Re: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...? Part I. switch to biofuels.
Thanks for your insights. Your ideas and knowledge base (from Brazil) is incredible and one the folks here in the USA could emulate. I believe your country is way ahead of most countrys including our own on a real great solution to the current energy crisis. Bill - Original Message - From: FRANCISCO [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 4:17 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...? Part I. switch to biofuels. Hi I am a new comer 1) Bill: the blend gasoline/ethanol in Brasil is used by all Otto cycle based vehicles as yo said. The gasohol is 75/25 gasoline/ethanol ratio and it is mandatory not having water as water will force ethanol do drop out of the blend. Today 95% of new vehicles coming out of the OEM are trifuel meaning gasoline/alcohol/cng. As they can run with 100% ethanol their metallurgy is different from 100% gasoline vehicle and they use a lot of zamak - a zinc alloy resistant to corrosion. This is the cheapest and more effective route to fight corrosion. Also ethanol production processes are much more efficient now and contaminants are almost completely removed and those are the contaminants do promote corrosion ( electro chemistry ). Related to pollution one big question has to be answer : how the aldehids coming out of the tailpipe do affect the environment 2) Diesel cycle engines Does anyone in this group is interesting in investing in biodiesel with me in this country ( Brasil )? As of January 1st, 2005 it will be mandatory to add a minimum of 2% of biodiesel to petrodiesel. Tech objective is to have small farms producing vegt. oil and having the vegt. oil transesterified in medium size plants spread through out the country. Very Best for us all Francisco Ramos ( Chico Ramos ) william lemorande wrote: I believe in a system called the Lemonade Fix. It proposes 10% ethanol fuel be used in all states by the year 2007. This would in essence reduce the US dependence on foreign oil by under 10%. It would put the American Farmer back to work rather than see him subsidized by the government and in general put many people back to work. It would literally stop the outflow of greenbacks to the middle east. Yes Brazil does have more than a great percentage of their vehicles using ethanol. It started in the 80's. They got up to about 90% ethanol usage. That meant every car, every truck, every lawnmower etc.etc. was using ethanol. A truly non-polluting fuel. Even the octane is higher making it more powerful. The only down side is that ethanol is corrosive. Meaning gas tanks need to be lined with rubber or plastic. Bill - Original Message - From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 5:05 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...? Part I. switch to biofuels. If I said to the group that we could replace 50% of the use of finite and fossil fuels, I am sure that it is not many who see that as both realistic and achievable. In fact, most people would see it as a reasonable goal and it could even be done within a 20 year period. This for at least tertiary buildings, domestic buildings and transport. Brazil is already there or even at better numbers. Electricity production from wind, solar, hydro and biofuels will definitely be achievable at 50%, nobody doubt that at all. This will help a lot and will not be any risks for not continuing with any activity. Hakan At 11:15 PM 11/24/2004, you wrote: I'd say that considering biofuels as a substitute for fossil fuels in our current parrent of economy/society, Monbiot is right. However, biofuels from waste material and small crop diversions, as a means of keeping mechanically powered farming and a frugal local economy functioning in a time of fossil fuel supply shortages and dislocations which is fast approaching, has a crucial role to play in our overall energy supply. It may not be possible to continue mechanically powered farming in the long term, but we will need to keep it going for some time; we can't switch to animal power and gardening methods overnight. Biofuel production and use will be developed by those who want to do it for their own purposes, and I don't think it is very important whether those uses are viable (e.g. McDonald's parasites) over the long term. The important thing is that the technology gets developed and spreads. As long as we have metals and reasonably accurate machining (and it may be possible to replace a lot of metal with ceramics), I expect that biofuel powered engines will have a place. Doug Woodard St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Myles Arnott wrote: Hi everyone, I'm pretty new to this group, and have been following most of what has been posited and discussed with much interest. However, I came across this article today and was made to feel a little uneasy. I believe there is a lot of good (both
RE: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...? Part I. switch to biofuels.
Dave, I had a lot of links on energy development, but lost them in a disk crash. Here is some that I still have and I had a lot more on Brazil, World Energy Assessment - Overview: 2004 Update - Full Version - (large file - 1.5 MB) http://www.undp.org/energy/docs/WEAOU_full.pdf Energy for Sustainable Development: A Policy Agenda download (PDF, 1.8MB) http://www.undp.org/energy/publications/2002/20013108FNRapport.pdf Sustainable Energy http://www.undp.org/seed/energy/index.html Energy as an Instrument for Socio-Economic Development (Brazil) http://www.undp.org/seed/energy/policy/overview.htm Converting Biomass to Liquid Fuels: Making Ethanol from Sugar Cane in Brazil http://www.undp.org/seed/energy/policy/ch10.htm Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index 2003 http://www.transparency.org/cpi/2004/cpi2004.en.html#cpi2004 Human Development Report 2003 Millennium Development Goals: A compact among nations to end human poverty http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2003/ BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2004 http://www.bp.com/subsection.do?categoryId=95contentId=2006480 You can find a lot more interesting reading on the net. Hakan At 10:29 PM 11/27/2004, you wrote: Hi Hakan, I would be very interested in reading that UN report that you mentioned--I did some searches but couldn't find it. Do you have a URL? - Dave -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hakan Falk Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 11:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...? Part I. switch to biofuels. --- begin quote see this as very positive. I also read the UN report about the social impacts of ethanol production in Brazil during the last 30 years. It was a lot of positive things that was confirmed and verified. I cannot understand how people in US, UK and Australia can fall for scare tactics about biofuel, when we have such a well documented pilot case to look at. --- end quote --- ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...?
, hi hi George monbiot is a highly respected environmentalist and I don't think a rant like this is particularly constructive. Doesn't do the list much good really. More reason less aggression, you did make relevant comments in there somewhere. cheers Greg clare recycling chip oil in the deepest darkest marches of England - Original Message - From: Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 12:04 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...? Skipped this part - Original Message - From: Myles Arnott [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 9:00 PM Subject: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...? Skipped this part Fuel for nought The adoption of biofuels would be a humanitarian and environmental disaster George Monbiot Tuesday November 23, 2004 The Guardian If human beings were without sin, we would still live in an imperfect world. Adam Smith's notion that by pursuing his own interest, a man frequently promotes that of ... society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it, and Karl Marx's picture of a society in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all are both mocked by one obvious constraint. The world is finite. This means that when one group of people pursues its own interests, it damages the interests of others. It is hard to think of a better example than the current enthusiasm for biofuels. These are made from plant oils or crop wastes or wood, and can be used to run cars and buses and lorries. Burning them simply returns to the atmosphere the carbon that the plants extracted while they were growing. So switching from fossil fuels to biodiesel and bioalcohol is now being promoted as the solution to climate change. Next month, the British government will have to set a target for the amount of transport fuel that will come from crops. The European Union wants 2% of the oil we use to be biodiesel by the end of next year, rising to 6% by 2010 and 20% by 2020. To try to meet these targets, the government has reduced the tax on biofuels by 20p a litre, while the EU is paying farmers an extra ?45 a hectare to grow them. Everyone seems happy about this. The farmers and the chemicals industry can develop new markets, the government can meet its commitments to cut carbon emissions, and environmentalists can celebrate the fact that plant fuels reduce local pollution as well as global warming. Unlike hydrogen fuel cells, biofuels can be deployed straightaway. This, in fact, was how Rudolf Diesel expected his invention to be used. When he demonstrated his engine at the World Exhibition in 1900, he ran it on peanut oil. The use of vegetable oils for engine fuels may seem insignificant today, he predicted. But such oils may become in course of time as important as petroleum. Some enthusiasts are predicting that if fossil fuel prices continue to rise, he will soon be proved right. I hope not. Those who have been promoting these fuels are well-intentioned, but wrong. They are wrong because the world is finite. If biofuels take off, they will cause a global humanitarian disaster. Used as they are today, on a very small scale, they do no harm. A few thousand greens in the United Kingdom are running their cars on used chip fat. But recycled cooking oils could supply only 100,000 tonnes of diesel a year in this country, equivalent to one 380th of our road transport fuel. It might also be possible to turn crop wastes such as wheat stubble into alcohol for use in cars - the Observer ran an article about this on Sunday. I'd like to see the figures, but I find it hard to believe that we will be able to extract more energy than we use in transporting and processing straw. But the EU's plans, like those of all the enthusiasts for biolocomotion, depend on growing crops specifically for fuel. As soon as you examine the implications, you discover that the cure is as bad as the disease. Road transport in the UK consumes 37.6m tonnes of petroleum products a year. The most productive oil crop that can be grown in this country is rape. The average yield is 3-3.5 tonnes per hectare. One tonne of rapeseed produces 415kg of biodiesel. So every hectare of arable land could provide 1.45 tonnes of transport fuel. To run our cars and buses and lorries on biodiesel, in other words, would require 25.9m hectares. There are 5.7m in the UK. Even the EU's more modest target of 20% by 2020 would consume almost all our cropland. If the same thing is to happen all over Europe, the impact on global food supply will be catastrophic: big enough to tip the global balance from net
Re: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...?
