argument to be made for air capture (in fact, it's a concept I've wondered about myself), it certainly seems like it must be preferable to geo-engineering. But, how exactly does it work? What kind of waste (upstream and downstream) does it generate? And so on. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] With BMW’s i3, a major automaker shifts the EV market with composites
Precisely, Dawie. On Nov 7, 2013 1:53 PM, Dawie Coetzee dawie_coet...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: I've been noticing Big Oil pushing plastics feedstocks instead of fuels ...-D From: Jake Kruger kruger.j...@gmail.com To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org Sent: Thursday, 7 November 2013, 6:47 Subject: [Biofuel] With BMW’s i3, a major automaker shifts the EV market with composites http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2013_08_29_bmw_i3_shifts_ev_market_with_composites [links in online article] With BMW’s i3, a major automaker shifts the EV market with composites Cara Carmichael,Manager Fuel economy is greatly affected by an automobile’s weight. Nevertheless, for years our automobiles got heavier. In the U.S. the average curb weight of a passenger vehicle climbed 26 percent from 1980 to 2006. Advances in powertrain technology have not led to drastically higher mile per gallon ratings because of this increased weight, among other factors. However, the recent release of the BMW i3 signals the beginning of a shift toward lightweighting that will help to drive the efficiency and competitiveness of electric vehicles. BMW is using carbon-fiber-reinforced plastic on its new electric i3 to shave off up to 770 pounds from the autobody compared to using traditional materials, without significant price increase. The result is a four-passenger car that can go 100 miles on a charge with a sticker price of just over $40,000. It’s no coincidence that BMW’s development of its first production electric vehicle coincided with a dramatic investment in a new design paradigm based on carbon fiber composites. BMW’s Blank Slate BMW knew it couldn’t just slap batteries and motors into one of its existing models. The i3’s battery pack weighs in at over 1000 pounds, so body weight reduction was critical to offsetting the batteries’ weight. To achieve a range approaching 100 miles (an influential number generally viewed as the acceptable minimum for electric vehicles) on one of its existing vehicles, it would have needed a very large battery pack to move around that heavy steel. This would have further increased mass, in turn requiring more heavy batteries, and so on, a vicious (and expensive) cycle given that just a 10 percent increase in battery capacity (the equivalent of increasing the i3’s range by about 10 miles) would add about 100 pounds of mass and $1200 of cost to the vehicle. Plus, every mile driven in a more massive electric vehicle requires more energy, making its equivalent mile-per-gallon rating worse and its operating cost higher. To achieve a level of weight reduction that could begin to effectively offset all that electric powertrain mass, BMW designers knew they would need to rethink the vehicle’s design from the ground up. They would need to change the body’s shape to better integrate the new electric drivetrain and motors, and they would need materials that could offer the same structural integrity with less weight. Despite carbon fiber composites’ higher cost per pound as compared to steel, every pound saved by virtue of the new materials’ structural advantage was a pound the battery pack would not have to move around. The business case for making a dramatic investment in an all-new material, with its own unique structural characteristics, manufacturing processes, production facilities, and supply chain suddenly made sense. BMW spent about ten years doing exactly that, forging partnerships with new industries, vertically integrating a global supply chain, building new manufacturing facilities, and incorporating carbon fiber composite parts on its existing vehicles to get its feet wet. Currently BMW is able to produce an i3 body about every 20 hours, allowing it to kick out a shade over 400 vehicles per year, not many by auto industry standards, though an important start. And at a selling price in the low $40,000s, the i3 will be out of reach for mainstream consumers, who have a price break point of $30,000 (though federal and state incentives may help to knock the i3 sticker price down closer to an acceptable number for some consumers in the right markets). RMI Scaling Up Autocomposites Like BMW, Rocky Mountain Institute recognizes the transformative potential of carbon fiber composite. If adopted by the automotive industry at scale, total global demand for carbon fiber would very quickly skyrocket, and needed investments in disruptive technology to make the material cheaper would come pouring in from material companies eager to gain a foothold in their largest potential growth market. Whole vehicles like the i3 would then become much more cost effective and the way would be paved for a world filled with affordable, carbon fiber intensive vehicles 50 percent lighter than today’s vehicles, powered by electrified powertrains, needing no oil and emitting no
Re: [Biofuel] Are Utility Companies Out to Destroy Solar's 'Rooftop Revolution'?
Ha ha. Yup On Oct 13, 2013 4:33 PM, Chip Mefford c...@well.com wrote: In a word? Yu Becha! ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] Battery Breakthrough?
I'm somewhat less skeptical. There have indeed been quite a few breakthrough battery concepts over the past decade or so, which have never materialized commercially. But this one has something. Or things, I should say. First, the chemistry is pretty much pre-lithium-sounding; almost a hybrid of alkaline and nickel-type chemistries. The safety and reliability of these types is pretty darn good. Second, if I've understood correctly, the potential gains in power and energy-density derive not so much from the chemistry, but from the structure of the battery itself. So, really, the safety issue sounds like a red herring, and the primary concern is to find a way to make these things in volume. Which leads to my final point, which is that this is a design which sounds as though it would be the perfect poster child for showcasing the potential of 3D printing. Put all these things together, and I think you'll find no shortage of venture capitalists looking to get behind it. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] What Could the Massacre of 40, 000 Elephants Possibly Teach Us?
Yes, I saw this a few weeks back. Kept meaning to post it here. Fortunately there are others on the list more on the ball than me. Thanks, Keith. There were a one or two things that bothered me about the talk, though. Firstly, from my recollection he makes no mention of CAFOs. None. He also IMHO puts too much responsibility on ecologists. As if there weren't a multitude of voices, as you point out. He doesn't ask why certain voices were listened to, and not others. It's OK if he wants to leave politics out of it, but he shouldn't have singled out a particular group. It also struck me that while he admits his own responsibility, he's basically acting as though he's some great innovator. Maybe there's people managing the message, who think (and maybe they're right) the message will be more effective that way? The other main point that bothered me, is that he almost trivializes the role of CO2 emissions. He gives the statistic of how much carbon is released by burning grassland in terms of vehicular emissions, but leaves out the fact that the burning is essentialy carbon neutral whereas the vehicular emissions are not. Many of the comparisons he makes seem slanted in this way. But on the whole, it's an important message. The fact that it's being highlighted and getting exposure in the social media is a good thing. On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Keith Addison ke...@journeytoforever.orgwrote: Some people have been saying this for a long time, including me. Contrary to the dumb and debunked FAO report Livestock's Long Shadow... -K http://articles.mercola.com/**sites/articles/archive/2013/** 03/30/grazing-livestock.aspx?**e_cid=20130330_DNL_art_1utm_** source=dnlutm_medium=email**utm_content=art1utm_campaign=**20130330http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/03/30/grazing-livestock.aspx?e_cid=20130330_DNL_art_1utm_source=dnlutm_medium=emailutm_content=art1utm_campaign=20130330 What Could the Massacre of 40,000 Elephants Possibly Teach Us? March 30, 2013 Allan Savory: How to green the world's deserts and reverse climate change http://www.youtube.com/watch?**feature=player_embeddedv=**vpTHi7O66pIhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=vpTHi7O66pI Story at-a-glance * The conversion of large amounts of fertile land to desert has long been thought to be caused by livestock, such as sheep and cattle overgrazing and giving off methane. This has now been shown to be incorrect, as removing animals to protect land speeds up desertification * Rising population, land turning into desert at a steady clip, and climate change, converge to create a perfect storm that threatens life on earth. According to an African ecologist, dramatically increasing the number of grazing livestock is the only thing that can reverse both desertification and climate change * Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), play a key role in this impending disaster, as large-scale factory farms also directly contribute to environmental pollution * According to estimates, grazing large herds of livestock on half of the world's barren or semi-barren grasslands could take enough carbon from the atmosphere to bring us back to preindustrial levels * A holistic management and planned grazing system has already been implemented in select areas on five continents, with dramatically positive results By Dr. Mercola In the TED Talk above, ecologist Allan Savory explains how we're currently encouraging desertification, and how to not only stop it, but reverse it, by dramatically increasing the number of grazing livestock. According to Savory, rising population, land turning into desert at a steady clip (known as desertification), converge to create a perfect storm that threatens life on earth. Most people think technology is required to solve the problem. Not so, he says. While we do need novel technology to replace fossil fuels, desertification cannot be reversed with technology. For that, we need to revert backward, and start mimicking nature and the way things were in the past. How Grazing Livestock Impacts Our Land and Water According to Savory, we not only can, but indeed MUST, use grazing livestock to address desertification. In his talk, he explains how we can work with nature, at very low cost, to reverse both of these problems. By some estimates, grazing large herds of livestock on half of the world's barren or semi-barren grasslands could take enough carbon from the atmosphere to bring us back to preindustrial levels. Nothing offers more hope, he says. Desertification happens when we create too much bare ground. In areas where a high level of humidity is guaranteed, desertification cannot occur. Ground cover allows for trapping of water, preventing the water from evaporating. At present, a staggering two-thirds of the landmass on earth is desertifying. As explained by Savory, water and carbon are tied to organic matter. When
Re: [Biofuel] Amazing Wikipedia comment on Biogas
Wikipedia has sanitized that entry, but it's still in the Google search engine cache. Too funny. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] To Darryl, Robert, Sandbh and. . . .
I'd like to say thanks for your efforts with the daily postings. It is really appreciated. Respect. Was there a volunteer to handle Truthout? I thought at one point I saw someone say they'd step up but haven't really been able to stay on top of it. One thing I noticed, though, is that on the items you are posting Robert, you seem to be omitting the step of heading them with the direct link? I know that for myself, the direct link is very helpful both for sharing and sometimes for viewing directly. In any case, thanks again to all of you. On Mar 15, 2013 3:50 PM, Darryl McMahon dar...@econogics.com wrote: In 2011, 25 major U.S. corporations paid their CEOs more than they paid in corporate income taxes. ==**==**= http://truth-out.org/news/**item/15096-once-upon-a-time-** corporations-paid-taxeshttp://truth-out.org/news/item/15096-once-upon-a-time-corporations-paid-taxes Once Upon a Time, Corporations Paid Taxes Wednesday, 13 March 2013 10:10 By Sam Pizzigati, Too Much | News Analysis In America today, the New York Times reports, we’re living in “a golden age” — for corporate profits. These earnings have been leaping at a 20 percent annual clip. In fact, to find a year when corporations were grabbing as great a share of America’s income as they’re grabbing now, you have to go back to 1950. But corporate execs in 1950 had cause to mute their celebrating. Unlike execs today, they paid heavy taxes on both their corporate and individual earnings. In 1950, by statute, major corporations faced a 42 percent tax rate on their profits, a rate that would jump the next year to just over 50 percent. The share of profits corporations actually paid in taxes, after exploiting loopholes, averaged about 40 percent throughout the 1950s. The tax hit on top executive individual incomes would be even heftier. In 1950, General Motors chief Charley Wilson took home more pay than any other U.S. chief executive. Wilson reported $586,100 in income that year, about $5.6 million in today’s dollars. He paid $430,350 of that income — 73 percent — in taxes. Top corporate executives today operate in a totally different universe. The corporations they run, for starters, face a much smaller tax bill. The top corporate tax rate has dropped to 35 percent, and loopholes have proliferated. In 2011, major U.S. corporations actually paid on average only 12.1 percent of their earnings in taxes. That same year, adds the Institute for Policy Studies, 25 major U.S. corporations paid their CEOs more than they paid in corporate income taxes. Corporate execs as individuals enjoy an even better deal these days than the corporations they run, both before and after taxes. General Motors ranked as America’s mightiest corporation in 1950. Yet the executive pay that Charley Wilson took in for running GM amounts to less than half the $12.1 million average pay, after adjusting for inflation, that went to the CEOs at America’s 500 top publicly traded corporations in 2012. Two years ago, the CEO of contemporary America’s mightiest corporation, Apple computers, pocketed a pay deal worth $378 million, or over 67 times what GM, after inflation, paid Charley Wilson in 1950. We don’t know how much Apple CEO Tim Cook is paying in federal income taxes today. We do know, from IRS stats, that Americans who made over $10 million in 2010 paid on average just under 24 percent of their incomes in federal income tax, less than a third what Charley Wilson paid in 1950. How much should we read into these huge contrasts between corporate profits, pay, and taxes back over a half century ago and today? What difference does any of this make for the rest of us? A huge difference. The outrageously rich rewards that top executives can pocket in 21st century America — and the absence of any meaningful tax bite on these rewards — give our top executives a powerful incentive to behave outrageously, to relentlessly pump up profits by whatever means necessary. Our modern top execs, as one analyst notes, have more of an incentive “to loot” their companies than invest in their futures. The more they “loot” — by downsizing and outsourcing, by squeezing consumers, by stiffing Uncle Sam at tax time — the fatter the quarterly bottom lines, the greater their personal pay. The end result of this looting: an America where corporate profits are setting records while typical workers, as former U.S. labor secretary Robert Reich points out, are making less today, in real dollars, than they earned a dozen years ago. Corporate executives in Europe have been watching this U.S. corporate greed grab with intense personal interest. Over recent years, they’ve done their best to mimic U.S. corporate standard operating procedure, sky-high executive pay included. But Europeans are pushing back against this “Americanization.” In Switzerland, 68 percent of voters in a landmark March 3 referendum opted to ban the most lucrative
Re: [Biofuel] To Darryl, Robert, Sandbh and. . . .
