Re: [Biofuel] Robin's solution... was: DA Drops...
lisa simpson wrote: 5.) No foreign students over age 21. The older ones are the bombers. If they don't attend classes, they get a D and it's back home baby. Clearly this author has never stepped foot on a modern American engineering quad. If you get rid of the foreign-born engineering grad students, it'll look like a neutron bomb went off. Nevermind that these foreign born engineers are good for the US economy. Although Sun Microsystems is the best example off the top of my head, it certainly isn't the only one. In fact, Chinese or Indian executives run 27 percent of the 4,000+ Silicon Valley businesses started between 1991 and 1996. In this vein: http://www.post-gazette.com/forum/20001015edflorida8.asp 6.) The US will make a strong effort to become self-sufficient energy wise. This will include developing nonpolluting sources of energy but will require a temporary drilling of oil in the Alaskan wilderness. The caribou will have to cope for a while. Ummm. Wow. I guess the fact that at peak production in 2025, ANWR would only reduce consumption of foreign oil by 3-6% didn't occur to them, eh? ~~~If you agree with the above forward it to friend... If not, and I would be amazed, DELETE it ! How about a third option, namely, identifying it as the festering pile xenophobic jingoistic crap is it? The US is a country of immigrants, and always has been. The only difference today is that you don't always have to wait to hear an accent to identify someone as a member of the 'Other'. When my dad's grandfather came to Boston from Cork, you might be able to pass him on the street and not realize he wasn't born here, if you didn't hear him speak. Just because you can do it now from across the street based on appearance doesn't make it any less bigotted. jh ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Re: was Robin's solution... was: DA Drops...
No it isn't. It's naive isolationist biggoted xenophobic crap. jh Jerry Turner wrote: Doesn't make a damn to me who said itits just plain good ole advise. Jerry - Original Message - From: Alt.EnergyNetwork [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 12:42 PM Subject: [Biofuel] Re: was Robin's solution... was: DA Drops... What a load of bull. I sincerely doubt that the Robin Williams was the author of the xenophobic rant below. tallex ---Original Message--- From: Jerry Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Robin's solution... was: DA Drops... Sent: 05 Jun 2005 03:42:17 AMEN - Original Message - FROM: Michael Redler TO: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org SENT: Saturday, June 04, 2005 8:27 PM SUBJECT: Re: [Biofuel] Robin's solution... was: DA Drops... Why do all the xenophobic emails end with: If you agree with the above forward it to a friend...If not, and I would be amazed, DELETE it ! as if the third choice (spreading this email with a description of what it really is) is not an option. After watching Patch Adams, I have to believe that there is another Robin Williams who wrote this trash. Be amazed Lisa...be very amazed! Mike _LISA SIMPSON _ wrote: You gotta love Robin Williams... Leave it to Robin Williams to come up with the perfect plan .. what we need now is for our UN Ambassador to stand up and repeat this message. Robin William's plan. (Hard to argue with this logic!) I see a lot of people yelling for peace but I have not heard of a plan for peace. So, here's one plan. 1.) The US will apologize to the world for our interference in their affairs, past present. You know, Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Noriega, Milosevic and the rest of those 'good ole boys,' We will never interfere again. 2.) We will withdraw our troops from all over the world, starting with Germany, South Korea and the Philippines. They don't want us there. We would station troops at our borders. No one sneaking through holes in the fence. 3.) All illegal aliens have 90 da! ys to get their affairs together and leave. We'll give them a free trip home. After 90 days the remainder will be gathered up and deported immediately, regardless of who or where they are. France would welcome them. 4.) All future visitors will be thoroughly checked and limited to 90 days unless given a special permit. No one from a terrorist nation would be allowed in. If you don't like it there, change it yourself and don't hide here. Asylum would never be available to anyone. We don't need any more cab drivers or 7-11 cashiers. 