. Think about this-- if cars (weighing 2 tons) were as efficient as heavy-duty trucks (weighing 30 tons) which presently get 7 miles per gallon, then cars would be getting over 100 miles per gallon! And trains are at least ten times more energy-efficient than trucks. If you think I am exaggerating the potential, not so! I am currently driving a car (1.5 tons) that gets 65 miles per gallon (highway, at 63 mph). I think I know how to improve the efficiency of my current powerplant by nearly 50%--I will build this new engine if I can, but a lot of teamwork will be required. My new engine will run best on biofuels such as biodiesel. How unfortunate it would be if the helpers I need for the engine were to believe Monbiot and not be willing to help. If we would just move our scientists and best engineers that work on weapons and space exploration to finding better ways to handle basic needs on earth, the problems could be solved in short order. There is much more to be said, but maybe I could save that for a later time. Ernie Rogers Greg Clare said, hi hi George monbiot is a highly respected environmentalist and I don't think a rant like this is particularly constructive. Doesn't do the list much good really. More reason less aggression, you did make relevant comments in there somewhere. cheers Greg clare recycling chip oil in the deepest darkest marches of England - Original Message - From: Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 12:04 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...? Skipped this part - Original Message - From: Myles Arnott [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 9:00 PM Subject: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...? Skipped this part Fuel for nought The adoption of biofuels would be a humanitarian and environmental disaster George Monbiot Tuesday November 23, 2004 The Guardian If human beings were without sin, we would still live in an imperfect world. Adam Smith's notion that by pursuing his own interest, a man frequently promotes that of ... society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it, and Karl Marx's picture of a society in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all are both mocked by one obvious constraint. The world is finite. This means that when one group of people pursues its own interests, it damages the interests of others. It is hard to think of a better example than the current enthusiasm for biofuels. These are made from plant oils or crop wastes or wood, and can be used to run cars and buses and lorries. Burning them simply returns to the atmosphere the carbon that the plants extracted while they were growing. So switching from fossil fuels to biodiesel and bioalcohol is now being promoted as the solution to climate change. Next month, the British government will have to set a target for the amount of transport fuel that will come from crops. The European Union wants 2% of the oil we use to be biodiesel by the end of next year, rising to 6% by 2010 and 20% by 2020. To try to meet these targets, the government has reduced the tax on biofuels by 20p a litre, while the EU is paying farmers an extra ?45 a hectare to grow them. Everyone seems happy about this. The farmers and the chemicals industry can develop new markets, the government can meet its commitments to cut carbon emissions, and environmentalists can celebrate the fact that plant fuels reduce local pollution as well as global warming. Unlike hydrogen fuel cells, biofuels can be deployed straightaway. This, in fact, was how Rudolf Diesel expected his invention to be used. When he demonstrated his engine at the World Exhibition in 1900, he ran it on peanut oil. The use of vegetable oils for engine fuels may seem insignificant today, he predicted. But such oils may become in course of time as important as petroleum. Some enthusiasts are predicting that if fossil fuel prices continue to rise, he will soon be proved right. I hope not. Those who have been promoting these fuels are well-intentioned, but wrong. They are wrong because the world is finite. If biofuels take off, they will cause a global humanitarian disaster. Used as they are today, on a very small scale, they do no harm. A few thousand greens in the United Kingdom are running their cars on used chip fat. But recycled cooking oils could supply only 100,000 tonnes of diesel a year in this country, equivalent to one 380th of our road transport fuel. It might also be possible to turn crop wastes such as wheat stubble into alcohol for use in cars - the Observer ran an article about this on Sunday. I'd like to see the figures, but I find
Re: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...?
It's never very important to me whether someone is well respected or not when they go off on a tear that is misleading, misthought and misguided, especially when such backwash gets published, widely or not. If those are the words of an environmentalist, I know a few dozen multi-national, petro-chemical companies who would eagerly reserve a ringside seat on their executive boards for the likes of him. Frankly, I have several other choice words beyond what I posted for idiots who don't preface their broadly incomplete thoughts as being just that, apparently with the expectation that anyone and everyone who sees their by-line will swill at their trough rather than think for themselves. People like that give eco- a bad name. relevant comments in there somewhere. Talk about a backhanded compliment. The reason[ing], as you care to couch it, was posted. Unfortunately, you chose to downplay/largely-dismiss/ignore that and highlight the personal exception you take with someone who points out the flawed/incomplete reasoning of the well respected. What you call aggression is nothing more than open disdain for such patent wrong-thinking. If it's genuflecting to and butt kissing the well respected that you believe should occur, I think you need to look somewhere other than my direction. If it's honesty and perhaps even a little substance that you're looking for, then be advised that there are often sharp edges that accompany both. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: greg wendy clare [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 12:32 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...? hi hi George monbiot is a highly respected environmentalist and I don't think a rant like this is particularly constructive. Doesn't do the list much good really. More reason less aggression, you did make relevant comments in there somewhere. cheers Greg clare recycling chip oil in the deepest darkest marches of England - Original Message - From: Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 12:04 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...? Myles, Would you propose that a person, or persons who populate a planet, do nothing? Much as the author does? The problem doesn't lay with the feedstock(s), but with the human livestock (or deadstock, depending upon how you perceive the mental incapacities of humans). Think about this for a moment. Well over 200,000,000 people out of a 265,000,000 US population are going to engorge themselves on enormous amounts of meats and cheeses in the next 35 days - everything imaginable from kielbasa to knockwurst to corned beef to pork to turkey. They don't seem to have much of a problem with eating ineffciently, letting the likes of beef cattle consume 10-16 pounds of edible grains for every 1 pound of edible beef put on their plate. But does your author even bother to mention this immoral level of avarice and excess? What? There is no fault with a society that would pork out on meat when 10 or more starving people could be fed off the same grains that a stinking cow snozzles down and spews out as waste? Yet he has ample nerve to bitch in the same manner about biofuels. I'll wager the mental midget gets up from his last Christmas leftover dinner a full 10 pounds heavier than he started on November 24th. Think he'll make mentio of that double-standard of excess and waste? Doubtful. Equally as doubtful that he'll pay full fare on his coronary bypass surgery years down the road as a result of such gluttony, leaving hundreds of other premium payers to pony up a share for his selfishness. The only thing that's starving relative to this article is the author's brain for oxygen, as he obviously hasn't taken anything but one singular aspect into consideration, with the apparent purpose of deriving a skewed end result. There are other factors, such as all the feedmeal/flour that is a byproduct of much oil production. There's the avarice of the meat consuming market. There's the failure to initiate and propigate fuel efficiency measures that would reduce liquid fuel consumption. There's the failure to promote a social principle of conservation/efficient use of liquid fuels. Instead, this bozo presents a global market that maintains all its present consumption habits and patterns, substituting only one fuel for another. It's mindless, as is your author's piece-meal premise. Happy Humbug. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Myles Arnott [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 9:00 PM Subject: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...? Hi everyone, I'm pretty new to this group, and have been following most of what has been posited and discussed with much interest. However, I came across this article today and was made to feel a little uneasy. I believe there is a lot of good (both environmental and humanitarian
Re: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...?
- Original Message - From: Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 12:08 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...? Greg, It's never very important to me whether someone is well respected or not when they go off on a tear that is misleading, misthought and misguided, especially when such backwash gets published, widely or not. If those are the words of an environmentalist, I know a few dozen multi-national, petro-chemical companies who would eagerly reserve a ringside seat on their executive boards for the likes of him. Frankly, I have several other choice words beyond what I posted for idiots who don't preface their broadly incomplete thoughts as being just that, apparently with the expectation that anyone and everyone who sees their by-line will swill at their trough rather than think for themselves. People like that give eco- a bad name. And the exact same can be applied to mainstream nutritionists. relevant comments in there somewhere. Talk about a backhanded compliment. Personally I found it a bit condesending, but... The reason[ing], as you care to couch it, was posted. Unfortunately, you chose to downplay/largely-dismiss/ignore that and highlight the personal exception you take with someone who points out the flawed/incomplete reasoning of the well respected. What you call aggression is nothing more than open disdain for such patent wrong-thinking. Most folks haven't been reared with direct thought so when it comes along it seems out of place, althought just because it seems that way does not make it so, only to those rarely, if ever, exposed to it. If it's genuflecting to and butt kissing the well respected that you believe should occur, I think you need to look somewhere other than my direction. Folks should've figured that a long time ago :) If it's honesty and perhaps even a little substance that you're looking for, then be advised that there are often sharp edges that accompany both. Sharp yes, demeaning and condesending no. I live with someone like that and it often helps keep things in their proper perspective. Luc Todd Swearingen Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
RE: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...? Part I. switch to biofuels.