Thanks for clarifying, Darryl. I hope to be able to contribute before too long. My situation is pretty messed up right now. Robert, I see. Tinyurl might help with that (though I don't know how easy, or not, it is to do)? On Mar 17, 2013 1:19 PM, robert and benita rabello rabe...@shaw.ca wrote: On 3/17/2013 9:30 AM, Chris Burck wrote: I'd like to say thanks for your efforts with the daily postings. It is really appreciated. Respect. Was there a volunteer to handle Truthout? I thought at one point I saw someone say they'd step up but haven't really been able to stay on top of it. One thing I noticed, though, is that on the items you are posting Robert, you seem to be omitting the step of heading them with the direct link? I know that for myself, the direct link is very helpful both for sharing and sometimes for viewing directly. I've done that for the last couple of days because ICH has been under a hacker attack since posting a rather unflattering article about Israel. Their URLs have suddenly become very large and take up multiple lines on the page. I can include them, but I thought they looked messy. Robert Luis Rabello Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Meet the People video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=txsCdh1hZ6chttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txsCdh1hZ6c Crisis video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=mZedNEXhTn4http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZedNEXhTn4 The Long Journey video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=vy4muxaksgkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vy4muxaksgk __**_ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.**sustainablelists.orgSustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/**cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/** sustainablelorgbiofuelhttp://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] To Darryl, Robert, Sandbh and. . . .
BTW I shared that one on Facebook, about Israeli ethnic cleansing (I assume that's the one you're referring to). Immediately got pounced on. Textbook example of someone who refuses to confront their own irrationality. The best I could get out of him was there've been mistakes on both sides. Then he turns around and, in a separate conversation, actually characterises Chomsky as a western apologist! Ugh! Really?!?! ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] IDF Sends Helicopter to Save the Life of PA Arab Rioter
So all of those missiles and bombs and bullets that rain down on Gaza and the West Bank; the roadblocks, checkpoints and blockade; the total Israeli control of infrastructure, etc., etc., etc. . .is all really just part of a vast, pro-Palestinian humanitarian program on the part of the Israelis? I feel so ashamed to think I could so easily have been duped by what, it is clear to me now, can only be described as a worldwide conspiracy of the antisemitic media. Whose control of the flow of information is so complete that the fact of this one little story finding its way to my inbox, is nothing short of a Chanukah miracle! Can't help wondering if there's been any follow up to this story by other sources. If his treatment in any way resembles the Arafat fellow's, he'd have been better off without the 'rescue'. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] Let's Give Up on the Constitution
If I may interject briefly, I saw a very timely political cartoon the other day: A bunch of founding father-looking dudes are gathered round a writing desk, where another is seated with quill in hand. One of the fellows on his feet asks, Are you sure everyone will know we're being ironic? On Jan 9, 2013 7:51 PM, Keith Addison ke...@journeytoforever.org wrote: Hi Jason From another old bit of parchment: The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun wait... that was in the bible? i always presented it as a logical argument- had reasoning and eveything. :-) Why shouldn't it be logical? It's from Ecclesiastes. Careful, or I'll post the whole thing, I love it! I'm far from the only one, eg: Ecclesiastes has had a deep influence on Western literature: American novelist Thomas Wolfe wrote: [O]f all I have ever seen or learned, that book seems to me the noblest, the wisest, and the most powerful expression of man's life upon this earth - and also the highest flower of poetry, eloquence, and truth. I am not given to dogmatic judgments in the matter of literary creation, but if I had to make one I could say that Ecclesiastes is the greatest single piece of writing I have ever known, and the wisdom expressed in it the most lasting and profound. Admittedly it doesn't have a lot in common with the rest of the Bible. crap... anyways, i'm not saying he's wrong, i'm saying what good ol' mark twain did so long ago history might not repeat, but it certainly rhymes. its not the constitution, per se that is causing the problems, it's the fact that we didn't go right ahead and do what was suggested those 236 years ago, and re-write it every twenty-five years. Ah, yes. Instead of that it got 10 times older than its use-by date, and in the meantime the political system gained such a Gothic accumulation of patches and fixes and add-ons and excrescences that it's hard to see how it could possibly hope to achieve anything at all, let alone stuff like democracy and progress. Obese and senile. On the other hand, The Founding Fathers Versus The Gun Nuts, which I just posted, has something to say for it. i just about guarantee my kids have little or no connection to the social/political environment of even my parents, let alone that of 1776. Safe bet. shit happens, rules get outmoded, people die, and so on, ad infinitum. :-) Sounds like a New York version of Ecclesiastes. I like it! Bartleby's version: Ecclesiastes http://www.bartleby.com/44/4/**1.htmlhttp://www.bartleby.com/44/4/1.html Regardds Keith Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 20:47:05 +0200 To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.**sustainablelists.orgsustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org From: ke...@journeytoforever.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Let's Give Up on the Constitution Hi Jason giving up on the constitution would just give the US a new constitution. tradition and respect? that's all well and good, but somebody's going to want to write it down sometime or another, and it'll be the same rusty old arguments with a different piece of parchment two hundred years from now... there's no such thing as new. Paper shredders? :-) Sorry... He does have a point though, more than one, IMHO. From another old bit of parchment: The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Would that it were still so. Until not very long ago, people were born, and not long after that they'd die, and between the two events very little changed, if anything. Now, for many or most of us, change is about the only thing you can rely on (seven billion humans ain't new?). The Bible is a wonderful book to go cherry-picking in. I suspect it's the same with the other great religions. And I think the US Constitution is often just the same - I posted a recent article explaining the crucial difference between what it actually says and what most Americans think it says about gun rights, for instance. Too often, it's just dogma. You don't need it. Other countries don't even have a constitution, like the UK, for instance. Literal, or legalistic, interpretations of the past aren't always the best guide to dealing with today's problems, let alone tomorrow's. Things do change: And a genocide, and a civil war, over slavery. The interesting thing for me is that slavery was not a problem for Jesus (I'm not sure about most other major religions but I think this is true of them also), and nowhere does He mention democracy, equal rights, or any of the current cornerstone concepts we take for granted as truth. That is a surprise to me, and I wonder why, and I wonder what deep and complex lessons that might have for us, and what it tells us about our new thinking.
Re: [Biofuel] Climate Change Is Happening Now - A Carbon Price Must Follow
And more. They just keep getting hammered: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/12/03-5 On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 8:52 PM, Keith Addison ke...@journeytoforever.orgwrote: Climate Experts To World: Act Boldly Now, or Pay Severely Later There is still time to avert worst impacts of climate change, but that means serious action and less talk Published on Friday, November 30, 2012 by Common Dreams http://www.commondreams.org/**headline/2012/11/30-3http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/11/30-3 It's Not Just That Corporations Are Ignoring Global Warming, They Are Profiting From It Friday, 30 November 2012 http://www.truth-out.org/**buzzflash/commentary/item/** 17666-it-s-not-just-that-**corporations-are-ignoring-** global-warming-they-are-**profiting-from-ithttp://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/17666-it-s-not-just-that-corporations-are-ignoring-global-warming-they-are-profiting-from-it Doha climate talks deadlocked December 3 2012 http://www.iol.co.za/news/**world/doha-climate-talks-** deadlocked-1.1434990http://www.iol.co.za/news/world/doha-climate-talks-deadlocked-1.1434990 --0-- http://www.commondreams.org/**view/2012/11/30http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/11/30 Published on Friday, November 30, 2012 by The Guardian/UK Climate Change Is Happening Now - A Carbon Price Must Follow The extreme weather events of 2012 are what we have been warning of for 25 years, but the answer is plain to see by James Hansen Will our short attention span be the end of us? Just a month after the second storm of a century in two years, the media moves on to the latest scandal with barely a retrospective glance at the implications of the extreme climate anomalies we have seen. Hurricane Sandy was not just a storm. It was a stark illustration of the power that climate change can deliver - today - to our doorsteps. Ask the homeowners along the New Jersey and New York shores still homeless. Ask the local governments struggling weeks later to turn on power to their cold, darkened towns and cities. Ask the entire north-east coast, reeling from a catastrophe whose cost is estimated at $50bn and rising. (I am not brave enough to ask those who've lost husbands or wives, children or grandparents). I bring up these facts sadly, as one who has urged us to heed the scientific evidence on climate change for the past 25 years. The science is clear: climate change is here, now. Superstorm Sandy is not the first storm, and certainly won't be the last. Still, it is hard for us as individual human beings to connect the dots. That's where observation, data and scientific analysis help us see. No credible scientist disputes that we have warmed our climate by almost 1.5C over land areas in the past century, most of that in the past 30 years. As my colleagues and I demonstrated in a peer-reviewed study published this summer, climate extremes are already occurring much more frequently in the world we have warmed through our reliance on fossil fuels. Our analysis showed that extreme summer heat anomalies used to be infrequent: covering only 0.1-0.2% of the globe in any given summer during the base period of our study, from 1951 to 1980. During the past decade, as the average global temperature rose, such extremes have covered 10% of the land. Extreme temperatures deliver more than heat. The water cycle is especially sensitive to rising temperatures. Increased heat speeds up evaporation, causing more extreme droughts, like the $5bn (and counting) drought in Texas and Oklahoma. It is linked to an expanding wildfire season and an increase by several fold in the frequency of large fires in the American west. The heat also leads to more extreme sea surface temperatures - a key culprit behind Sandy's devastating force. The latent heat in atmospheric water vapor is the fuel that powers tornadoes, thunderstorms, and hurricanes. Stepping up evaporation with warmer temperatures is like stepping on the gas: More energy-rich vapor condenses into water drops, releasing more latent heat as it does so, causing more powerful storms, increased rainfall and more extreme flooding. This is not a matter of belief. This is high-school science class. The chances of getting a late October hurricane in New York without the help of global warming are extremely small. In that sense, you can blame Sandy on global warming. Sandy was the strongest recorded storm, measured by barometric pressure, to make landfall north of Cape Hatteras, eclipsing the hurricane of 1938. But this fixation on determining the blame for a particular storm, or disputing the causal link between climate change and this or that storm, is misguided. A better path forward means listening to the growing chorus - Sandy, extreme droughts and wildfires, intense rainstorms, record-breaking melting of Arctic sea ice - and taking action. Think of it like taking out an insurance policy for the
Re: [Biofuel] Anti-nuclear madness doesn't jibe with concern about global warming
Actually, Porritt seems to see the need for a greater emphasis on local-scale power, though to what extent I can't tell (Perhaps this, in addition to nuclear's absolutely atrocious record in terms of safety and compliance and cost, is a factor in his opposition to nuclear.). Whereas Monbiot makes comments which are clearly and unabashedly in favor of the centralized, top-down paradigm; if only because he doesn't believe local-scale power can work. It's not clear to me what Porritt's exact position is, on nuclear, in terms of immediate decommissioning vs. eliminating future nuclear investments, for example. Monbiot, on the other hand, openly advocates for an expansion of nuclear capacity, and investment in GenIV technology. The GenIV stuff is very compelling, though there's a real dearth of detail out there. And I have to agree with Porritt on this; the track record for nuclear, on the part of the power companies and government both, is just so egregious, there's no way i could envision any new power generation without a very clear and detailed explanation of what they're selling, including on the engineering/installation level. In fact, they (or some of them) have already shot themselves in the foot--at least, where my having any confidence is concerned--by mis-portraying their 'product'. A repeat of the 1950s/60s/70s futuristic, space-age-style campaign, will only do us a disservice (I can hear the voice-over now, No-ho-ho [laughing affectionately], it's not magic. It just seems that way! [brightly] Because it's so advanced!) That said, insofar as a 'premature' decommissioning of reactors in the U.S., whether immediately or on an accelerated timeline, I just don't see that happening, short of another disaster 'on our soil'. There's plenty of people who don't like nuclear, but far fewer would define themselves as 'opposed' (opposed to what's already there, at least). There's a whole lot of other factors as well, which make for overcoming a huge amount of inertia. And, as you pointed out, it's not so clear that shutting down nuclear at this time would be the right thing to do. Re Porritt and solar, a little googling turned up nothing as to what his commercial activities are. From the looks of it, he has never wanted for financial means and his commercial involvement(s) could wery well be almost. . .recreational. He's had some pretty high level NGO-type appointments for a long time, which, if he takes them seriously, must demand a considerable amount of his time and energy. Also, he's apparently a big Z-Pop booster. Actually, DePop would be more accurate. On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Keith Addison ke...@journeytoforever.orgwrote: Yes, I wholeheartedly agree. Monbiot can't be criticized for pointing out the complicated mess we're in. These are sticky issues indeed. Until we recognize, collectively, that a fundamental restructuring lies at the heart of it, we will forever find ourselves choosing whatever seems the least unpalatable. Agree. Lesser-evilism. Though I think many people do recognise that, more and more of them, and they're active. Enough of them? Wrong question, and doubting it is a lousy reason for not getting involved. It needs a phased approach, coordinated and integrated, a grand strategy, and a dogged focus, with a bit of pragmatism where approprate. Occupy is an interesting model, one of many - no leaders, no manifesto, nothing you can grab hold of or subvert, yet everyone knows what to do and why, it's adaptable and flexible, and it drives the MSM and TPTB suitably nuts. For instance, leave the existing nukes for now, perhaps even allow a few new gas-fired plants, focus all efforts on fighting coal and oil. Just an example, not a proposal. I firmly believe that all of the demos, protests, strikes, general outrage and rejection taking place all round the world are part of the same phenomenon, and it won't stop, we won't take no for an answer, we'll keep going until we've won, and then we'll win the peace too. It's not a sudden uprising, though it might look like it from the outside. It's been building for a long time, it has impetus and momentum, it's implacable. . . .In this case, I'm not so sure that he is wrong. It seems to depend somewhat on what time-scale you're looking at. In the shorter term, he might be right. New nukes are a total no-no, but how to set decommissioning existing nukes against building new coal and gas fired plants to replace them, as in Merkel's case? Japan, with all but two of its nukes shut down, has been doing what amounts to the same thing, with huge increases in fossil fuel imports - indeed China, of all countries, just told Japan to cut its carbon emissions. Is it better or worse to leave existing nukes in place and accept their emissions reductions (which are real, in current-account terms), in a time when any and every reduction is crucially important, as all agree it is,