Hi Hakan, I would be very interested in reading that UN report that you mentioned--I did some searches but couldn't find it. Do you have a URL? - Dave -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hakan Falk Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 11:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...? Part I. switch to biofuels. --- begin quote see this as very positive. I also read the UN report about the social impacts of ethanol production in Brazil during the last 30 years. It was a lot of positive things that was confirmed and verified. I cannot understand how people in US, UK and Australia can fall for scare tactics about biofuel, when we have such a well documented pilot case to look at. --- end quote --- ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...? Part I. switch to biofuels.
I was under the impression that MTBE was only a small part (like 1% or less) of the 10% gasoline mixture used in cars. I know that MBTE is the bad stuff that contaminates our drinking water with as much as a few drops. But this Lemonade fix idea (actually a friend of mine named it. He says it is like making lemonade out of a lemon of a problem) (and also has a similarity to my last name) basically is an idea to go along the same route as the country of Brazil. Only build up to it over the years. Right now only large cities are required to use 10% ethanol in their gas tank. This proposal would require all cities in the USA to use 10% by 2007. Currently the US produces 2,000 million gallons of ethanol per year. Production would need to be ramped up a lot. I do not know the yearly consumption of gas but it sure would make an interesting comparison. Bill - Original Message - From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 8:32 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...? Part I. switch to biofuels. Bill, You are late. The 10% ethanol target is going to happen as you say, but for an other reason than the urge of introducing biofuel. It is happening right now and is necessary for replacing MTBE. I do interpret your post that you agree the 50% of current gasoline volume could be available as ethanol in 20 years? Hakan At 02:27 AM 11/25/2004, you wrote: I believe in a system called the Lemonade Fix. It proposes 10% ethanol fuel be used in all states by the year 2007. This would in essence reduce the US dependence on foreign oil by under 10%. It would put the American Farmer back to work rather than see him subsidized by the government and in general put many people back to work. It would literally stop the outflow of greenbacks to the middle east. Yes Brazil does have more than a great percentage of their vehicles using ethanol. It started in the 80's. They got up to about 90% ethanol usage. That meant every car, every truck, every lawnmower etc.etc. was using ethanol. A truly non-polluting fuel. Even the octane is higher making it more powerful. The only down side is that ethanol is corrosive. Meaning gas tanks need to be lined with rubber or plastic. Bill - Original Message - From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 5:05 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...? Part I. switch to biofuels. If I said to the group that we could replace 50% of the use of finite and fossil fuels, I am sure that it is not many who see that as both realistic and achievable. In fact, most people would see it as a reasonable goal and it could even be done within a 20 year period. This for at least tertiary buildings, domestic buildings and transport. Brazil is already there or even at better numbers. Electricity production from wind, solar, hydro and biofuels will definitely be achievable at 50%, nobody doubt that at all. This will help a lot and will not be any risks for not continuing with any activity. Hakan At 11:15 PM 11/24/2004, you wrote: I'd say that considering biofuels as a substitute for fossil fuels in our current parrent of economy/society, Monbiot is right. However, biofuels from waste material and small crop diversions, as a means of keeping mechanically powered farming and a frugal local economy functioning in a time of fossil fuel supply shortages and dislocations which is fast approaching, has a crucial role to play in our overall energy supply. It may not be possible to continue mechanically powered farming in the long term, but we will need to keep it going for some time; we can't switch to animal power and gardening methods overnight. Biofuel production and use will be developed by those who want to do it for their own purposes, and I don't think it is very important whether those uses are viable (e.g. McDonald's parasites) over the long term. The important thing is that the technology gets developed and spreads. As long as we have metals and reasonably accurate machining (and it may be possible to replace a lot of metal with ceramics), I expect that biofuel powered engines will have a place. Doug Woodard St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Myles Arnott wrote: Hi everyone, I'm pretty new to this group, and have been following most of what has been posited and discussed with much interest. However, I came across this article today and was made to feel a little uneasy. I believe there is a lot of good (both environmental and humanitarian) to be achieved throught the use (and governmental support) of this sort of renewable energy, and call upon those better informed than myself to put my mind at ease. Are we missing the bigger picture? Yours, Myles. Fuel for nought The adoption of biofuels would be a humanitarian and environmental disaster George Monbiot Tuesday
Re: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...?
hi hi George monbiot is a highly respected environmentalist and I don't think a rant like this is particularly constructive. Doesn't do the list much good really. More reason less aggression, you did make relevant comments in there somewhere. cheers Greg clare recycling chip oil in the deepest darkest marches of England - Original Message - From: Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 12:04 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...? Myles, Would you propose that a person, or persons who populate a planet, do nothing? Much as the author does? The problem doesn't lay with the feedstock(s), but with the human livestock (or deadstock, depending upon how you perceive the mental incapacities of humans). Think about this for a moment. Well over 200,000,000 people out of a 265,000,000 US population are going to engorge themselves on enormous amounts of meats and cheeses in the next 35 days - everything imaginable from kielbasa to knockwurst to corned beef to pork to turkey. They don't seem to have much of a problem with eating ineffciently, letting the likes of beef cattle consume 10-16 pounds of edible grains for every 1 pound of edible beef put on their plate. But does your author even bother to mention this immoral level of avarice and excess? What? There is no fault with a society that would pork out on meat when 10 or more starving people could be fed off the same grains that a stinking cow snozzles down and spews out as waste? Yet he has ample nerve to bitch in the same manner about biofuels. I'll wager the mental midget gets up from his last Christmas leftover dinner a full 10 pounds heavier than he started on November 24th. Think he'll make mentio of that double-standard of excess and waste? Doubtful. Equally as doubtful that he'll pay full fare on his coronary bypass surgery years down the road as a result of such gluttony, leaving hundreds of other premium payers to pony up a share for his selfishness. The only thing that's starving relative to this article is the author's brain for oxygen, as he obviously hasn't taken anything but one singular aspect into consideration, with the apparent purpose of deriving a skewed end result. There are other factors, such as all the feedmeal/flour that is a byproduct of much oil production. There's the avarice of the meat consuming market. There's the failure to initiate and propigate fuel efficiency measures that would reduce liquid fuel consumption. There's the failure to promote a social principle of conservation/efficient use of liquid fuels. Instead, this bozo presents a global market that maintains all its present consumption habits and patterns, substituting only one fuel for another. It's mindless, as is your author's piece-meal premise. Happy Humbug. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Myles Arnott [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 9:00 PM Subject: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...? Hi everyone, I'm pretty new to this group, and have been following most of what has been posited and discussed with much interest. However, I came across this article today and was made to feel a little uneasy. I believe there is a lot of good (both environmental and humanitarian) to be achieved throught the use (and governmental support) of this sort of renewable energy, and call upon those better informed than myself to put my mind at ease. Are we missing the bigger picture? Yours, Myles. Fuel for nought The adoption of biofuels would be a humanitarian and environmental disaster George Monbiot Tuesday November 23, 2004 The Guardian If human beings were without sin, we would still live in an imperfect world. Adam Smith's notion that by pursuing his own interest, a man frequently promotes that of ... society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it, and Karl Marx's picture of a society in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all are both mocked by one obvious constraint. The world is finite. This means that when one group of people pursues its own interests, it damages the interests of others. It is hard to think of a better example than the current enthusiasm for biofuels. These are made from plant oils or crop wastes or wood, and can be used to run cars and buses and lorries. Burning them simply returns to the atmosphere the carbon that the plants extracted while they were growing. So switching from fossil fuels to biodiesel and bioalcohol is now being promoted as the solution to climate change. Next month, the British government will have to set a target for the amount of transport fuel that will come from crops. The European Union wants 2% of the oil we use to be biodiesel by the end of next year, rising to 6% by 2010 and 20% by 2020. To try
Re: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...? Part I. switch to biofuels.
Bill, I think that the ethanol mix to replace MTBE seems to be a preferred mix of 5% or 10%. More and more US states are prohibiting the use of MTBE and guess what, it is the same states that now are aggressively introducing 5 to 10% ethanol mix. Their politicians and car industries also discovered how to make a virtue out of a necessity. Nearly all of them are not announcing it as MTBE replacement, but telling all about their environmental actions and how good they are. LOL The normal gasoline at the pump in Brazil, have 28+% ethanol and they decided to rise that further. My memory is not clear on this, but I think that 32 or 35% is the future minimum mixing limit. We have several from Brazil on the list who can correct me. At all gas Stations that I have seen in Brazil, they also sell 100% alcohol E100. Maybe your lower percentage comes from the new attempt on setting limits for biodiesel in Brazil. I think that they mandate a B10 (10%) mix from next year. US is bumping up ethanol production very fast, it is a necessity for the prohibition of MTBE. Hakan At 04:22 AM 11/25/2004, you wrote: Hakan, I was under the impression that MTBE was only a small part (like 1% or less) of the 10% gasoline mixture used in cars. I know that MBTE is the bad stuff that contaminates our drinking water with as much as a few drops. But this Lemonade fix idea (actually a friend of mine named it. He says it is like making lemonade out of a lemon of a problem) (and also has a similarity to my last name) basically is an idea to go along the same route as the country of Brazil. Only build up to it over the years. Right now only large cities are required to use 10% ethanol in their gas tank. This proposal would require all cities in the USA to use 10% by 2007. Currently the US produces 2,000 million gallons of ethanol per year. Production would need to be ramped up a lot. I do not know the yearly consumption of gas but it sure would make an interesting comparison. Bill - Original Message - From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 8:32 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...? Part I. switch to biofuels. Bill, You are late. The 10% ethanol target is going to happen as you say, but for an other reason than the urge of introducing biofuel. It is happening right now and is necessary for replacing MTBE. I do interpret your post that you agree the 50% of current gasoline volume could be available as ethanol in 20 years? Hakan At 02:27 AM 11/25/2004, you wrote: I believe in a system called the Lemonade Fix. It proposes 10% ethanol fuel be used in all states by the year 2007. This would in essence reduce the US dependence on foreign oil by under 10%. It would put the American Farmer back to work rather than see him subsidized by the government and in general put many people back to work. It would literally stop the outflow of greenbacks to the middle east. Yes Brazil does have more than a great percentage of their vehicles using ethanol. It started in the 80's. They got up to about 90% ethanol usage. That meant every car, every truck, every lawnmower etc.etc. was using ethanol. A truly non-polluting fuel. Even the octane is higher making it more powerful. The only down side is that ethanol is corrosive. Meaning gas tanks need to be lined with rubber or plastic. Bill - Original Message - From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 5:05 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...? Part I. switch to biofuels. If I said to the group that we could replace 50% of the use of finite and fossil fuels, I am sure that it is not many who see that as both realistic and achievable. In fact, most people would see it as a reasonable goal and it could even be done within a 20 year period. This for at least tertiary buildings, domestic buildings and transport. Brazil is already there or even at better numbers. Electricity production from wind, solar, hydro and biofuels will definitely be achievable at 50%, nobody doubt that at all. This will help a lot and will not be any risks for not continuing with any activity. Hakan At 11:15 PM 11/24/2004, you wrote: I'd say that considering biofuels as a substitute for fossil fuels in our current parrent of economy/society, Monbiot is right. However, biofuels from waste material and small crop diversions, as a means of keeping mechanically powered farming and a frugal local economy functioning in a time of fossil fuel supply shortages and dislocations which is fast approaching, has a crucial role to play in our overall energy supply. It may not be possible to continue mechanically powered farming in the long term, but we will need to keep it going for some time; we can't switch to animal power and gardening methods overnight. Biofuel production and use will be developed by those who want to do
Re: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...? Part I. switch to biofuels.
What do you think of this, Hakan? http://www.soilandhealth.org/03sov/0302hsted/0302homested.html Homesteading Catalog Roberts, Rex. Your Engineered House. New York: M.C. Evans Company, 1964. This book can't be praised enough! Roberts is both a master builder and a master house designer; he takes the reader step by step through designing and building a totally sensible wooden house that defies all conventional approaches. Roberts will help you reconsider which materials are most sensible, instruct you in design principles, and to stand outside many building styles that aren't really as sensible as the mass of people might believe. Sadly, after the so-called energy crisis of the 1970s, the so-called energy-conservation legislation in the United States mandated national building codes that prohibited much of what Roberts suggested in this book. Still, it is highly valuable, particularly in places where one may freely design and build their own house largely out of wood. OUT OF PRINT. http://www.soilandhealth.org/copyform.asp?bookcode=030211 Best wishes Keith If I said to the group that we could replace 50% of the use of finite and fossil fuels, I am sure that it is not many who see that as both realistic and achievable. In fact, most people would see it as a reasonable goal and it could even be done within a 20 year period. This for at least tertiary buildings, domestic buildings and transport. Brazil is already there or even at better numbers. Electricity production from wind, solar, hydro and biofuels will definitely be achievable at 50%, nobody doubt that at all. This will help a lot and will not be any risks for not continuing with any activity. Hakan At 11:15 PM 11/24/2004, you wrote: I'd say that considering biofuels as a substitute for fossil fuels in our current parrent of economy/society, Monbiot is right. However, biofuels from waste material and small crop diversions, as a means of keeping mechanically powered farming and a frugal local economy functioning in a time of fossil fuel supply shortages and dislocations which is fast approaching, has a crucial role to play in our overall energy supply. It may not be possible to continue mechanically powered farming in the long term, but we will need to keep it going for some time; we can't switch to animal power and gardening methods overnight. Biofuel production and use will be developed by those who want to do it for their own purposes, and I don't think it is very important whether those uses are viable (e.g. McDonald's parasites) over the long term. The important thing is that the technology gets developed and spreads. As long as we have metals and reasonably accurate machining (and it may be possible to replace a lot of metal with ceramics), I expect that biofuel powered engines will have a place. Doug Woodard St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Myles Arnott wrote: Hi everyone, I'm pretty new to this group, and have been following most of what has been posited and discussed with much interest. However, I came across this article today and was made to feel a little uneasy. I believe there is a lot of good (both environmental and humanitarian) to be achieved throught the use (and governmental support) of this sort of renewable energy, and call upon those better informed than myself to put my mind at ease. Are we missing the bigger picture? Yours, Myles. Fuel for nought The adoption of biofuels would be a humanitarian and environmental disaster George Monbiot Tuesday November 23, 2004 The Guardian [snip] ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...? Part I. switch to biofuels.
Chico, When I wrote my email, I did no see yours. When I was in Brazil, I was told that the normal mix at the pump was 28.5% and I read somewhere that this mix would be raised next year. The B2 I thought was higher, but I do not remember where I got B5 and B10 from. I read before about Brazil and also got some perspective in the Brazilian energy production when I was there. Someone told me that more than 50-60% of total energy in Brazil came from renewable, since the hydro electric production is very large. I also learned that Brazil is writing quite a few technology exchange agreements with other countries, regarding biofuels. When I visited Vietnam in September, I learned that they just signed an agreement with Brazil. It is quite a lot of developing countries that want to learn from Brazil and I see this as very positive. I also read the UN report about the social impacts of ethanol production in Brazil during the last 30 years. It was a lot of positive things that was confirmed and verified. I cannot understand how people in US, UK and Australia can fall for scare tactics about biofuel, when we have such a well documented pilot case to look at. It is also quite interesting that Brazil, despite the new oil discoveries, move forward on biofuels. Hakan At 11:17 AM 11/25/2004, you wrote: Hi I am a new comer 1) Bill: the blend gasoline/ethanol in Brasil is used by all Otto cycle based vehicles as yo said. The gasohol is 75/25 gasoline/ethanol ratio and it is mandatory not having water as water will force ethanol do drop out of the blend. Today 95% of new vehicles coming out of the OEM are trifuel meaning gasoline/alcohol/cng. As they can run with 100% ethanol their metallurgy is different from 100% gasoline vehicle and they use a lot of zamak - a zinc alloy resistant to corrosion. This is the cheapest and more effective route to fight corrosion. Also ethanol production processes are much more efficient now and contaminants are almost completely removed and those are the contaminants do promote corrosion ( electro chemistry ). Related to pollution one big question has to be answer : how the aldehids coming out of the tailpipe do affect the environment 2) Diesel cycle engines Does anyone in this group is interesting in investing in biodiesel with me in this country ( Brasil )? As of January 1st, 2005 it will be mandatory to add a minimum of 2% of biodiesel to petrodiesel. Tech objective is to have small farms producing vegt. oil and having the vegt. oil transesterified in medium size plants spread through out the country. Very Best for us all Francisco Ramos ( Chico Ramos ) william lemorande wrote: I believe in a system called the Lemonade Fix. It proposes 10% ethanol fuel be used in all states by the year 2007. This would in essence reduce the US dependence on foreign oil by under 10%. It would put the American Farmer back to work rather than see him subsidized by the government and in general put many people back to work. It would literally stop the outflow of greenbacks to the middle east. Yes Brazil does have more than a great percentage of their vehicles using ethanol. It started in the 80's. They got up to about 90% ethanol usage. That meant every car, every truck, every lawnmower etc.etc. was using ethanol. A truly non-polluting fuel. Even the octane is higher making it more powerful. The only down side is that ethanol is corrosive. Meaning gas tanks need to be lined with rubber or plastic. Bill - Original Message - From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 5:05 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...? Part I. switch to biofuels. If I said to the group that we could replace 50% of the use of finite and fossil fuels, I am sure that it is not many who see that as both realistic and achievable. In fact, most people would see it as a reasonable goal and it could even be done within a 20 year period. This for at least tertiary buildings, domestic buildings and transport. Brazil is already there or even at better numbers. Electricity production from wind, solar, hydro and biofuels will definitely be achievable at 50%, nobody doubt that at all. This will help a lot and will not be any risks for not continuing with any activity. Hakan At 11:15 PM 11/24/2004, you wrote: I'd say that considering biofuels as a substitute for fossil fuels in our current parrent of economy/society, Monbiot is right. However, biofuels from waste material and small crop diversions, as a means of keeping mechanically powered farming and a frugal local economy functioning in a time of fossil fuel supply shortages and dislocations which is fast approaching, has a crucial role to play in our overall energy supply. It may not be possible to continue mechanically powered farming in the long term, but we will need to keep it going for some time; we can't switch to animal power and gardening
Re: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...? Part I. switch to biofuels.