Re: [Biofuel] Anti-nuclear madness doesn't jibe with concern about global warming
Do you have a link for the PASA conference presentation/keynote? On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Chip Mefford c...@well.com wrote: Ooops, Wrong presentation, But it's still directly germane. - Original Message - From: Chip Mefford c...@well.com To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2012 9:19:37 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Anti-nuclear madness doesn't jibe with concern about global warming Good day all: At some point, I meant to transcribe some bits and pieces from this presentation from our annual conference last Feb at PASA (Pennsylvania Assoc for Sustainable Agriculture) due to it's relevance on asking the really tough questions that will stimulate the environment wherein we can start finding real answers. I've listened to this keynote about 6 times, and I've yet to fully 'get it' all yet, and you can hear a few of my hoots during it in places. :) Regardless, for those who are actually interested in the whole thing, here it is: http://vimeo.com/34530550 ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel -- ¡Ay, Pachamamita! ¡Eres la cosa más bonita! ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] Retail Madness
Robert, Nice essay. Buy more stuff. Confuse everyone. That had me in stitches. Just Wonderful. Your post came on the heels of a interview program the other day. This guy had written a book critiquing holiday consumerism. He was pretty good. So somewhere he brings up iron lady thatcher, and i can't remember what the tie-in was but, he mentions that she once said There is no society. (A response to her critics when she was smashing the unions? I don't know. . . .) But what a telling comment. A contemporary of the distinguished gentlemen pictured most of the way down your page. The MSM is so very shameless in its role as 'facilitator'. The tv news actually addressed the fact that the buying fever was already in full swing during the afternoon of Thanksgiving Thursday. How did they frame it? By pointing out how FDR, at the behest of some retail magnate, had had the holiday moved up by a week in order to lengthen the Christmas shopping season. A story which, whether true or not, has long been embedded in U.S. Thanksgiving/Christmas Floklore. But basically the message was, Waddaya know? Turns out Thanksgiving is already artificial-ized and you were none the wiser. We don't even celebrate Thanksgiving on Thanksgiving anymore, but you still get warm, fuzzy feelings about the day. Let's just focus on that. I swear, when they do stuff like that, it's like they're satirizing themselves. Keith, That's hilarious. The Christmas jingles in Hong Kong, too, in a tear-jerking sort of way. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] Retail Madness
Oops, that's hilarious: I can't read Chinese or Japanese, so all the neon buy-buy-buy signs were just a kind of rather pretty abstract art to me. -- ¡Ay, Pachamamita! ¡Eres la cosa más bonita! ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] Anti-nuclear madness doesn't jibe with concern about global warming
Hi Keith, True enough. Admittedly, my initial rection was unduly harsh. I don't think any of us thought dear old George is in anybody's pocket though. So IMHO we can't (yet) convict Mr Dyer on any evidence that's beyond reasonable doubt. However, i remember the monbiot piece (the one with kubrick-inspired title)--and it seems you've posted other columns by him, though i don't really remember offhand what they were about. I didn't agree with his reasoning or conclusions on the matter, but the difference between that column and the dyer piece, both in the quality of argument as well as tone, was huge IMHO. Not that it necessarilly makes that much difference, in the end. If he's got it wrong, he's got it wrong. But at least Monbiot comes across as a guy who tries to look at these things conscientiously, and who can be reasoned with. As opposed to Dyer, who, as Darryl so aptly expressed it, just came off as being of a 'hard path' mindset. He didn't really have an argument, just conclusions. And accusations. There was at once a scornfulness, and a sort of veiled, McCarthyistic fifth-column hysteria. Not to mention a kind of resentful grumbling. It was this last, i think, which led me to question his intellectual honesty and journalistic ethics (especially the bit about the fall in the uranium market). Anyway, i haven't yet read monbiot's bits from august last year that you posted, so maybe i'll change my mind about him too, lol. -- ¡Ay, Pachamamita! ¡Eres la cosa más bonita! ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] Anti-nuclear madness doesn't jibe with concern about global warming
Yes, I wholeheartedly agree. Monbiot can't be criticized for pointing out the complicated mess we're in. These are sticky issues indeed. Until we recognize, collectively, that a fundamental restructuring lies at the heart of it, we will forever find ourselves choosing whatever seems the least unpalatable. . . .In this case, I'm not so sure that he is wrong. It seems to depend somewhat on what time-scale you're looking at. In the shorter term, he might be right. New nukes are a total no-no, but how to set decommissioning existing nukes against building new coal and gas fired plants to replace them, as in Merkel's case? Japan, with all but two of its nukes shut down, has been doing what amounts to the same thing, with huge increases in fossil fuel imports - indeed China, of all countries, just told Japan to cut its carbon emissions. Is it better or worse to leave existing nukes in place and accept their emissions reductions (which are real, in current-account terms), in a time when any and every reduction is crucially important, as all agree it is, or should we close them all down and focus on replacing the power they generate with renewable sources? That will take time (too much time?) and cost money, always a prickly problem. Renewables aren't that great either, especially considering the complete absence of a local approach, it's all top-down. And we long ago agreed that replacement isn't the answer, nor even an option. Or should we commit much more science to geo-engineering? Or is another Fukushima just waiting to happen anyway, whatever we do? All of this leaving aside the answerless question of spent fuel disposal, since it's going to be left aside anyway. As are the bombs. It's easy to understand what you said about low morale, why people say sod it, let's just just leave the whole stinking mess to our noble leaders, who will surely steer our course unerringly towards an ever-glorious future. As opposed to Dyer, who, as Darryl so aptly expressed it, just came off as being of a 'hard path' mindset. He didn't really have an argument, just conclusions. And accusations. There was at once a scornfulness, and a sort of veiled, McCarthyistic fifth-column hysteria. Not to mention a kind of resentful grumbling. Absolutely. Thuggish. It was this last, i think, which led me to question his intellectual honesty and journalistic ethics (especially the bit about the fall in the uranium market). It's what led me to suspect he's spun. Those aren't even his own opinions, they're just implants, from the opinion manufacturing industry. It's why he doth protest so loudly. Methinks. Ha, that's funny. I actually googled Dyer already. The first sentence pretty much told me what I needed to know: military historian. Not that i think that that defines him, per se (i did read the whole article, his docu film work sounds interesting), but it explains a lot wrt his posture in this editorial. Gwynne Dyer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Gwynne_Dyerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwynne_Dyer Anyway, i haven't yet read monbiot's bits from august last year that you posted, so maybe i'll change my mind about him too, lol. Interested to know what you think. - K LOL. I pretty much tipped my hand on that already. :) I just read his 8 Aug., 2011 Guardian column, and the Porritt column he was responding to; as well as the Broadbent piece cited by both. I haven't done any reading or cross-referencing or otherwise looked into any of the various reports and studies that all three of them cite. That being said, it seems to me that Porritt was the more intellectually honest (despite his apparent willingness to put faith in carbon capture). Monbiot misrepresented and distorted Porritt's arguments, and IMHO wildly exaggerated Porritt's highly personal and vicious tone. I don't know if George is simply incapable of taking criticism, or if he's resorting to the victim card because he knows he can't win on the merits. I also find myself wondering if he didn't stage the debate as a way to try and discredit Porritt, anticipating that Porritt would criticize him personally. -- ¡Ay, Pachamamita! ¡Eres la cosa más bonita! ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] AP Believes It Found Evidence of Iran's Work on Nuclear Weapons
AP were way off the mark on this one. Clearly that graph demonstrates that Iran is not merely researching 'da bomb', but possess knowledge which only comes from having secretly built and detonated many, many bombs. In fact it appears they are poised to leapfrog the u.s. in nuclear weapons capability. We can only be thankful that they have never actually fielded any nuclear weapons. A fact which, given their capabilities, only underscores just how irrational they really are. Quick, mobilize the fleet. No time to waste. On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:37 PM, Keith Addison ke...@journeytoforever.orgwrote: http://www.commondreams.org/**view/2012/11/28-2http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/11/28-2 Published on Wednesday, November 28, 2012 by the Guardian/UK AP Believes It Found Evidence of Iran's Work on Nuclear Weapons A primitive graph provided by a country critical of Iran's atomic program indicts the news outlet more than Tehran by Glenn Greenwald Uncritical, fear-mongering media propaganda is far too common to take note of each time it appears, but sometimes, what is produced is so ludicrous that its illustrative value should not be ignored. Such is the case with a highly trumpeted Associated Press exclusive http://bigstory.ap.org/** article/ap-exclusive-graph-**suggests-iran-working-bombhttp://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-exclusive-graph-suggests-iran-working-bomb from Tuesday which claims in its red headline to have discovered evidence of Iran Working on Bomb. What is this newly discovered, scary evidence? It is a graph which AP says was leaked to it by officials from a country critical of Iran's atomic program to bolster their arguments that Iran's nuclear program must be halted before it produces a weapon (how mysterious: the globe is gripped with befuddlement as it tries to guess which country that might be). Here's how AP presents the graph in all its incriminating, frightening glory: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-**images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/** 2012/11/28/1354101191311/ap.**pnghttp://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/11/28/1354101191311/ap.png This, says AP, shows that Iranian scientists have run computer simulations for a nuclear weapon that would produce more than triple the explosive force of the World War II bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. Moreover, an intelligence summary provided with the drawing - provided, that is, by the mysterious country critical of Iran's atomic program - linked [the graph] to other alleged nuclear weapons work - significant because it would indicate that Iran is working not on isolated experiments, but rather on a single program aimed at mastering all aspects of nuclear arms development. Where to begin? First, note that AP granted anonymity here not merely to an individual but to an entire country. What's the proffered justification for doing so? The officials wanted it, so AP gave it: officials provided the diagram only on condition that they and their country not be named. That's very accommodating of AP. Second, this graph - which is only slightly less hilariously primitive than the one Benjamin Netanyahu infamously touted with a straight face at the UN - has Farsi written under it to imbue it with that menacing Iranian-ish feel, but also helpfully uses English to ensure that US audiences can easily drink up its scariness. As The Atlantic's Robert Wright noted: How considerate of the Iranians to label their secret nefarious nuke graph in English!. It's certainly possible that Iranian scientists use English as a universal language of science, but the convenient mixing of Farsi and English should at least trigger some skepticism. Third, even if one assumes that this graph is something other than a fraud, the very idea that computer simulations constitute evidence that Iran is working toward a nuclear weapon is self-evidently inane. As John Glaser extensively documents, experts from across the spectrum have agreed with the military and intelligence consensus [from the US and Israel] that Iran has no nuclear weapons program and presents no imminent threat. Buried in the AP article is a quote from David Albright explaining that though the diagram looks genuine [it] seems to be designed more 'to understand the process' than as part of a blueprint for an actual weapon in the making. The case for the attack on Iraq was driven, of course, by a mountain of fabricated documents and deliberately manipulated intelligence which western media outlets uncritically amplified. Yet again, any doubts that they are willing and eager to do exactly the same with regard to the equally fictitious Iranian Threat should be forever dispelled by behavior like this. As always, the two key facts to note on Iran are these: 1) the desperation to prevent Iran from possessing a nuclear weapon has nothing to do with fear that they would commit national suicide by using it offensively, but rather
Re: [Biofuel] Anti-nuclear madness doesn't jibe with concern about global warming