Keith, I always say that with a little common sense, you will do a lot better that the architects, building and HVAC engineers. He is applying a lot of common sense, even if some of the explanations tends to get quite wild. LOL I skimmed it and had a lot of fun so far, but many of the consequences are quite logical. This even if the explanations for them are on the limit of magic and too far from the simple truth. It is also easier if you have a lot of land, where you can find the good place to build and do not have to bother about neighbors, city planning and other small problems that irritates our earthly life. He got anyway further than many architects, building and HVAC engineers, when he discovered radiation, they got stuck at air temperatures. LOL He probably have to write a new book when he discover evaporation. I am not sure that he really got this with convection, conductive and radiation completely right, but that is not really important, because at least he think a lot. Then we come to his quite amusing and fantastic explanations on humans, heat, sound transmission, noise and room acoustic. You can imagine that I enjoyed it, since they are my special fields. He is at least much more entertaining than me, who have this burden of science to carry and have a tendency to be a lot more boring. Many of the things he recommend at the end, are quite correct and I really enjoy how he gets there. I look forward to get some more time to read it more in detail, it will be fun. Hakan At 08:21 AM 11/26/2004, you wrote: Hi Hakan, and all What do you think of this, Hakan? http://www.soilandhealth.org/03sov/0302hsted/0302homested.html Homesteading Catalog Roberts, Rex. Your Engineered House. New York: M.C. Evans Company, 1964. This book can't be praised enough! Roberts is both a master builder and a master house designer; he takes the reader step by step through designing and building a totally sensible wooden house that defies all conventional approaches. Roberts will help you reconsider which materials are most sensible, instruct you in design principles, and to stand outside many building styles that aren't really as sensible as the mass of people might believe. Sadly, after the so-called energy crisis of the 1970s, the so-called energy-conservation legislation in the United States mandated national building codes that prohibited much of what Roberts suggested in this book. Still, it is highly valuable, particularly in places where one may freely design and build their own house largely out of wood. OUT OF PRINT. http://www.soilandhealth.org/copyform.asp?bookcode=030211 Best wishes Keith If I said to the group that we could replace 50% of the use of finite and fossil fuels, I am sure that it is not many who see that as both realistic and achievable. In fact, most people would see it as a reasonable goal and it could even be done within a 20 year period. This for at least tertiary buildings, domestic buildings and transport. Brazil is already there or even at better numbers. Electricity production from wind, solar, hydro and biofuels will definitely be achievable at 50%, nobody doubt that at all. This will help a lot and will not be any risks for not continuing with any activity. Hakan At 11:15 PM 11/24/2004, you wrote: I'd say that considering biofuels as a substitute for fossil fuels in our current parrent of economy/society, Monbiot is right. However, biofuels from waste material and small crop diversions, as a means of keeping mechanically powered farming and a frugal local economy functioning in a time of fossil fuel supply shortages and dislocations which is fast approaching, has a crucial role to play in our overall energy supply. It may not be possible to continue mechanically powered farming in the long term, but we will need to keep it going for some time; we can't switch to animal power and gardening methods overnight. Biofuel production and use will be developed by those who want to do it for their own purposes, and I don't think it is very important whether those uses are viable (e.g. McDonald's parasites) over the long term. The important thing is that the technology gets developed and spreads. As long as we have metals and reasonably accurate machining (and it may be possible to replace a lot of metal with ceramics), I expect that biofuel powered engines will have a place. Doug Woodard St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Myles Arnott wrote: Hi everyone, I'm pretty new to this group, and have been following most of what has been posited and discussed with much interest. However, I came across this article today and was made to feel a little uneasy. I believe there is a lot of good (both environmental and humanitarian) to be achieved throught the use (and governmental support) of this sort of renewable energy, and call upon those better informed than myself to put my mind at ease. Are we
Re: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...? Part I. switch to biofuels.
: Re: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...? Part I. switch to biofuels. If I said to the group that we could replace 50% of the use of finite and fossil fuels, I am sure that it is not many who see that as both realistic and achievable. In fact, most people would see it as a reasonable goal and it could even be done within a 20 year period. This for at least tertiary buildings, domestic buildings and transport. Brazil is already there or even at better numbers. Electricity production from wind, solar, hydro and biofuels will definitely be achievable at 50%, nobody doubt that at all. This will help a lot and will not be any risks for not continuing with any activity. Hakan At 11:15 PM 11/24/2004, you wrote: I'd say that considering biofuels as a substitute for fossil fuels in our current parrent of economy/society, Monbiot is right. However, biofuels from waste material and small crop diversions, as a means of keeping mechanically powered farming and a frugal local economy functioning in a time of fossil fuel supply shortages and dislocations which is fast approaching, has a crucial role to play in our overall energy supply. It may not be possible to continue mechanically powered farming in the long term, but we will need to keep it going for some time; we can't switch to animal power and gardening methods overnight. Biofuel production and use will be developed by those who want to do it for their own purposes, and I don't think it is very important whether those uses are viable (e.g. McDonald's parasites) over the long term. The important thing is that the technology gets developed and spreads. As long as we have metals and reasonably accurate machining (and it may be possible to replace a lot of metal with ceramics), I expect that biofuel powered engines will have a place. Doug Woodard St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Myles Arnott wrote: Hi everyone, I'm pretty new to this group, and have been following most of what has been posited and discussed with much interest. However, I came across this article today and was made to feel a little uneasy. I believe there is a lot of good (both environmental and humanitarian) to be achieved throught the use (and governmental support) of this sort of renewable energy, and call upon those better informed than myself to put my mind at ease. Are we missing the bigger picture? Yours, Myles. Fuel for nought The adoption of biofuels would be a humanitarian and environmental disaster George Monbiot Tuesday November 23, 2004 The Guardian [snip] ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...?
- Original Message - From: greg wendy clare [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 12:32 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...? hi hi George monbiot is a highly respected environmentalist and I don't think a rant like this is particularly constructive. Doesn't do the list much good really. Actually a rant like this does do the list good. It exposes mindless blabber about a subject that deserves closer attention. If Georgie doesn't stop this sort of warped analysis his respect, whose origins must be brought into question, will wane away. More reason less aggression, you did make relevant comments in there somewhere. What's wrong with agressive reason ? Plenty of relevant comment from where I sit. Contextualise the premises being presented and it demonstrates the skewed results being put forth. One has to wonder what or who's agenda is being forwarded by a useless and narrow assault on biofuels. Was it intentional or is Monsieur Monbiot just a log head ? (mon biot is French for my log) Luc cheers Greg clare recycling chip oil in the deepest darkest marches of England - Original Message - From: Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 12:04 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...? Myles, Would you propose that a person, or persons who populate a planet, do nothing? Much as the author does? The problem doesn't lay with the feedstock(s), but with the human livestock (or deadstock, depending upon how you perceive the mental incapacities of humans). Think about this for a moment. Well over 200,000,000 people out of a 265,000,000 US population are going to engorge themselves on enormous amounts of meats and cheeses in the next 35 days - everything imaginable from kielbasa to knockwurst to corned beef to pork to turkey. They don't seem to have much of a problem with eating ineffciently, letting the likes of beef cattle consume 10-16 pounds of edible grains for every 1 pound of edible beef put on their plate. But does your author even bother to mention this immoral level of avarice and excess? What? There is no fault with a society that would pork out on meat when 10 or more starving people could be fed off the same grains that a stinking cow snozzles down and spews out as waste? Yet he has ample nerve to bitch in the same manner about biofuels. I'll wager the mental midget gets up from his last Christmas leftover dinner a full 10 pounds heavier than he started on November 24th. Think he'll make mentio of that double-standard of excess and waste? Doubtful. Equally as doubtful that he'll pay full fare on his coronary bypass surgery years down the road as a result of such gluttony, leaving hundreds of other premium payers to pony up a share for his selfishness. The only thing that's starving relative to this article is the author's brain for oxygen, as he obviously hasn't taken anything but one singular aspect into consideration, with the apparent purpose of deriving a skewed end result. There are other factors, such as all the feedmeal/flour that is a byproduct of much oil production. There's the avarice of the meat consuming market. There's the failure to initiate and propigate fuel efficiency measures that would reduce liquid fuel consumption. There's the failure to promote a social principle of conservation/efficient use of liquid fuels. Instead, this bozo presents a global market that maintains all its present consumption habits and patterns, substituting only one fuel for another. It's mindless, as is your author's piece-meal premise. Happy Humbug. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Myles Arnott [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 9:00 PM Subject: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...? Hi everyone, I'm pretty new to this group, and have been following most of what has been posited and discussed with much interest. However, I came across this article today and was made to feel a little uneasy. I believe there is a lot of good (both environmental and humanitarian) to be achieved throught the use (and governmental support) of this sort of renewable energy, and call upon those better informed than myself to put my mind at ease. Are we missing the bigger picture? Yours, Myles. Fuel for nought The adoption of biofuels would be a humanitarian and environmental disaster George Monbiot Tuesday November 23, 2004 The Guardian If human beings were without sin, we would still live in an imperfect world. Adam Smith's notion that by pursuing his own interest, a man frequently promotes that of ... society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it, and Karl Marx's picture of a society in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all are both mocked by one obvious constraint. The world is finite. This means that when one
Re: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...? Part I. switch to biofuels.
Hakan _*see the answer in red. Very best fo us*_ Sorry, monochrome only, no technicolor. If you look in the headers of your message you'll see this gobbledygook: Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5. The system turns html-code (or any code) into plain text or rejects it to prevent viruses. Use the little thingies to indicate who's saying what. If your email program isn't set that way by default then reset it. It's more or less clear with the asterisks you used, but 's are much better. Best wishes Keith Hakan Falk wrote: Chico, When I wrote my email, I did no see yours. When I was in Brazil, I was told that the normal mix at the pump was 28.5% and I read somewhere that this mix would be raised next year.* I understand. It started with 10% wwwent up to 15 then 20 and it floats between 20 to 25 % pending on market ocnditions*. The B2 I thought was higher, but I do not remember where I got B5 and B10 from. *It starts with 2 then goes up to 3 and then 5%* I read before about Brazil and also got some perspective in the Brazilian energy production when I was there. Someone told me that more than 50-60% of total energy in Brazil came from renewable, since the hydro electric production is very large. *This is the reality hydropower is the dominante energy source.* I also learned that Brazil is writing quite a few technology exchange agreements with other countries, regarding biofuels.*This is also correct*.When I visited Vietnam in September, I learned that they just signed an agreement with Brazil. It is quite a lot of developing countries that want to learn from Brazil and I see this as very positive. I also read the UN report about the social impacts of ethanol production in Brazil during the last 30 years. It was a lot of positive things that was confirmed and verified. I cannot understand how people in US, UK and Australia can fall for scare tactics about biofuel, when we have such a well documented pilot case to look at. *Hakan I worked for Exxon during 20 years and understand oil business. It is a very effective industry. to change the model inertia has to be overcome. Lot1s of money - distribuition is the limiting factor. ( It is like food the world produces more then the consumption but lots of are hungy... )* It is also quite interesting that Brazil, despite the new oil discoveries, move forward on biofuels. *The objective is to export more crude and promote a healthy rural middle class. Remeber: Brasil population is poor and biofuels is a way in increasing income. For your info. during the first phase of alcohol program 4 million jobs were created and after the learning curve become stable 2 million jobs where letf*. *Now biodiesel will absorb these 2 million plus of poor people. Also is a way to homogeinize population distribution as a lot of non expensive land is available. This is the other factor land is very expensive in developped country. We must also remember intensive and extensive agricultural cultivation do demand a lot of natural and non natural resources so...* Hakan At 11:17 AM 11/25/2004, you wrote: Hi I am a new comer 1) Bill: the blend gasoline/ethanol in Brasil is used by all Otto cycle based vehicles as yo said. The gasohol is 75/25 gasoline/ethanol ratio and it is mandatory not having water as water will force ethanol do drop out of the blend. Today 95% of new vehicles coming out of the OEM are trifuel meaning gasoline/alcohol/cng. As they can run with 100% ethanol their metallurgy is different from 100% gasoline vehicle and they use a lot of zamak - a zinc alloy resistant to corrosion. This is the cheapest and more effective route to fight corrosion. Also ethanol production processes are much more efficient now and contaminants are almost completely removed and those are the contaminants do promote corrosion ( electro chemistry ). Related to pollution one big question has to be answer : how the aldehids coming out of the tailpipe do affect the environment 2) Diesel cycle engines Does anyone in this group is interesting in investing in biodiesel with me in this country ( Brasil )? As of January 1st, 2005 it will be mandatory to add a minimum of 2% of biodiesel to petrodiesel. Tech objective is to have small farms producing vegt. oil and having the vegt. oil transesterified in medium size plants spread through out the country. Very Best for us all Francisco Ramos ( Chico Ramos ) william lemorande wrote: I believe in a system called the Lemonade Fix. It proposes 10% ethanol fuel be used in all states by the year 2007. This would in essence reduce the US dependence on foreign oil by under 10%. It would put the American Farmer back to work rather than see him subsidized by the government and in general put many people back to work. It would literally stop the outflow of greenbacks to the middle east. Yes Brazil does have more than a great percentage of their vehicles using ethanol.
Re: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...?
the article doesn't address the potential for algae based fuel. http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html algae pools don't displace cropland like rape or palm, and algae grows much faster. On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 17:32:57 +, martin williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tim Do you know the potential ethanol yield from banana leaves? I am working in the Canary Islands and these are in abundance! From: Tim Ferguson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...? Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 09:04:48 -0500 Hello Myles, The article seems to present the misconception that those of us who are conscientious about how we live our lives and how that impacts our environment and other people as saying biofuels are the silver bullet to the worlds energy problem. When in fact, if you'll search the archives (http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/) of this list alone, you'll discover that solutions sought are much more encompassing. Renewable fuels are very important but so is conservation and the elimination of waste. Discussions here are about how to best achieve a sustainable life for all people and the environment. Starting with our own lives. Lead by Example. I don't know of any one renewable energy source available today that can offset 100% of the fossil fuel usage without itself creating a negative impact on the people and/or environment. The big picture is rather a combination of Biofuels, Solar, Wind, Conservation, and the reviving of our environment. A global collective mindset must be reached to this effect in order to truly have the necessary impact required. And this is not impossible. Just as A journey of 1000 miles begins with the first step... the changing of the collective mindset changes with one personyou. Stay on the list, stay informed, and change minds through your example. Best wishes, Tim Hi everyone, I'm pretty new to this group, and have been following most of what has been posited and discussed with much interest. However, I came across this article today and was made to feel a little uneasy. I believe there is a lot of good (both environmental and humanitarian) to be achieved throught the use (and governmental support) of this sort of renewable energy, and call upon those better informed than myself to put my mind at ease. Are we missing the bigger picture? Yours, Myles. Fuel for nought The adoption of biofuels would be a humanitarian and environmental disaster George Monbiot Tuesday November 23, 2004 The Guardian If human beings were without sin, we would still live... ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
RE: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...?