Hi, Keith. Thanks much, all. I didn't post this piece because I thought it was a great article. I, for one, certainly did not think that was why you posted it (and I doubt anyone else did, either). Apologies if it seemed that way. As Daryl says, one can usually expect better of Dyer. . . Dyer is an unknown to me as this is the first i've seen of him. Not a very auspicious introduction. But between you and Darryl getting his back, so to speak, i'll have to try and withhold judgement. But i will say, it is terribly, terribly, extremely hard to read that piece and not conclude that he was (to put it mildly) not really being above board. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] Anti-nuclear madness doesn't jibe with concern about global warming
Dyer was **so*obviously** hacking for the nuke industry on this one. the piece is so riddled with industry distortions and and falsehoods, either he (or the nuke PR guy who wrote it for him) must have been making progressive commission on a per-deviation-from-the-truth basis. Seriously, seriously twisted and slanted. And that's just in dealing with the facts. Never mind the dismissive and derisive tone with which he talks about 'the Greens.' His assertion that 'Greens' fail to understand that nuke plants aren't thermonuclear weapons, is freaking laughable. Someone needs to ask him what is his position on the war on terror and civil liberties, in particular, with respect to dirty bombs.` Anyway, Darryl makes good points re life-cycle emissions. Furthermore, nuclear has a life-cycle ranging from thousands of years to millions of years, depending on the isotope. So not only do we not know how much energy it will take to safely store it, we have already accumulated many thousands of tons of this stuff without even coming to terms with the fact that planning on such a timescale is essentially impossible. In other words, 'safe storage' is a purely theoretical notion, in practice unattainable. But the point is that it isn't, and doesn't have to be, a choice between two negatives. It will be so if we fail to collectively act. And I really do mean We. So far, we've been brought to this point by the decisions of a few. Not so much against our will, strictly speaking (in the U.S., at least), but certainly by being kept in the dark about the alternatives; about the very fact that there were alternatives, even. This is not the case anymore. The information is out there, but unfortunately there are still too many of us who are not engaging, either out of low morale or the idea that professional and/or social standing will be put at risk. This of course is ridiculous, because those are going to be at risk either way. So start with the small easy stuff and go from there. Try reaching out in your community to start a conversation about what can be done. A lot of people may reject the idea, but there are those who won't. Believe me, they're out there. On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Darryl McMahon dar...@econogics.comwrote: Jason, I disagree. I usually expect better of Gwyn Dyer, but I think he missed the mark on this one. Assuming that nuclear generation can only be replaced by fossil fuels in the medium to long term is a relic of a 'hard path' mindset. Shifting to fossil fuels in the short term is a matter of convenience, familiarity and subsidized fossil fuel pricing. There are better options, starting with negawatts - conservation and increased efficiency. For example, in Canada we have demonstrated Factor Five housing - houses built at a small premium (1-5%) over the cost of a conventional house, but using only 20% the energy for operation (space heating, hot water, cooking, refrigeration, lighting, etc.) California proved we can drop electricity consumption by over 20% - virtually overnight - when Enron and friends gamed the 'deregulated' system for fun and profit. We have more examples. Efficient lighting is a money-saver as well as an energy-saver. Then we can start switching to sustainable energy sources. Low-tech solar thermal for space and water heating can be remarkably inexpensive, if you are prepared to do a little research and hands-on construction work. Large scale wind energy is already less expensive per kWh produced than coal or other fossil fuel generation option. Photovoltaics are less expensive per kWh produced than peak power options from many utilities (coal and natural gas peaker plants). One could even look into things like biofuels or electrically-driven transportation options smile. I can go on (and I have). However, as my parting thought on this topic, question the assumption that nuclear is some kind of GHG panacea. It takes a lot of energy to make the massive amounts of concrete and specialty metals to build a nuclear generating station, and to mine and refine (and frequently enrich) uranium, and a lot of water is used for cooling the plants (which implies a lot of waste heat being produced). A couple of studies a few years back (sorry not close to hand in current household chaos) did look into this. I cited them in my book. Looks like at least one of those has been updated (http://www.stormsmith.nl/np-** esecurco2.html http://www.stormsmith.nl/np-esecurco2.html). And at this point, we don't even have a credible idea as to how much energy is required to truly dispose of spent fuel waste or fully decommission a nuclear generating station. Nor do we put a real value on the risk posed by events like Chernobyl or Fukushima. If the next question is, what can the individual do to make a difference, well, I wrote this book ... Anyway, suffice it to say there is a lot an individual can do, some quickly, and some
Re: [Biofuel] The GM tree plantations bred to satisfy the world's energy needs
Hmm, so 'rogue cattle farmers' seeking a quick profit, and aided by death squads to silence opposition, basically carry out the Brazillian incarnation of Enclosure Movement 2.0. In so doing, they contribute mightily to pushing the ecosystem and climate to the breaking point. And now, instead of letting the rain forest reclaim the lands abandoned by the ranchers (because they're no longer suitable for pasture), which is actually happening, companies like FuturaGene are poised to swoop in and make use of all that conveniently deforested land. And they will get away with it, because the climate problem is ' too urgent' and 'we can't wait' for those slow growing tropical hardwoods. . . . ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] Anonymous, Karl Rove and 2012 Election Fix?
ha, i was about to post this one. an investigation into the '04 ohio election results was opened, but stalled and was then dropped (i'm not clear on why). it was then picked up by some attorneys (again, somewhat murky: what was their competence? haven't had a chance yet to try and dig for these details) who, it seems, may have been on the verge of 'flipping' the IT guy at the center of all this. he had allegedly been threatened if he didn't take the fall. so these attorneys inform the relevant govt attorneys' offices of the need to give this guy protection. not much later, he dies in a small aircraft accident (shades of paul wellstone). these stories are linked in the tom hartmann article. anyway, a new twist on old news. . . . On Nov 22, 2012 10:55 AM, Keith Addison ke...@journeytoforever.org wrote: Believe it or not... http://truth-out.org/news/**item/12845-anonymous-karl-** rove-and-2012-election-fixhttp://truth-out.org/news/item/12845-anonymous-karl-rove-and-2012-election-fix Anonymous, Karl Rove and 2012 Election Fix? Monday, 19 November 2012 16:02 By Thom Hartmann and Sam Sacks , The Daily Take | News Analysis At around 11:25 pm EST on election night, Karl Rove knew something had gone terribly wrong. Minutes earlier, Fox News called the key battleground state of Ohio for President Obama, sealing his re-election. But as the network took live shots of jubilant Obama supporters celebrating their victory camped outside the Obama re-election headquarters in Chicago, Karl Rove began building a case against the call his employer network had just made. Rove explained that when Fox called Ohio, only 74% of the vote was in showing President Obama with a lead of roughly 30,000 votes. But, as Rove contended, with 77% reporting according to the Ohio Secretary of State office, the President's lead had been slashed to just 991 votes. We gotta be careful about calling the thing, Rove said, I'd be very cautious about intruding in on this process. Rove was supremely confident that the numbers coming in from Ohio throughout the night that favored President Obama weren't indicative of who would win Ohio when all the votes were ultimately tabulated by the state's computers. With a quarter of the vote still out there, Rove was anticipating a shift to the Right just after 11 pm, which, coincidentally, is exactly what happened in 2004. That year, John Kerry and the entire nation were watching Ohio just after the 11pm hour. Florida had just been called for George W. Bush and according to the Electoral College math whoever won Ohio would win the election. And considering that exit polls from the state showed John Kerry with a substantial lead, there were a lot of tense moments for Karl Rove and the Republicans that night. Then the clock struck 11:14pm, and the servers counting the votes in Ohio crashed. Election officials had planned for this sort of thing to happen and already contracted with a company in Chattanooga, Tennessee called SMARTech to be the failsafe should the servers in Ohio go down. As journalist Craig Unger lays bare in his book, Boss Rove, SMARTech was drenched in Republican politics. One of the early founders of the company was Mercer Reynolds who used to the finance chairman of the Republican Party. SMARTech's top client was none other than the Bush-Cheney campaign itself and SMARTech also did work for Jeb Bush and the Republican National Committee. And it was Ohio's Republican Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell, who ensured that SMARTech received the contract to count votes on election night should the servers go down, which they did at exactly 11:14pm. Sixty long seconds later the servers came back up in Ohio, but now with vote rerouted through SMARTech in Chattanooga. And, coincidentally, Bush's prospects for re-election were suddenly a lot brighter. The vote totals that poured into the system from SmartTECH's computer in Chattanooga were flipping the exit polls on their head. The lead Kerry had in the exit polls had magically reversed by more than 6%, something unheard of in any other nation in the developed world, giving Bush the win in Ohio and the presidency for another four years. Unger further explains in his book that the only independent analysis of what happened in Ohio was done by Richard Hayes Phillips and published in the book, Witness to a Crime. Phillips and his team analyzed more than 120,000 ballots, 127 polls books, and 141 signature books from Ohio's 2004 election. Phillips found zero irregularities in vote totals from all the counties that reported results before the servers crashed at 11:14pm. But of the fourteen counties that came in after the crash connected Ohio's election computers to SmartTECH's computers in Chattanooga, every single one of them showed voter irregularities - that all favored George W. Bush. For example, consider Cleveland's Fourth Ward. In 2000, Al Gore won 95% of that
Re: [Biofuel] Anonymous, Karl Rove and 2012 Election Fix?
lol, no worries, keith. tom hartmann's been hitting this issue on his radio program, too. i wondered if he'd put the lbj stuff in writing (thanks again for doing the legwork). i wish I had the time to follow his work more closely because he's quite good. as it is, if i'm lucky i get to hear a part of his radio slot once or twice a week. oh, well, it is what it is. . . . On Nov 22, 2012 4:48 PM, Keith Addison ke...@journeytoforever.org wrote: Hi Chris ha, i was about to post this one. Please don't let that discourage you! Follow-up below. All best Keith an investigation into the '04 ohio election results was opened, but stalled and was then dropped (i'm not clear on why). it was then picked up by some attorneys (again, somewhat murky: what was their competence? haven't had a chance yet to try and dig for these details) who, it seems, may have been on the verge of 'flipping' the IT guy at the center of all this. he had allegedly been threatened if he didn't take the fall. so these attorneys inform the relevant govt attorneys' offices of the need to give this guy protection. not much later, he dies in a small aircraft accident (shades of paul wellstone). these stories are linked in the tom hartmann article. anyway, a new twist on old news. . . . On Nov 22, 2012 10:55 AM, Keith Addison ke...@journeytoforever.org wrote: Believe it or not... http://truth-out.org/news/**item/12845-anonymous-karl-** rove-and-2012-election-fixhttp://truth-out.org/news/item/12845-anonymous-karl-rove-and-2012-election-fix Anonymous, Karl Rove and 2012 Election Fix? Monday, 19 November 2012 16:02 By Thom Hartmann and Sam Sacks , The Daily Take | News Analysis At around 11:25 pm EST on election night, Karl Rove knew something had gone terribly wrong. snip http://truth-out.org/news/**item/12871-why-anonymous-** claims-about-election-rigging-**cant-be-ignoredhttp://truth-out.org/news/item/12871-why-anonymous-claims-about-election-rigging-cant-be-ignored Why Anonymous' Claims about Election-Rigging Can't Be Ignored Tuesday, 20 November 2012 15:18 By Thom Hartmann and Sam Sacks, The Daily Take | News Analysis As laid out in the previous article, Anonymous, Karl Rove and the 2012 Election Fix?, it's possible that Karl Rove used SmartTECH's servers in Chattanooga, Tennessee, to flip the vote totals in Ohio in 2004 and thus steal the election that year for George W. Bush - and just as possible that he tried to do the same thing this year on Romney's behalf but was thwarted by the hacktivist group Anonymous. Many people have responded to these claims with a variation on: That's impossible. A presidential candidate committing treason? That would never happen, and, if it did, it would be front-page news. Everybody would know about it, right? Wrong. Consider some simple history. In 1952 Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower won the presidency - and there's not a hint of scandal associated with that election. Maybe that's because he supported a 91% top marginal income tax rate on the rich and approved of very popular New Deal programs like Social Security and unemployment benefits. As he told his brother in a letter in 1954, Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these thingsŠa few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid. But Eisenhower was the last legitimately elected Republican president. Richard Nixon, who won the 1968 election against Vice President Hubert Humphrey, followed Eisenhower. At the time, the Vietnam War was raging, millions of students were in the streets, and President Lyndon Johnson, throughout 1968, was working desperately to bring a negotiated end to that war. He'd gotten both the North and the South Vietnamese to agree to terms of peace, and, by late September, there was only a meeting in Paris to seal the deal. And then the CIA brought LBJ a wiretap they'd intercepted between the Nixon for President Campaign and the office of the President of South Vietnam, Nguy?n V?n Thi?u. Nixon basically told them that if they refused to go to the peace talks, or at least refused to go along with the peace agreement Johnson had worked out with them, then Nixon would give them a much better deal after the election. LBJ was furious. This was treason, and because he could listen to the CIA phone intercepts, he knew that Richard Nixon was at the heart of it. So he called the senior Republican in the US Senate, Everett Dirksen, one of the most honorable men to hold a Senate leadership position in generations, and told him what was going on. I'm reading their hand, Everett, LBJ said, I
Re: [Biofuel] Is GDP's Reign as the Only Measure of Wealth Coming to an End?
and 3 months. later he was assassinated (or executed). . . .coincidence? On Oct 24, 2012 2:31 PM, Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/10/22-9 Published on Monday, October 22, 2012 by The Guardian Is GDP's Reign as the Only Measure of Wealth Coming to an End? Challenges to the supremacy of gross domestic product, which ignores natural and household contributions, are growing by Jane Gleeson-White Britain has now posted three consecutive quarters of declining gross domestic product - the most recent figures show the economy has shrunk by 0.5%. With the latest set of GDP figures due to be released later this week, the nation remains sunk in the longest recession since the second world war. But GDP is also coming under a different sort of scrutiny in these days of economic woe. GDP measures all legal transactions in the financial economy - no more and no less. And yet, since its inception in the 1930s, it has become the single most important policy tool for governments, financial institutions and corporations. Governments and many people believe that only this one miraculous figure can really show whether things are getting better or getting worse. But GDP is a partial and misleading measure of national wealth and wellbeing. The problem is that it does not measure key goods in our economy, those unpriced but priceless services carried out by domestic workers and by nature - for example, the coastal defence of coral reefs, the pollution-filtering of wetlands, the nutrient recycling done by the soil and the unpaid work we do in our homes. And yet GDP does include bad elements such as pollution, crime, cigarettes and their related health costs and environmental disasters, which boost GDP and so generate economic growth. These omissions and inclusions generate alarming anomalies. Here are two: we are better economic agents if we eat out at expensive restaurants rather than cooking food we've grown at home; cleaning up the 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was worth more economically - in GDP terms - than the carbon absorption provided by the Amazon rainforest. Under current GDP measures, countries that cut down forests for timber exports, dynamite their reefs for fish, pollute and degrade their soil for intensive agriculture and allow farms and factories to contaminate their waterways get rich. The services provided by nature and households are not included in GDP because we consider their work to be free. But these services are not free - and we are beginning to pay their hidden costs in environmental destruction and climate change. Conceived in Washington DC during the Depression, the GNP (as it was then) was flawed from the outset. Even its creator, Simon Kuznets, argued that it was a partial measure of national wealth, as did economist John Maynard Keynes, who oversaw the construction of the first British national accounts during the second world war. Both Keynes and Kuznets considered these figures to be temporary measures, for use only in emergencies such as wars and depressions. But they quickly became enshrined in public life, and after the second world war they were imposed on almost every nation on earth. The first politician to rail publicly against the GDP was Senator Robert Kennedy in March 1968: Too much and for too long, we seemed to have surrendered personal excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things. Our Gross National Product Š counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. For Kennedy, GDP measured everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. It took 40 years for Kennedy's words to reach Washington DC: in March 2008 a US Senate committee discussed GDP's failure to measure environmental damage, poverty, income inequality, health and the quality of life. Two years later, Obama's healthcare bill allowed $70m over eight years to develop a new system of US national indicators. Economists from the group the State of the USA are now working to generate 10 to 15 key measures from a set of some 300 indicators, including health, education, crime and justice, art and culture, the environment, and the economy. These new, more comprehensive measures are designed to guide US policy in an era of environmental destruction and economic downturn. GDP has been similarly challenged and deconstructed in Europe. In 2009, the then French president Nicolas Sarkozy recruited a team of economists to tear the GDP apart as they saw fit. They too found that GDP should be replaced and that other indicators should be introduced to monitor social and environmental, as well as economic, change. The UN is working to value ecosystem services - or natural capital - and this year adopted a new international standard to give natural capital equal status to GDP. Speaking at the UN's conference
Re: [Biofuel] Dear all...
chip that would be amazing. keith, au contraire, it is you who should *take* a bow. you have done a great service. truly. the first time i ran across jtf, i don't know how long the list had been around (and come to think of it, i still don't lol), but it seemed very well established and my first thought was 'oh this is so cool'. my next thought was 'how did i not find this until now!?!?' i really do enjoy your daily news roundups as well. i will miss them. On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Chip Mefford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey Keith, I can host the list if you like, Just say'n. What will happen to the archives? (I'm only panicking mildly) - Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 11:26:41 AM Subject: [Biofuel] Dear all... It's October, the list is going to run out of time soon and the host service will close it down. I'm not sure of the exact date, but suddenly the music will stop. The new community I mentioned previously is still some way down the road, but it will eventually happen. When it does, you'll be hearing from me. Meanwhile, the list will stop, but I won't. I'll keep harvesting the news, I do it anyway. If any list members would like to keep receiving these daily snippets, I don't mind sending them direct. Please let me know - offlist please. All best, and a very big thanks for everything, over the years. This list has taught me so much (deep bow). Regards to all. Keith ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20121012/8e4da671/attachment.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Turning tobacco into fuel
funded by altria, a family company. . . . On May 16, 2012 5:30 PM, Juan Boveda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello list members. This technique shown in the video from the UC Berkeley is by no means something a backyarder can do in a short time. It shows in YouTube how they are using a lot of research and money to produce another GMO. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbFOQCDDSTcfeature=youtu.beutm_source=UC+Berkeley+NewsCenterutm_campaign=09133c2202-NC_Email_Listutm_medium=email ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20120517/7c0b019a/attachment.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] From Keith at Journey to Forever
lol, maybe i should try that with my mortgage! On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Anyway, the list host remains unpaid. But it emerges that since payment wasn't made on time, the list couldn't be closed down on time either. So I get another year by default, though I didn't ask for it and haven't paid for it, yet. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20120515/2651f7cd/attachment.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Capitalism vs. the Climate - Naomi Klein
the grip is, indeed, not so deep. but it's a grip of iron, nonetheless. basically, i find people buy into the belief system(s) of the power structure. not because they've been brainwashed or 'implanted' as it were. but because they know it's what's expected. they know it's convenient. this is, for those in power, a double-edged sword. On Dec 11, 2011 7:15 PM, Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Robert Glad you liked it, me too. And sympathies. Bill Blum said this - actually he was talking about US foreign policy, but it fits, sort of: ... My advice is to forget such people. They would support the outrages even if the government came to their homes, seized their first born, and hauled them away screaming, as long as the government assured them it was essential to fighting terrorism (or communism). My (very) rough guess is that they constitute no more than 15 percent of the population. I suggest that we concentrate on the rest, who are reachable. [more] http://members.aol.com/bblum6/aer31.htm The Anti-Empire Report Some things you need to know before the world ends March 22, 2006 by William Blum Not always so easy though. ... reachable, that is, through the relentless drench of spin everyone's constantly bombarded with, silent noise. Which is probably also a large factor in the views of the uber-right: their opinions aren't even their own, they're just implants from the opinion manufacturing industry. Actually it's worse than that. I said this a couple of years ago: ... what gets implanted is entire belief systems. It has little to do with facts or truth or rationality, it's emotional, it works by making people want to believe stuff (then they argue against the facts all by themselves). Three brands: political, corporate, and military, often all at once. But its grip isn't as deep and total as they like to think it is, or how would you explain Occupy Wall Street, for instance. Even the uber-right are capable of waking up, IMHO. They're probably good people at heart, most people are. But again it's not easy. I've run into climate change deniers here a couple of times, and there wasn't much I could do about it, short of a futile argument. Bill Blum's right. I wonder what they'd say about the Arctic shipping routes story I just posted. Magic it away I guess, poof - gone. All best Keith On 12/11/2011 10:01 AM, Keith Addison wrote: Heartland Institute - SourceWatch http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute -- http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate Capitalism vs. the Climate Naomi Klein November 9, 2011 There is a question from a gentleman in the fourth row. big snip Wow! That was bang-on! Those of us who have been on this list a long time have discussed this issue before. Without a fundamental restructuring of our economic model--away from large, centralized, subsidized industrialization--to small, localized economic independence, it will be impossible to deal with the issues that have caused so much social inequity and environmental destruction. But as long as the free markets are the only solution subtext goes unchallenged, as long as the unbridled avarice of our current model is promoted as the ONLY good, the ONLY ideal, the ONLY way forward, our individual efforts to live in closer harmony with the environment will make little headway. What I find particularly annoying about this whole discussion is that sentiments like the one I've expressed above are ridiculed as hand-wringing by the uber-right, while solutions imposed by a legal framework on the larger society are ridiculed for promoting more government. So then, what does the right propose? Business as usual, of course! It's like the man whose doctor tells him that he's suffering from lead poisoning, only to hear from the physician that the recommended treatment is consuming more lead . . . Robert Luis Rabello Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca 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 ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20111217/5bac3719/attachment.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] Algae Biofuel business develops a new production facility on the Eyre Peninsula
what's got me scratching my head is this: oloid pond mixing nanotechnology wha. . .?!? On Dec 7, 2011 9:26 AM, Darryl McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.environmental-expert.com/news/algarythm-australia-270152 5 December 2011 -- Algarythm Pty Ltd is the operating company of the Darke Peak Algae Biofuel Commercialisation project. South Australian based Fishace Pty Ltd; trading as Fishace Ecological Engineering, has developed an innovative method to produce algal biomass in commercial quantities. The pilot plant will develop more energy and water efficient ways of producing micro algal cultures in association with our academic partner, the Materials and BioEnergy Group of Flinders University, Adelaide. Darke Peak is a regional township located in Central Eyre Peninsula, South Australia, some 550kms by road to the West of Adelaide. Fishace Pty Ltd owns a development approved 2.4 hectare land site adjacent to the railway track and grain silos where the production facility will be sited. The project utilises low cost, simple earth based pond systems with highly technological - Red LED Algae Photo-Bioreactors for increasing algal densities, Oloid pond mixing nanotechnology and simple biofuel processing techniques. The demonstration project is designed to produce an estimated 165 tonnes of algal biomass, refining offsite to 100,000 litres of raw biodiesel per annum. We will use local grain waste as a nutrient feedstock, culturing local saline algae species from biologically degraded land and saline groundwater. The process consists of using clay lined ponds connected by piping in gravity fed water circulative series that receives solar pumped saline groundwater not used by agriculture. Native food fish will be stocked with their wastes acting as nutrient stock for the algaculture system. The algal powder is comprised of high levels of lipids and will be sold as a dry biomass for processing to biodiesel and other by-products. Our community based mission is to develop low cost integrated algaculture and ecological solutions for local businesses including agri-business and mineral extraction industries on land unsuitable for agricultural food production. We would also like to assist in reinvigorating our local rural townships as a model for future sustainable living , with a third generation biofuel facility contributing to Small Medium Enterprise (SME) industrial clustering, producing high value cottage industry by-products such as boutique salts, glycerine, health products, food fish, carbon feedstock, to the regional economy. The decentralisation of bioenergy transport networks also greatly reduces the regional carbon footprint. Company website: http://www.algarythm.com.au/ -- Darryl McMahon Water Savers: save water, save money, save the world. http://www.econogics.com/WaterSaver/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20111209/270ce7b0/attachment.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Time for U.S. to say yes to Canadian oil sands
woof. On Sep 1, 2011 1:31 PM, Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Really? http://search.japantimes.co.jp:80/mail/eo20110831rs.html Wednesday, Aug. 31, 2011 Time for U.S. to say yes to Canadian oil sands By ROBERT J. SAMUELSON The Washington Post WASHINGTON - When it comes to energy, America is lucky to be next to Canada, whose proven oil reserves are estimated by Oil and Gas Journal at 175 billion barrels. This ranks just behind Saudi Arabia (260 billion) and Venezuela (211 billion) and ahead of Iran (137 billion) and Iraq (115 billion). True, about 97 percent of Canada's reserves consist of Alberta's controversial oil sands, but new technologies and high oil prices have made them economically viable. Expanded production can provide the U.S. market with a growing source of secure oil for decades. We would be crazy to turn our back on this. In a global oil market repeatedly threatened by wars, revolutions, and natural and man-made disasters - and where government-owned oil companies control development of about three-quarters of known reserves - having dependable suppliers is no mean feat. We already import about half our oil, and Canada is our largest supplier with about 25 percent of imports. As its conventional fields decline, oil sands can fill the gap. Will we encourage this? Do we say yes to oil sands? Or do we increase our exposure to unstable world oil markets? Those are the central questions posed by the proposed $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline connecting Alberta's oil sands to U.S. refineries on the Texas Gulf coast. The pipeline requires White House approval, and environmentalists oppose it. To be sure, there are dangers. Pipelines do crack; there are spills. Susan Casey-Lefkowitz of the Natural Resource Defense Council reminds of recent spills of about 3.8 million liters into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan and more than 151,000 liters into the Yellowstone River in Montana. Moreover, converting the bitumen found in oil sands into oil is messy. Some processes have required up to two barrels of water for every barrel of oil. Because energy use is also high, so are greenhouse gases. On a per-barrel basis, emissions have sometimes been double and triple that of standard oil production. Environmentalists are outraged. They've made Keystone into a cause celebre. Sit-ins outside the White House have led to arrests. For President Obama to approve the pipeline would be regarded by his environmental supporters as a complete betrayal. Actually, the reality is more complex. If Obama rejects the pipeline, he would - perversely - increase greenhouse gas emissions. Canada has made clear that it will proceed with oil sands development regardless of the American decision. If the United States doesn't want the oil, China and other Asian countries do. Pipelines would be built to the West Coast. Transporting the oil by tanker to Asia would almost certainly create more emissions than moving it by pipeline to closer U.S. markets. Next, oil sands' greenhouse gases are exaggerated. Despite high per-barrel emissions, the cumulative total is not large: about 6.5 percent of Canada's emissions in 2009 and about 0.2 percent of the world's, according to Canadian government figures. More important, most emissions from oil (70 percent or more) stem from burning the fuel, not extracting and refining it. Here, oil sands and conventional oil don't differ. When these life cycle emissions - from recovery to combustion - are compared, oil sands' disadvantage shrinks dramatically. Various studies put it between 5 percent and 23 percent. By all logic, the administration's Keystone decision - overseen by the State Department, which issued a final environmental impact statement last week - should be a snap. Obama wants job creation. Well, TransCanada, the pipeline's sponsor, says the project should result in 20,000 construction and manufacturing jobs. Most would be American, because 80 percent of the 1,661-mile pipeline would be in the United States. Continued development of oil sands would also help the U.S. economy; hundreds of American companies sell oil services in Canada. Finally, production technologies are gradually reducing environmental side effects, including greenhouse emissions. The real benefit would be to strengthen the strategic alliance between Canada and the United States. Canada's oil exports now go almost exclusively to us. Our interest is for this to continue. From 2010 to 2020, oil sands production is projected to double to 3 million barrels a day; most of that would be available for export. On paper, it might seem that Canada should diversify its oil customers. Not so. Canada's prospects are so tied to ours that any narrow advantage of having more buyers would vanish if that weakened the U.S. economy. The United States and Canada are each other's largest trading partners and closest allies. Oil markets are subtly
Re: [Biofuel] Daylight Robbery, Meet Nighttime Robbery
in the good old usa, the irs defines the highest income bracket as: $50 million and up. it's a tax bracket consisting of 74 individuals. these 74 individuals control fully one half the wealth of the u.s. On Aug 18, 2011 6:48 AM, Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20110819/da151cc0/attachment.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] ALEC Exposed: Protecting Factory Farms and Sewage Sludge?