Hello Martin, I don't have any specific numbers concerning banana leaves and their yields other than Bananas and Banana waste run roughly 15% less than potatoes and potato waste for sugars and starches. Yields for potatoes and other feedstock's can be compared here http://www.westbioenergy.org/reports/nderept.htm. In addition you can find more valuable information here http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol.html Best wishes, Tim Tim Do you know the potential ethanol yield from banana leaves? I am working in the Canary Islands and these are in abundance! ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...? Part II, energy conservation
With the considerable waste in the energy used for tertiary and residential buildings, it is no doubt that well over 50% can be saved by energy efficiency. One example is hot tap water, were 80% could be produced by thermal solar, by a both modest and profitable investment. A 50% savings target is easy achievable over 20 years in the construction sector. It has already been proven in the Nordic European countries, where the buildings on average use 1/3 of corresponding buildings in US and 1/4 compared with Canada, without any compromises on quality and comfort. By applying more efficient engine sizing and fuel technology, a 50% saving can be done in the transportation sector. Only by going from a gasoline engine to a diesel engine, is a 30% saving. The feasibility of a better than 50% fuel saving in 20 years, is already proven by Europe's preference for diesel powered cars and the fuel economy for the new models of the European cars. If this philosophies are implemented world wide, a better than 50% savings would be the result. To implement biofuel compatibility is no problems, since all cars sold in Europe since 1996 must be biofuel compatible and many in US already are compatible. This means that it is no technical problems to solve on the vehicle side. In a 20 years period, almost the whole vehicle stock is renewed, except for collectors items. To improve the energy efficiency with 50% in 20 years is not only reasonable, there are even some additional margins. Hakan At 11:15 PM 11/24/2004, you wrote: I'd say that considering biofuels as a substitute for fossil fuels in our current parrent of economy/society, Monbiot is right. However, biofuels from waste material and small crop diversions, as a means of keeping mechanically powered farming and a frugal local economy functioning in a time of fossil fuel supply shortages and dislocations which is fast approaching, has a crucial role to play in our overall energy supply. It may not be possible to continue mechanically powered farming in the long term, but we will need to keep it going for some time; we can't switch to animal power and gardening methods overnight. Biofuel production and use will be developed by those who want to do it for their own purposes, and I don't think it is very important whether those uses are viable (e.g. McDonald's parasites) over the long term. The important thing is that the technology gets developed and spreads. As long as we have metals and reasonably accurate machining (and it may be possible to replace a lot of metal with ceramics), I expect that biofuel powered engines will have a place. Doug Woodard St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Myles Arnott wrote: Hi everyone, I'm pretty new to this group, and have been following most of what has been posited and discussed with much interest. However, I came across this article today and was made to feel a little uneasy. I believe there is a lot of good (both environmental and humanitarian) to be achieved throught the use (and governmental support) of this sort of renewable energy, and call upon those better informed than myself to put my mind at ease. Are we missing the bigger picture? Yours, Myles. Fuel for nought The adoption of biofuels would be a humanitarian and environmental disaster George Monbiot Tuesday November 23, 2004 The Guardian [snip] ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...? Part I. switch to biofuels.
fuel be used in all states by the year 2007. This would in essence reduce the US dependence on foreign oil by under 10%. It would put the American Farmer back to work rather than see him subsidized by the government and in general put many people back to work. It would literally stop the outflow of greenbacks to the middle east. Yes Brazil does have more than a great percentage of their vehicles using ethanol. It started in the 80's. They got up to about 90% ethanol usage. That meant every car, every truck, every lawnmower etc.etc. was using ethanol. A truly non-polluting fuel. Even the octane is higher making it more powerful. The only down side is that ethanol is corrosive. Meaning gas tanks need to be lined with rubber or plastic. Bill - Original Message - From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 5:05 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...? Part I. switch to biofuels. If I said to the group that we could replace 50% of the use of finite and fossil fuels, I am sure that it is not many who see that as both realistic and achievable. In fact, most people would see it as a reasonable goal and it could even be done within a 20 year period. This for at least tertiary buildings, domestic buildings and transport. Brazil is already there or even at better numbers. Electricity production from wind, solar, hydro and biofuels will definitely be achievable at 50%, nobody doubt that at all. This will help a lot and will not be any risks for not continuing with any activity. Hakan At 11:15 PM 11/24/2004, you wrote: I'd say that considering biofuels as a substitute for fossil fuels in our current parrent of economy/society, Monbiot is right. However, biofuels from waste material and small crop diversions, as a means of keeping mechanically powered farming and a frugal local economy functioning in a time of fossil fuel supply shortages and dislocations which is fast approaching, has a crucial role to play in our overall energy supply. It may not be possible to continue mechanically powered farming in the long term, but we will need to keep it going for some time; we can't switch to animal power and gardening methods overnight. Biofuel production and use will be developed by those who want to do it for their own purposes, and I don't think it is very important whether those uses are viable (e.g. McDonald's parasites) over the long term. The important thing is that the technology gets developed and spreads. As long as we have metals and reasonably accurate machining (and it may be possible to replace a lot of metal with ceramics), I expect that biofuel powered engines will have a place. Doug Woodard St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Myles Arnott wrote: Hi everyone, I'm pretty new to this group, and have been following most of what has been posited and discussed with much interest. However, I came across this article today and was made to feel a little uneasy. I believe there is a lot of good (both environmental and humanitarian) to be achieved throught the use (and governmental support) of this sort of renewable energy, and call upon those better informed than myself to put my mind at ease. Are we missing the bigger picture? Yours, Myles. Fuel for nought The adoption of biofuels would be a humanitarian and environmental disaster George Monbiot Tuesday November 23, 2004 The Guardian [snip] ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...? Part I. switch to biofuels.
Bill, You are late. The 10% ethanol target is going to happen as you say, but for an other reason than the urge of introducing biofuel. It is happening right now and is necessary for replacing MTBE. I do interpret your post that you agree the 50% of current gasoline volume could be available as ethanol in 20 years? Hakan At 02:27 AM 11/25/2004, you wrote: I believe in a system called the Lemonade Fix. It proposes 10% ethanol fuel be used in all states by the year 2007. This would in essence reduce the US dependence on foreign oil by under 10%. It would put the American Farmer back to work rather than see him subsidized by the government and in general put many people back to work. It would literally stop the outflow of greenbacks to the middle east. Yes Brazil does have more than a great percentage of their vehicles using ethanol. It started in the 80's. They got up to about 90% ethanol usage. That meant every car, every truck, every lawnmower etc.etc. was using ethanol. A truly non-polluting fuel. Even the octane is higher making it more powerful. The only down side is that ethanol is corrosive. Meaning gas tanks need to be lined with rubber or plastic. Bill - Original Message - From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 5:05 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...? Part I. switch to biofuels. If I said to the group that we could replace 50% of the use of finite and fossil fuels, I am sure that it is not many who see that as both realistic and achievable. In fact, most people would see it as a reasonable goal and it could even be done within a 20 year period. This for at least tertiary buildings, domestic buildings and transport. Brazil is already there or even at better numbers. Electricity production from wind, solar, hydro and biofuels will definitely be achievable at 50%, nobody doubt that at all. This will help a lot and will not be any risks for not continuing with any activity. Hakan At 11:15 PM 11/24/2004, you wrote: I'd say that considering biofuels as a substitute for fossil fuels in our current parrent of economy/society, Monbiot is right. However, biofuels from waste material and small crop diversions, as a means of keeping mechanically powered farming and a frugal local economy functioning in a time of fossil fuel supply shortages and dislocations which is fast approaching, has a crucial role to play in our overall energy supply. It may not be possible to continue mechanically powered farming in the long term, but we will need to keep it going for some time; we can't switch to animal power and gardening methods overnight. Biofuel production and use will be developed by those who want to do it for their own purposes, and I don't think it is very important whether those uses are viable (e.g. McDonald's parasites) over the long term. The important thing is that the technology gets developed and spreads. As long as we have metals and reasonably accurate machining (and it may be possible to replace a lot of metal with ceramics), I expect that biofuel powered engines will have a place. Doug Woodard St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Myles Arnott wrote: Hi everyone, I'm pretty new to this group, and have been following most of what has been posited and discussed with much interest. However, I came across this article today and was made to feel a little uneasy. I believe there is a lot of good (both environmental and humanitarian) to be achieved throught the use (and governmental support) of this sort of renewable energy, and call upon those better informed than myself to put my mind at ease. Are we missing the bigger picture? Yours, Myles. Fuel for nought The adoption of biofuels would be a humanitarian and environmental disaster George Monbiot Tuesday November 23, 2004 The Guardian [snip] ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...?
Canada ( http://www.reap-canada.com/ ) and what he said about it was not so much about an ecological or humanitarian disaster as much as an energy deficit, UNLESS used as we do, WVO converted to biodiesel which he said was a very good use of energy efficiency. They are exploring energy pellets of some sort made from biomass rather than liquid alternatives, purely on an energy management platform;IE: enrgy put in vs energy available for use. The entire premise of this article's author is two fold; one is assumes raw seed oil (SVO) and it also assumes present consumption volumes. NO single energy source will survive, IMHO, at the rate of use the planet is consuming at the moment which is why there is such a need to diversify energy sources; biodiesel from WVO, wind, solar, ect. as well as a marked reduction in comsumer habits vis a vis making a concerted and conscious effort to conserve what we have, regardless of source. With alternative energy sources from other than oil based power we can better make use of the natural resources that are available for our daily needs all the while not damaging the planet we all must share. This, of course, requires a common front, and that is where the hick is. Luc ___ ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
RE: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...?