a public radio program out of philadelphia recently did this story: http://www.npr.org/2011/07/21/138537515/how-alec-shapes-state-politics-behind-the-scenes and this: http://www.npr.org/2011/07/21/138575665/national-chairman-of-alec-responds-to-report that ssecond item is i think a result of the most recent budgetary arm-twisting by the radical right. still, it's revealing in itself. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20110812/901eefbe/attachment.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Fukushima media cover-up - PR success, public health disaster
atoms for peace. . . . On Jun 14, 2011 5:53 PM, Midori Hiraga (JTF) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear all, I think he is describing the situation here quite well. Midori from ENE News: http://enenews.com/massive-entry-of-radiation-into-groundwater-will-spread-throughout-water-table-in-northern-japan-video 'Fukushima media cover-up -- PR success, public health disaster’, RussiaToday, June 11, 2011: At 1:15 in Dr. Robert Jacobs, Professor of nuclear history, at the Hiroshima Peace Institute - Massive entry of radiation into groundwater in Fukushima - Will spread throughout water table in the area of Northern Japan - Effect could be quite wide and large on youtube: 'Fukushima media cover-up - PR success, public health disaster' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_rAX9TzY2A ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20110615/0678bd16/attachment.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Japanese are eating food contaminated by radioactivity
funny how the memory works. this reminded me of another detail that was in that radio program i had mentioned in the other thread. apparently, it was normal in japan for fresh goods to be labeled as to their placecountry of origin. that practice seems to have come to an abrupt halt. On Jun 1, 2011 4:59 PM, Midori Hiraga (JTF) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20110604/d2a5882b/attachment.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Fukushima and Chernobyl
zeke, those are radioactive *emissions*. there's an overlap in nomenclature. my fault for not clarifying. i was referring to radioactive particles in the sense of contaminated or dirty particles, which will generally be fairly large and don't enter very easily through the skin. On May 31, 2011 10:12 AM, Zeke Yewdall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20110531/f317aca5/attachment.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Fukushima and Chernobyl
keith, the radio program i mentioned is one i've listened to for many years. the guy does his research and doesn't just bring on random people off the street. the woman's name was hitomi kamanaka; a filmmaker and anti-nuclear activist. the interview (3-way, there was also an american academic) was supposed to actually be about how the meltdown is impacting popular culture, but as i mentioned previously i only caught a brief snippet. one which i found quite striking. wrt surgical masks, they can certainly be an effective protocol against airborne particles. 100% effective, no. but better than nothing. anyway, it would obviously be better to have no nukes than be stuck in the kind of situation the japanese people find themselves. On May 30, 2011 1:49 PM, Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20110530/9aec5649/attachment.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Fukushima and Chernobyl
a local radio program had a japanese guest this past week, to discuss fukushima. I was only able to catch a small bit of it. one thing that stuck in my mind, was she said many people in tokyo are ignoring recommendations to wear surgical masks. the interviewer asked is this really effective our even necessary, given tokyo's distance from fukushima? she says oh yes, even in tokyo, if go out and wear your mask, when you take it off afterwards you can detect the radioactivity on it. On May 29, 2011 3:57 PM, Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20110529/3227c2de/attachment.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Human Intelligence and the Environment
beautifully said, dawie. On May 19, 2011 12:13 AM, Dawie Coetzee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20110521/85636839/attachment.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Human Intelligence and the Environment
i think dawie was referring more to the placement of the eyes. at least that was how i understood his meaning. mammals = both eyes in front VS. birds (or fish, reptiles, whatever) = one eye either side of head. so with a dog we're more sort of automatically aware they're looking at us. oh, and one noteworthy exception to the rule: whales (heh-heh). On May 21, 2011 4:52 PM, Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Dawie Very interesting, food for thought, thankyou. I don't agree with this though: Our relationship to those non-human beings with which we have a long-standing symbiosis rests on may factors, not least of which is that our canine and feline companions have the knack of looking at the bit where our eyes are when trying to communicate with us. They literally face us, as we face one another when speaking to one another; and that makes them intelligible to us. Birds, even very bright ones, don't do that, because their use of vision is different. Hence our relationship to them is slightly different - however that does not preclude meaningful engagement with various sorts of birds. Clearly you haven't kept chickens, A newly hatched chick will look you in the eye when it emerges from the egg. It's unmistakeable. So too will its mum, and the same applies to ducks and geese, and indeed to all birds. Not only birds - a lizard will look you in the eye too. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20110521/eed2ab9e/attachment.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Human Intelligence and the Environment
On May 18, 2011 8:46 PM, bmolloy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Greetings all, Re whales choosing to return to the sea. wow, i'm surprised a little by the reaction that proposition is getting. The statement seems to turn natural selection on its head. i don't think so. My understanding of evolution is that it's a question of adapt or die out. this is an over-simplification. As the environment changes the more adaptable in a species live and thus reproduce ever more adaptable offspring, while those that fail simply die off. this may well be one way that evolution occurs. almost certainly. but why couldn't a mutation occur which enables a creature to occupy a *new* niche, absent environmental pressure. The changes are totally random, due to the chromosome scatter which occurs with each birth i.e no offspring is an exact copy of its parent, hence each is a mutation of some degree. Some of this mutation is adaptable, some irrelevant, some not and some harmful. If the mutation increases survivability in a changing environment the possessor will survive to produce more offspring with similar mutational trends. In this way we have species change. . . hmm. again, this over-simplifies things. in fact, i would suggest that it inverts evolution as much as anything i've said. many, if not most species occupy specific niches, living off a narrow spectrum of foods. sometimes a single, specific thing. how does that square with survival of the 'fittest'? does it represent an evolutionary cul de sac? or a choice? The changes are incremental and often miniscule, occurring on time scales of hundreds of thousands and even millions of years, hence the outcome surely cannot be attributed to choice. not necessarily. in fact, the indications seem to be that very significant mutations can occur over much shorter timescales than what has been the conventional wisdom. which makes total sense IMO, because otherwise certain evolutionary changes become very hard to explain. for example, take the original proto-air breathers. those fish that had both gills and primitive lungs. where did those lungs come from? was there a tortuous process akin to ptolemy's planetary orbits, whereby these different tissues developed independently, to finally, in one last incremental mutation, become linked as a whole respiratory system? or instead, maybe there once was a little fish fetus with a mutation in its switching genes such that it remained in one growth phase longer than usual. regardless, we now have this fish that can obtain oxygen from the atmosphere as well as from water. plus these funky, overgrown fins. why does it ultimately leave the water? does it *have to* be that it did so out of necessity? or perhaps simply because it could? because it chose to? -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20110520/67195ff8/attachment.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Human Intelligence and the Environment
quite true keith. you've touched on some points i've been meaning to bring to bring to bear on this discussion. hopefully i'll find some time to contribute more. robert, i was trying to draw you into the discussion as a thought exercise (the thing about the whales). this very question was put to me many years back, and it proved to be very transformational. no, i'm not trying to guru you. but i do like to share it when the opportunity presents itself. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20110515/41b1acc4/attachment.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Human Intelligence and the Environment
some define intelligence as the ability to comprehend; or to compute. to grok. others like to define it as the ability to think adaptively, i.e. to learn from experience. those are probably the two most common uses of the word. people don't usually think of intelligence in terms of morality. which is why discussions such as this can get thorny. it's hard to keep questions of morality out of a discussion about raw survival; not just our own but, conceivably that of all life as we know it. it's very popular (and convenient, for the agenda-setters) to trumpet human intelligence and ingenuity, and leave wisdom (i began writing this last night, so i've been preempted by your contribution, robert) out of the discussion entirely. it's truly remarkable, though IMO no accident, how truly rarely you hear the word wisdom used nowadays, in almost any context. in any case, the question of wisdom puts chomsky's proposition in an entirely different light. is it about sheer brain size? or the kind of brain? the homo sapiens brain is not the largest. it seems whales and porpoises (or many of them, at least), have bigger brains than us. and i've read somewhere that neanderthals, also, may have had more brain than we do. the nature/natural history programs on television like to point out that their brains must have been (read we need to believe that they were) less evolved. because the art and tools they left behind indicate this. perhaps. but, even supposing this, does this mean they were less happy? less fulfilled? we know that they coexisted with humans for a time. when it was proposed, based on some remains that were found, that homo sapiens and neanderthals interbred, there were a few who accepted the proposition as worthy of further investigation. but many more who categorically rejected it. the nays have since been proven wrong by genetic analysis. but the immediacy and vehemence of their rejection of the idea was noteworthy. clearly motivated by a pro-human bias. they couldn't imagine themselves intermingling with an inferior race, so why would early humans have done so? yet a few, at least, obviously did. maybe that's why we killed them off, you know? the oldest story in the book. them so-and-so's is stealin' our women! we ain't gonna stand fer that!! seriously, though. interbreeding happened. but not often: how do we know it wasn't they who scorned us? then there's the whales. we know their ancestors were land dwellers. in other words, sea creatures gave rise to land creatures, and some of them chose to return to the sea. why would they do that? this is a serious question. after all, you're giving up an awful lot. think about it. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20110514/3c238927/attachment.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power (George Monbiot)
yes, that's a good link, darryl. I read it when you posted. and as usual, keith, you've followed up with a ton of good material more. thanks. the reports coming out of fukushima, about the ridiculous iodine levels being nothing to worry about, for example. or the links you posted, keith, about the refusal to take an honest look at the effects of chernobyl or hiroshima and nagasaki. i'm reminded of a program I heard some years back on a local university radio station. it was a speech given by a doctor who had dedicated himself to studying the effects of radiation. (if i've told this story before, my apologies) anyway, he was talking at one point about how the nuclear industry tried to allay fears over fallout resulting from nuclear testing in the pacific. well, this guy had done very thorough statistics on the incidence of different illnesses. his analysis showed a spike in the incidence of various cancers, diabetes, and such, coinciding with every nuclear test (going back, iirc, to the first nuclear test). so the nuclear industry defenders would say things like oh, but these data fall within the standard deviation you would expect with an increase in tobacco use . [and here, you can't ignore the ridiculous irony that these are the same people, as in of the same ilk--though it wouldn't surprise me if sometimes it was the same individuals--who used precisely the same kinds of arguments to defend big tobacco]. of course his rejoinder was well, I guess the fear over radiation is so deep-seated that every time you had a nuclear test, the resulting anxiety caused a whole bunch of people to start smoking. funny stuff (you had to be there). i'm also reminded of a piece i read in Science News, had to be a couple decades ago, about a study of rats in the wilds of russia. iirc, this was *not* related to chernobyl. these were forest regions where radioactive waste was known to have been dumped. a significant amount of mutation was found in this rat population. not gammarah-style stuff. things like large numbers of six-toed individuals, that kind of stuff. On Apr 20, 2011 1:41 PM, Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20110422/5ce7f25c/attachment.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] NEWS - Clean transportation alternative
yes, well, I agree with your point about the question really being about walking, and that bicycling will naturally flow from that. wrt car culture, this is a notion that i have always considered to be corporate in origin. big auto, big oil, big development/real estate. big brother. the whole idea of america's [or germany's or japan's etc.] love affair with the automobile is endlessly repeated. i can certainly see how some, even many carfree advocates would uncritically absorb such notions even if they view it as a negative. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20110422/254cd5bd/attachment.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] NEWS - Clean transportation alternative
dawie, as usual you have lifted the veil and voiced what lies at the core of the discussion. however, you aren't actually suggesting that car culture rhetoric is original to the carfree crowd? On Apr 20, 2011 5:14 PM, Dawie Coetzee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The thing to understand is that bicycling happens spontaneously where walking is a viable way to get from A to B. As such it isn't really a mode of transportation on its own, however successfully it occurs in certain places, but rather a variant of the pedestrian mode. Attempts to establish bicycling as an alternative to motorized transportation in unwalkable contexts will therefore always tend to have an element of force about them. If the aim is walking, bicycles will follow almost by accident. If the aim is bicycles forcible measures may be needed to exclude motorcycles, measures that do not appeal to me. It involves someone standing there to see that I haven't strapped an engine to my bicycle, and there are already too many people similarly standing there for other reasons. Walkability is a much better standard. It contains an element of spontaneity that renders it organic. In my experience of the Carfree crowd they are (or at least contain) a strange lot. There is an unfortunate sort of snobbery that regards a fondness for motor vehicles, and especially old low-tech high-performance vehicles, to be proof of an incapacity for independent thought. They admit to having no understanding of such a fondness yet do not on those grounds see themselves unqualified to criticize it. As a consequence they persist in getting it wrong: the fallacious notion that car culture contributes materially to transport modal choice persists. Because the idea is never questioned it is too easy for them to put the entire complex issue of vehicle-dependence, land use, and systems of economy down to being in love with one's car. It is like ascribing the exploitation of female labour to uxoriousness: it doesn't follow, and indeed the opposite might well obtain. A radical reduction in vehicle use is as good for the avid car enthusiast as it is for everyone else, and the reason for this is that a personal fondness for cars is very seldom a fondness for cars as a means of transport. Less traffic means open roads, less danger from other road users, less competitiveness; it can also mean less intrusive legislation, less strict policing, more scope for technological creativity, and more fun. But some in the Carfree movement would ensure that traffic levels always remain high enough to justify taking all the fun out of motoring, just to punish the enthusiast. If they can't have no cars they'd rather have too many, as only a few cars would cause motoring to cease to be a problem and deprive them of a basis on which to object to it. Regards Dawie Coetzee From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Wed, 20 April, 2011 19:40:20 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] NEWS - Clean transportation alternative Thanks Hoagy A couple more to add, from World Carfree News #85 - April 2011: http://worldcarfree.net/ QUOTATION OF THE MONTH We will not be banning cars from city centres any more than we will be having rectangular bananas. - UK transport minister Norman Baker, on the EU 2050 strategy for transport, which aims to eliminate conventional cars from European cities. In anticipation of the World Naked Bike Ride (June 12) the Brighton group is planning a special event to raise funds and have a good time. It will take place on Saturday 9th April, from 7.30 to 11.30pm at the Hanover Community Centre on 33 Southover Street. The cost is £7 on door, or £5.50 in advance purchase http://www.edgeoftime.co.uk/index.php?p=t2c=all. WNBR Brighton www.worldnakedbikeride.org/brighton IMPROVING CYCLING CONDITIONS IN ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, USA The Saint Paul Bicycle Coalition works to improve cycling conditions in Saint Paul, Minnesota. They celebrate their 1st anniversary this April. If you live in Twin Cities and want to become involved, please contact them or come to one of their monthly meetings. Read more http://www.saintpaulbicyclecoalition.org/. VELOCYPEDIA OPEN CALL We are announcing open call for art works for an exhibition: Contemporary art exhibition about bicycle passion and sustainable transport. The exhibition will be held in the Gallery of National Technical Library in Prague in May 2011. Exhibition dates: 3rd May --24th May 2011 Curators: Lenka Kukurová, Milan Mikulás(tík Application deadline: 15th April 2011 Please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]. The Velocity conference just took place in Seville, Spain. It has come to light how far this city has come in advancing cycle-friendly atmosphere, jumping from a modal share of under 1% to a current 7% in five years. For some glimpses into how this happened, read more
Re: [Biofuel] The Planet Strikes Back
asimov, he was a sinister one. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20110420/982ed1a6/attachment.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The Planet Strikes Back
rather amateurish, imho. esp. for an academic. maybe he's writing down to a mass audience? On Apr 16, 2011 8:36 AM, Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Human rapaciousness, Gaia the avenger? Mr Clare thinks it's humans that are doing this? We? Us? Our? Maybe Gaia won't make the distinction, but Mr Clare should, IMHO. - K --0-- http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/04/14-4 The Planet Strikes Back Why We Underestimate the Earth and Overestimate Ourselves by Michael T. Klare Published on Thursday, April 14, 2011 by TomDispatch.com In his 2010 book, Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet, environmental scholar and activist Bill McKibben writes of a planet so devastated by global warming that it's no longer recognizable as the Earth we once inhabited. This is a planet, he predicts, of melting poles and dying forests and a heaving, corrosive sea, raked by winds, strafed by storms, scorched by heat. Altered as it is from the world in which human civilization was born and thrived, it needs a new name -- so he gave it that extra a in Eaarth. The Eaarth that McKibben describes is a victim, a casualty of humankind's unrestrained consumption of resources and its heedless emissions of climate-altering greenhouse gases. True, this Eaarth will cause pain and suffering to humans as sea levels rise and croplands wither, but as he portrays it, it is essentially a victim of human rapaciousness. With all due respect to McKibben's vision, let me offer another perspective on his (and our) Eaarth: as a powerful actor in its own right and as an avenger, rather than simply victim. It's not enough to think of Eaarth as an impotent casualty of humanity's predations. It is also a complex organic system with many potent defenses against alien intervention -- defenses it is already wielding to devastating effect when it comes to human societies. And keep this in mind: we are only at the beginning of this process. To grasp our present situation, however, it's necessary to distinguish between naturally recurring planetary disturbances and the planetary responses to human intervention. Both need a fresh look, so let's start with what Earth has always been capable of before we turn to the responses of Eaarth, the avenger. Overestimating Ourselves Our planet is a complex natural system, and like all such systems, it is continually evolving. As that happens -- as continents drift apart, as mountain ranges rise and fall, as climate patterns shift -- earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, typhoons, prolonged droughts, and other natural disturbances recur, even if on an irregular and unpredictable basis. Our predecessors on the planet were deeply aware of this reality. After all, ancient civilizations were repeatedly shaken, and in some cases shattered, by such disturbances. For example, it is widely believed that the ancient Minoan civilization of the eastern Mediterranean collapsed following a powerful volcanic eruption on the island of Thera (also called Santorini) in the mid-second millennium BCE. Archaeological evidence suggests that many other ancient civilizations were weakened or destroyed by intense earthquake activity. In Apocalypse: Earthquakes, Archaeology, and the Wrath of God, Stanford geophysicist Amos Nur and his co-author Dawn Burgess argue that Troy, Mycenae, ancient Jericho, Tenochtitlan, and the Hittite empire may have fallen in this manner. Faced with recurring threats of earthquakes and volcanoes, many ancient religions personified the forces of nature as gods and goddesses and called for elaborate human rituals and sacrificial offerings to appease these powerful deities. The ancient Greek sea-god Poseidon (Neptune to the Romans), also called Earth-Shaker, was thought to cause earthquakes when provoked or angry. In more recent times, thinkers have tended to scoff at such primitive notions and the gestures that went with them, suggesting instead that science and technology -- the fruits of civilization -- offer more than enough help to allow us to triumph over the Earth's destructive forces. This shift in consciousness has been impressively documented in Clive Ponting's 2007 volume, A New Green History of the World. Quoting from influential thinkers of the post-Medieval world, he shows how Europeans acquired a powerful conviction that humanity should and would rule nature, not the other way around. The seventeenth century French mathematician René Descartes, for example, wrote of employing science and human knowledge so that we canŠ render ourselves the masters and possessors of nature. It's possible that this growing sense of human control over nature was enhanced by a period of a few hundred years in which there may have been less than the usual number of civilization-threatening natural disturbances. Over those centuries, modern Europe and North America, the two centers of the Industrial Revolution, experienced nothing
Re: [Biofuel] Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power (George Monbiot)
been hoping this thread wouldn't die out before finding a moment to adress the topic. fortunately, much of what i wanted to say has already been said so i don't have to try and carve out as much time! clearly, life as we in the developed world (and increasing numbers of people in the developing world) live it, is unsustainable. as has been rightly pointed out, we *will* change how we live. the only question is whether we participate in and shape that change. this discussion hinges on two words (which i really thought would've come up sooner than they did): paradigm shift. it's not about sacrificing this or that, but opening our eyes to what's real and shifting our priorities. deciding what we really need. the world right now is a freaking gigantic mess. changing it. . .OMG just think about that for a second (change *that*!?!). makes you feel pretty tiny and helpless, right? I mean where the devil do you start? as bakunin would say, start with yourself. that helpless feeling i mentioned a second ago? well, pretty much everyone around you feels the same way. what's the best antidote? do stuff. i'm pretty tired and since i can't keep my train of thought i'm starting to sermonize which is one of the worst forms of human interaction. i think it was chip who said that one of the best forms of communication is to *do*. couldn't agree more. anyway, hoping everyone is well, -chris -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20110401/93d2896d/attachment.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Legality of WVO in commercial application
can the guy explain a little about why he draws this conclusion about taxes? not that i doubt the notion. in fact, he could well be right. but it would help to know what information he's working with. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The Other Oil Giants? Just as Unready as BP
there's something that seems to have gone completely under the radar of the media (or they're willfully avoiding the question) in their coverage of the gulf catastrofe. they report from time to time that bp has brought, or is bringing, this or that asset to the gulf to add a certain capability in the response effort. basically repeating the Bloodsucking Parasite's press releases and little more. anyway, from where are these vessels being diverted? canada, the north sea, norway. i'm gonna say it's safe to assume that they had these ships and platforms stationed in those places because their governments require more than empty claims and winks and nods, where disaster response and preparednes are concerned On 6/24/10, Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.prwatch.org/node/9171 The Other Oil Giants? Just as Unready as BP Submitted by Ross Wolfarth on June 18, 2010 The Gulf of Mexico response plans of four of the five major oil companies discuss protecting walruses. No walruses live in the Gulf. On June 15, the CEOs of ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Shell, Chevron and BP were grilled by the House Subcommittee on Energy and Natural Resources. Unsurprisingly, much of what they said was spin. They paraded industry investments in alternative energy and safety that make up a vanishingly small percentage of their balance sheets. BP's competitors claimed again and again that they would never have made the catastrophic mistakes that led to the collapse of the Deepwater Horizon. But the hearing's scariest moment came when Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson told the truth. Tillerson stated that when oil spills occur there will be impacts. According to ExxonMobil, the cleanup effort launched by BP represents the best efforts of the oil companies. For the oil companies, this travesty is the cutting edge of safety and environmental protection. Same Plan, Different Covers The major oil companies have essentially identical regional response plans for a disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. These 500+ page plans have been approved by the Department of the Interior and outline how each company would try to stop a leak and would clean up the oil. According to Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), in the June 15 hearing the plans are ninety percent identical. All five plans were prepared by The Response Group. All five refer to the same contractors for clean-up and the same sources of equipment. The covers even feature the same photographs of oil wells, although The Response Group did tint the covers a different color for each company. Protecting Walruses, But Not the Gulf There is nothing fundamentally wrong with oil companies planning a similar response to similar disasters. If Chevron knows how to stop environmental and economic disaster, by all means it should let Shell know. The problem is that all the 'cookie-cutter plans' for the Gulf feature laughable errors and have been proven ineffective by the Deepwater Horizon spill. Four of the five regional response plans discuss the protection of walruses, mammals that have not lived in the Gulf for three million years. Three of the plans refer readers to the phone number of an expert who died in 2005. Even worse, the plans claim that the companies have the capacity to deal with a worst case scenario, a disaster dumping substantially more oil into the Gulf than the Deepwater Horizon spill. The residents of the Gulf Coast know all too well that BP's plan has failed utterly to protect their environment and their livelihoods from Horizon. It seems that the oil companies have very low standards for what constitutes adequate disaster response. What Are the Oil Giants Ready For? As ExxonMobil's Tillerson admitted, we are not well-equipped to deal with offshore disasters. One might question whether the oil companies are well-equipped for drilling in general if they cannot stop the failure of an exploratory well from spiraling into a national catastrophe. There is one task for which ExxonMobil is very well-equipped. Unlike their competitors, ExxonMobil's regional response plan includes forty-pages on media response. Exxon may not be prepared to deal with a disaster. They may not be able to drill for oil without endangering the health and safety of millions. But they are ready to spin. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and
Re: [Biofuel] Whales hunting ban - final vote
i know! i was tempted to sneak several yet agains in there. re the whale story, i heard it on the radio, and just googled whale and feces and iron, which gave a lot of hits. the first link was an article in mother jones from a couple days ago (which mentioned the australians' findings were published in a uk journal). ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Whales hunting ban - final vote
talk about synchronicity. i heard two tidbits today. first (note that i didn't have time to cross-check this one), the latest data indicates that the oceans are even warmer, and warming at a faster rate, than had been thought until now. which means that global warming is farther along than previously believed, since about 90% of atmospheric warming gets absorbed by the oceans. second, some dudes in australia have shown that whale poop, much like that of grazing animals, promotes carbon sequestration by providing phytoplankton with valuable nutrients. whale poqulations worldwide are, depending on the species, at 1 to 10 percent of their former levels. the australian team calculates that sperm whales in the southern hemisphere alone, if allowed to regain their former numbers, would effectively remove 2 million tons of carbon dioxide annually. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] To answer your questions
jim, i posed some questions early on, which i'm glad to see you answered (in part) when responding to jason. it would still help to know what sort of funds you have to work with. whether it be your economic development budget, or other funding streams which might be under the control of other administrators, but which you could influence in your capacity to coordinate programs. there are almost certainly grant monies which you could bring in as well. not to mention existing local business which might be convinced to donate money or resources (materials, transportation, expertise) to the cause. i would encourage you, if you haven't already, to explore all of this. you might be surprised by what you can pull together. that said, in my opinion fritz (i think it was fritz) and jason are on the right track. and i wouldn't stop at biofuels. wind, solar, even small scale hydro. all of these things require research (i.e. what are the wind, water power, and biomass resources in your area). this is where your community colleges, tecnical schools and so on would play a key role. when it comes to actually put shovels in the ground, so to speak, lots of materials are to be had for next to nothing at your local scrap metal yard or trash dump. i could go on, but the point is, there is much you can do that doesn't hinge entirely on whether or not some outside entity decides to bring their venture, which might or might succed, to your neighborhood. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] 12% renewable energy in electrical production by 2025
jim, it might be helpful if we understood better, under what sort of policy constraints you are working. what are your funding streams (i.e. ballpark dollar amounts) and what kind of mandates/conditions come attached to them? i could go on. basically, what i'm trying to get at, how much lattitude do you have in terms of finding a solution? is anything off the table? ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] 12% renewable energie in electrical production by 2025