Hello Myles, Fuel for naught made me want to pass along some food for thought. The Pattern on the Trestleboard is a philosophical foundation for understanding creation or as you said The Bigger Picture. You don't have to be of any religious persuasion to analyze the concepts and apply them to your creativity. Rather than limiting, they allow transmutation of beliefs. When dooms-dayers tell us that we are in our final hours, it is nice to have a matrix to elevate our world view into something wonderful or full of wonder. Best wishes, Peggy This is Truth about the Self 0. All the power that ever was or will be is here now. 1. I am a center of expression for the Primal Will-to-Good which eternally creates and sustains the universe. 2. Through me its unfailing Wisdom takes form in thought and word. 3. Filled with Understanding of its perfect law, I am guided, moment by moment, along the path of liberation. 4. From the exhaustless riches of its Limitless Substance, I draw all things needful, both spiritual and material. 5. I recognize the manifestation of the undeviating Justice in all the circumstances of my life. 6. In all things, great and small, I see the Beauty of the divine expression. 7. Living from that Will, supported by its unfailing Wisdom and Understanding, mine is the Victorious Life. 8. I look forward with confidence to the perfect realization of the Eternal Splendor of the Limitless Light. 9. In thought and word and deed, I rest my life, from day to day, upon the sure Foundation of Eternal Being. 10. The Kingdom of Spirit is embodied in my flesh. Subject: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...? Hi everyone, I'm pretty new to this group, and have been following most of what has been posited and discussed with much interest. However, I came across this article today and was made to feel a little uneasy. I believe there is a lot of good (both environmental and humanitarian) to be achieved throught the use (and governmental support) of this sort of renewable energy, and call upon those better informed than myself to put my mind at ease. Are we missing the bigger picture? Yours, Myles. Fuel for nought The adoption of biofuels would be a humanitarian and environmental disaster George Monbiot Tuesday November 23, 2004 The Guardian If human beings were without sin, we would still live in an imperfect world. Adam Smith's notion that by pursuing his own interest, a man frequently promotes that of ... society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it, and Karl Marx's picture of a society in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all are both mocked by one obvious constraint. The world is finite. This means that when one group of people pursues its own interests, it damages the interests of others. It is hard to think of a better example than the current enthusiasm for biofuels. These are made from plant oils or crop wastes or wood, and can be used to run cars and buses and lorries. Burning them simply returns to the atmosphere the carbon that the plants extracted while they were growing. So switching from fossil fuels to biodiesel and bioalcohol is now being promoted as the solution to climate change. Next month, the British government will have to set a target for the amount of transport fuel that will come from crops. The European Union wants 2% of the oil we use to be biodiesel by the end of next year, rising to 6% by 2010 and 20% by 2020. To try to meet these targets, the government has reduced the tax on biofuels by 20p a litre, while the EU is paying farmers an extra 45 a hectare to grow them. Everyone seems happy about this. The farmers and the chemicals industry can develop new markets, the government can meet its commitments to cut carbon emissions, and environmentalists can celebrate the fact that plant fuels reduce local pollution as well as global warming. Unlike hydrogen fuel cells, biofuels can be deployed straightaway. This, in fact, was how Rudolf Diesel expected his invention to be used. When he demonstrated his engine at the World Exhibition in 1900, he ran it on peanut oil. The use of vegetable oils for engine fuels may seem insignificant today, he predicted. But such oils may become in course of time as important as petroleum. Some enthusiasts are predicting that if fossil fuel prices continue to rise, he will soon be proved right. I hope not. Those who have been promoting these fuels are well-intentioned, but wrong. They are wrong because the world is finite. If biofuels take off, they will cause a global humanitarian disaster. Used as they are today, on a very small scale, they do no harm. A few thousand greens in the United Kingdom are running their cars on used chip fat. But recycled cooking oils could supply only 100,000 tonnes of diesel a year in this country, equivalent to one 380th of our road transport fuel. It might also be possible to turn crop wastes such as wheat stubble into
RE: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...?
Hello Myles, The article seems to present the misconception that those of us who are conscientious about how we live our lives and how that impacts our environment and other people as saying biofuels are the silver bullet to the worlds energy problem. When in fact, if you'll search the archives (http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/) of this list alone, you'll discover that solutions sought are much more encompassing. Renewable fuels are very important but so is conservation and the elimination of waste. Discussions here are about how to best achieve a sustainable life for all people and the environment. Starting with our own lives. Lead by Example. I don't know of any one renewable energy source available today that can offset 100% of the fossil fuel usage without itself creating a negative impact on the people and/or environment. The big picture is rather a combination of Biofuels, Solar, Wind, Conservation, and the reviving of our environment. A global collective mindset must be reached to this effect in order to truly have the necessary impact required. And this is not impossible. Just as A journey of 1000 miles begins with the first step... the changing of the collective mindset changes with one personyou. Stay on the list, stay informed, and change minds through your example. Best wishes, Tim Hi everyone, I'm pretty new to this group, and have been following most of what has been posited and discussed with much interest. However, I came across this article today and was made to feel a little uneasy. I believe there is a lot of good (both environmental and humanitarian) to be achieved throught the use (and governmental support) of this sort of renewable energy, and call upon those better informed than myself to put my mind at ease. Are we missing the bigger picture? Yours, Myles. Fuel for nought The adoption of biofuels would be a humanitarian and environmental disaster George Monbiot Tuesday November 23, 2004 The Guardian If human beings were without sin, we would still live... ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
RE: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...?
Do you know the potential ethanol yield from banana leaves? I am working in the Canary Islands and these are in abundance! From: Tim Ferguson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...? Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 09:04:48 -0500 Hello Myles, The article seems to present the misconception that those of us who are conscientious about how we live our lives and how that impacts our environment and other people as saying biofuels are the silver bullet to the worlds energy problem. When in fact, if you'll search the archives (http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/) of this list alone, you'll discover that solutions sought are much more encompassing. Renewable fuels are very important but so is conservation and the elimination of waste. Discussions here are about how to best achieve a sustainable life for all people and the environment. Starting with our own lives. Lead by Example. I don't know of any one renewable energy source available today that can offset 100% of the fossil fuel usage without itself creating a negative impact on the people and/or environment. The big picture is rather a combination of Biofuels, Solar, Wind, Conservation, and the reviving of our environment. A global collective mindset must be reached to this effect in order to truly have the necessary impact required. And this is not impossible. Just as A journey of 1000 miles begins with the first step... the changing of the collective mindset changes with one personyou. Stay on the list, stay informed, and change minds through your example. Best wishes, Tim Hi everyone, I'm pretty new to this group, and have been following most of what has been posited and discussed with much interest. However, I came across this article today and was made to feel a little uneasy. I believe there is a lot of good (both environmental and humanitarian) to be achieved throught the use (and governmental support) of this sort of renewable energy, and call upon those better informed than myself to put my mind at ease. Are we missing the bigger picture? Yours, Myles. Fuel for nought The adoption of biofuels would be a humanitarian and environmental disaster George Monbiot Tuesday November 23, 2004 The Guardian If human beings were without sin, we would still live... ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Fuel for nought ...?
I'd say that considering biofuels as a substitute for fossil fuels in our current parrent of economy/society, Monbiot is right. However, biofuels from waste material and small crop diversions, as a means of keeping mechanically powered farming and a frugal local economy functioning in a time of fossil fuel supply shortages and dislocations which is fast approaching, has a crucial role to play in our overall energy supply. It may not be possible to continue mechanically powered farming in the long term, but we will need to keep it going for some time; we can't switch to animal power and gardening methods overnight. Biofuel production and use will be developed by those who want to do it for their own purposes, and I don't think it is very important whether those uses are viable (e.g. McDonald's parasites) over the long term. The important thing is that the technology gets developed and spreads. As long as we have metals and reasonably accurate machining (and it may be possible to replace a lot of metal with ceramics), I expect that biofuel powered engines will have a place. Doug Woodard St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Myles Arnott wrote: Hi everyone, I'm pretty new to this group, and have been following most of what has been posited and discussed with much interest. However, I came across this article today and was made to feel a little uneasy. I believe there is a lot of good (both environmental and humanitarian) to be achieved throught the use (and governmental support) of this sort of renewable energy, and call upon those better informed than myself to put my mind at ease. Are we missing the bigger picture? Yours, Myles. Fuel for nought The adoption of biofuels would be a humanitarian and environmental disaster George Monbiot Tuesday November 23, 2004 The Guardian [snip] ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