hi, keith. sorry if my last post had a negative nelly tone. didn't mean for it to sound that way, but didn't have the time to consider composition. well, not now either. not even in bed yet and i have to start all over again in 4 and a half hrs! anyway, i hope you're right about ppl being ready. doesn't really matter, though. like the saying goes from hide and seek, ready or not, here i come! ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] More mad dogs
your oil and israel post is an incredible piece of writing, keith. you so obviously went into the right profession. tried checking out the arundhati roy link, but seems lannan has revamped their website in the intervening years, and the transcript is no longer offered in html. will have to make arrangements to download the pdf because she is one hell of a writer. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] More mad dogs
wow, somehow i never expected to see the u.s.s liberty come up on this list. the story is well documented (as secret non-incidents go) and is slowly penetrating the american pryche. i first heard of it many years ago when the local npr station interviewed a former cia guy who had just published a tell-all book. his take was that israel attacked the ship in order to cover up rather heinous war crimes being committed against egyptian military personnel. the prequel, you might say, to the infamous 'highway to hell' during desert storm. On 6/9/10, Gustl Steiner-Zehender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hallo, I belong to an email list of former and current spooks who worked under the command of a particular intel outfit. All branches of the military are represented as well as the 3 letter civilian outfits. Many things are discussed on the list but NEVER anything classified. It is purely social in nature. Below is an email from the list. I have deleted last names and email addresses to maintain the privacy of the folks in the mail. I know neither of them. I am not endorsing either spying or violence, but rather pointing out what defense means to the Israeli government. If they do this to their allies consider what they are prepared to do to their enemies, and what the word peaceful means to them. To those of you who know me, no, I'm not dead yet but do have some major health problems and my activities are restricted. Typing is excruciating. Even using a fork and spoon are let alone a knife or chopsticks. I apologize for not answering emails, but Keith will tell you that they tend to be lengthy and this one is plenty long enough. My best wishes to all my good friends on this list, particularly to my brother Keith. You are in my thoughts and daily prayers. Happy Happy, Gustl - - - - - - - - Letters to the Editor (This was submitted to the newspaper by John W and forwarded to the spook list by Don C.) Orlando Sentinel Remember the dead during peace time We must not forget those who died, not in war but as a result of a hostile act during peace time. On June 8, 1967, a highly sophisticated intelligence-gathering ship, The USS Liberty was in international waters off the coast of Egypt. Its mission was to ascertain if Russians or Egyptians were flying missions against Israel during its war against Egypt. At about 2 that afternoon, two Israeli Mirage fighters attacked the ship. Other aircraft followed, dropping napalm on the Liberty's deck. Israeli torpedo boats followed, launching their projectiles. One of the five torpedoes hit the ship, killing a number of cryptologists. The attack lasted less than an hour and a half, and the ship sustained 821 shell holes plus a 40-foot hole by the torpedo. The Liberty had a complement of 294 men. Thirty-four died, and some-170 were wounded - a 70 percent casualty rate and the highest for a U.S. ship since World War II. John W Donald C -- Je mehr wir haben, desto mehr fordert Gott von uns. We can't change the winds but we can adjust our sails. The safest road to Hell is the gradual one - the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts. C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters Es gibt Wahrheiten, die so sehr auf der Straße liegen, daß sie gerade deshalb von der gewöhnlichen Welt nicht gesehen oder wenigstens nicht erkannt werden. And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music. Friedrich Nietzsche The best portion of a good man's life - His little, nameless, unremembered acts of kindness and of love. William Wordsworth ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] X Prize for 100 mpg car
thanks for that, hoagy. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] X Prize for 100 mpg car
thanks for that, hoagy. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Scum of the earth
hi, keith. thanks for the links. no time to check them out in depth right now. i heard a little a really horrifying little factoid yesterday, which is that apparently the ocean floor in that region is. . .highly porous, for lack for a better word. so concievably many of the contaminants in the oil and dispersants, even if the oil slick/toxic subsurface cloud never reaches the shores of florida, the everglades could still be seriously poisoned. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] An electrifying twist on the energy from algae story
the best biofuels idea i've heard is kelp farming. extremely practical, easily managed both from a production and an environmental standpoint. algea has astounding potential on paper, but you start throwing genetic engineering, bioreactors, venting waste gases, etc., etc., you're just over-complicating things. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Acid-base chemistry
lol, yeah, moles for sure are kind of tricky. precisely because of the things you mention. (i dropped chem in college. there was no way i was going to pass if i stuck it out.) thanks for sharing your impression of the youtube guy. sorry if it was waste of your time. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Judge: Gene Patents Are Invalid
not exactly, ken. at least, as i understand it, GMOs do not contain manufactured genes. they are merely transplanting already existing genetic material into organisms which heretofore did not contain said genes in their genome (and thus the attributes of the transplanted genes could not be obtained by traditional methods such as selective breeding). still, it is different, as you point out. enough so that the big ag lawyers (and the judges who side with them) have plenty of room for legal parsing. On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 8:05 AM, Ken Riznyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I doubt that this ruling applies to Big Ag. The genes Big Ag are using are not found in nature but are manufactured using recombinant DNA technology. The Myriad Genetics case is gene identification. Ken -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20100421/3e50e746/attachment.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Not exactly biodiesel they way we usually think of it, but still interesting
cool stuff. On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Darryl McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Binding biomass (lignin) with conventional diesel to reduce soot. http://w3.tue.nl/en/news/news_article/?tx_ttnews[tt_news]=9245tx_ttnews[backPid]=361cHash=519bda9553 Darryl -- Darryl McMahon The Emperor's New Hydrogen Economy (in trade paperback and eBook) http://www.econogics.com/TENHE/ Journey to Forever reviews The Emperor's New Hydrogen Economy http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html#tenhe ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20100421/160cd944/attachment.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Acid-base chemistry
keith, don't know if this will help, but. . .: http://www.youtube.com/user/khanacademy#p/c/166048DD75B05C0D/10/gfBcM3uvWfs and: http://www.youtube.com/user/khanacademy#p/c/166048DD75B05C0D/11/AsqEkF7hcII maybe it'll give you what you need to feel more confident doing it yourself? i've been meaning to check some of this guy's stuff out myself (really need to revisit a lot of high school math), but haven't gotten around to it yet. -chris On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: I have difficulty with moles. I do know how to figure it out, in theory, but I'm not confident of the result. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20100419/4724d6bd/attachment.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] pv biz
i don't know the particulars of the power industry in the u.k. (such as whether the 'traditional' generators are subsidized), but while monbiot makes some valid points his conclusion seems flawed. it's less a question of whether to suasidize or not to subsidize, than one of how to structure the subsidy. also, until the externalized costs of fossil fuel- and extraction-based power generation are plugged into the equation, you can't fairly assess how much to subsidize alternative energy. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Aftermath of Copenhagen
On 1/6/10, MH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I like your idea Darryl and I'll see if I can join in and do that. My apartment managers just added more insulation to the ceiling and around the foundation. They also replaced all the bulbs with compact fluorescent lights that I didn't get around to. Pretty nice. I've been thinking about hunting to gather some meat for the freezer come next years hunting season. I don't usually have much money leftover for meat so I thought I'd practice on paper targets and read ask around to gather more information for a extra freezer for the venison deer meat. That should help reduce some of my overall energy costs I'd think. I'm still bicycling for most of my needs with the bike trailer attached. That helps a lot in many ways with my bank account energy reduction. Best wishes you all for the new year, -Hoagy Darryl McMahon wrote: A New Year's Resolution for 2010 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and save money doing it! 10 in 10! If you are with me, please let me know and spread the word. Together, we can make the difference. Reducing our energy costs by 10% should help make for a prosperous New Year! ++ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Scientists Create Lab-Grown Pork; Bacon Industry Unmoved
yawn wake me when they've done it with spam. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Scientists Create Lab-Grown Pork; Bacon Industry Unmoved
h was thinking the same thing. no animals were harmed in this incrementation of the human suffering index. On 12/5/09, Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: yawn wake me when they've done it with spam. :-) Sorry, we're fresh out of spam. No spam with spam either. Soyburger perhaps? It comes with tofu. Funny, though, that with all the objections greenies and foodies have been making about frankenpork, nobody asked what they're going to feed the stuff, and where the nutrients will come from. Best Keith http://www.sphere.com/2009/11/30/scientists-create-lab-grown-pork-bacon-industry-unmoved/ Scientists Create Lab-Grown Pork; Bacon Industry Unmoved ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Documentaries
zeitgeist is on my to see list. in fact i've bumped it to top spot thanks to jim's comments. i've seen a ton of documentaries in the past year. while i have enjoyed most all of them and applaud their efforts, few have left lasting impressions. those which i would most highly recommend are manufacturing consent (based on the book co-written by chomsky), the corporation (wow, a must see IMO), supersize me (gimmicky and light, no hard-hitting expose this one, but very worthwhile, the more i think back on it the more i like it), and manufactured landscapes (i've mentioned this one before and i can't sing it's praises loudly enough, probably my favorite). ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Amazing pictures - pollution in China
looking at the photos, i was reminded of the documentary _Manufactured Landscapes_. amazing stuff, just a *ton* of incredible images, and the opening sequence is unforgettable. so is the rest of the film for that matter. strongly recommended. you won't regret it. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] A Greener Commute
excellent links. the splc list is interesting in the preponderence of items from the clinton years: could that explain at least in part why the republicans so zealously pursued his undoing? equally noteworthy is the complete lack of awareness the american public has, either of the crimes and conspiracies themselves (the msm strikes again), or of the fact that most of the perpetrators are already back on the streets. and d. m. green's column recalled the recent discussion here concerning that study about belief vs. evidence. which begs the question, what if a similar study were constructed around the issue of these individuals, their crimes and their motives, and addressed in particular the question of the sentences they served? and then what if the issue of guantanamo were raised. . . ? ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] A Greener Commute
you're right, keith. thanks for taking the time to point that out. it's a sort of double-think process. there's no doubt in my mind that many of those who have dialed down their sense of urgency vis a vis global warming still believe it's a serious problem, but the mild temps means part of their mind starts to listen to the denial arguments, if only to allow themselves to postpone the inevitable adjustments. the whole consumerist paradigm is indeed fundamental. i wanted to tie that in but was a bit pressed for time so tried to hint at it while making my main point. re, the hertzen quote, it definitely has a grim appeal. those russian arnachists were some bad actors, weren't they? ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] American Public More Complacent About Climate Change
these polling changes are probably less attributable to the issues of the day (health care debate, financial crisis), than to the fact that we have had a very below normal temperature pattern for some twelve months now. while highly unusual and almost certainly due to the strange effects of global warming, its counter-intuitive nature doesn't associate as such in one's mind. and it doesn't come with massive heat waves which kill large numbers of elderly, infirm, homeless, etc. (in fact, if anything, it's a net positive, since people aren't getting hit in the pocketbook with high cooling bills). same goes for other climate-related events: overall lower incidence of wildfires, and remarkably uneventful hurricane season thus far. of course, the rest of the world continues to be battered, with terrible drought in e. africa and unbelievable typhoons in the pacific, but these are, per usual, under-reported in the msm and, when given some attention, there's never (or very rarely) any mention of global warming. the coverage of the recent tsunamis was much more exclamatory than that of the typhoons. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Fuji to enter hybrid car race
wow, with a 660cc engine, 50 percent more fuel efficient must refer to some already very high mpg vehicles. and of course, fuji isn't in the u.s. car market. . . . ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] lye electrolysis for rust removal
oh, duh. . . .thanks for the correction. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] lye electrolysis for rust removal
hi, all, thanks for the replies. i do understand that it won't restore an item to original condition. i was just curious why some would choose to add zinc to the lye bath. seems sort of. . .i'm not sure what word i'm looking for. just seems to needlessly complicate things. keith, you linked to the same archive entry i did :) anyway, thanks again for the comments. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] lye electrolysis for rust removal
out of curiosity, i did a web search for lye and rust. the search gave 650,000 hits, including some discussion right here. some people add zinc to the lye solution, the idea being, apparently, that the zinc replaces the iron in the iron oxide. anyone have any thoughts on whether there's any real benefit to this method vs. this one: http://www.mail-archive.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg24132.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] OIL-PULLING
We are receiving many emails about which oil to use. Our experience with thousands of people. . .says snakeoil! ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] OIL-PULLING
well, perhaps not completely snakeoil. it may work quite well as a means of oral hygiene (which is all they're talking about), even as compared to, say, rinsing with salt water. but they're grossly misrepresenting what's going on here. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] U. S. Head of Military Intelligence Publically States 9/11 was Staged Event
lol, i don't know. normally, i can't get anywhere at science publication websites either. it's possible, and i meant to mention this when i posted the url, that they gave it to me because there was a link for some sort of free subscription whereby you could get access to a large number of SI's issues. so perhaps this article fits that category and, though i didn't bother with the freebie, the server saw no reason not to give me the article. i can try and retrace my steps if you want, just let me know. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