5.) No foreign students over age 21. The older ones are the bombers. If they don't attend classes, they get a D and it's back home baby. 6.) The US will make a strong effort to become self-sufficient energy wise. This will include developing nonpolluting sources of energy but will require a temporary drilling of oil in the Alaskan wilderness. The caribou will have to cope for a while. 7.) Offer Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries $10 a barrel for their oil. If they don't like it, we go some place else. They can go somewhere else to sell their production. (About a week of the wells filling up the storage sites would be enough.) 8.) If there is a famine or other natural catastrophe in the world, we will not interfere, They can pray to Allah or whomever, for seeds, rain, cement or whatever they need. Besides most of what we give them is stolen or given to the army. The people who need it most get very little, if anything. 9.) Ship the UN Headquarters to an isolated island some place. We don't need the spies and fair weather friends here. Besides, the building would make a good homeless shelter or lockup for illegal aliens. 10.) All Americans must go to charm and beauty school. That way, no one can call us Ugly Americans any longer. The Language we speak is ENGLISH.learn it...or LEAVE...Now, isn't that a winner of a plan. The Statue of Liberty is no longer saying 'Give me your poor, your tired, your huddled masses.' She's got a baseball bat and she's yelling, 'You want a piece of me?' ~~~If you agree with the above forward it to friend... If not, and I would be amazed, DELETE it ! __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ - ___ Biofuel mailing list
Re: [Biofuel] debunking popular myths... was Robin's solution
Seems to me I did exactly that about 2 posts back and you've completely ignored them, but I'll recapitulate them here. Regarding ANWR, at peak production in 2025, it will only reduce US foreign oil consumption by 3 to 6%. Conversely, raising the CAFE standards could do at least twice that, but within the last month, the Senate Energy subcommittee voted against raising CAFE standards. If 9/11 changed everything, and the President is serious about reducing dependence on foreign oil, why is the Senate voteing down increases in the CAFE standard? Regarding foreign students, those foreign students make up the bulk of math and engineering students in American universities. Ejecting them from the US at age 21, as suggested by your email, is economically shortsighted. According to the Wall Street Journal, that biased leftwing pinko wetback loving rag: Any policy that would depress the influx or close off our borders altogether is not in America's long-term interest, especially in a world where economic growth and competitiveness will depend above all on human capital. According to Stuart Anderson, former staff director of the Senate Immigration Subcommittee, foreign-born high school students recently comprised 50% of the 2004 U.S Math Olympiad's top scorers, 38% of the U.S. Physics Team and 25% of the Intel Science Talent Search finalists. Here's some relevant links: http://www.techcentralstation.com/082004C.html http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/4520-6033_16-4206315.html So Lisa, there you go. Discuss. jh lisa simpson wrote: Lets avoid the personal attacks and stick to a discussion of the facts. ls Or, you can continue to assess the truth as myth and lend yourself to the continued dis-informing, mis-informing and propagandizing of others. Todd Swearingen __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -- John E Hayes, M.S. Instructor, Dietetics Program, DIET 203 / DIET 215 Doctoral Student, Nutritional Sciences University of Connecticut - 326 Koons Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 860.486.0007 ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Re: was Robin's solution... was: DA Drops...
Nope, sorry. Never voted for Bill Clinton. I've been on the GOP voter rolls my entire adult life. I was even a get out the vote election night phone bank volunteer on a Republican Congressional campaign. In 1992, in fact. But, frankly, I fail to see how whether or not I voted for Clinton has any bearing whatsoever with the nationalistic tripe posted to the list. The last time I could have possibly voted for *or* against him was over 9 years ago. Let it go, man. Anyway, trying to invoke Clinton here as a retort is intellectually weak at best, and more likely, just comes across like the whining of a petulant child. Either that, or a moralistic sanctimonious prude with a odd blow job fetish. I don't know which. The GOP has had control of the excutive branch and the legislative branch for over 5 years. Bringing up an election nearly a decade old is just plain asinine. About all I can figure is that by labelling me a Clinton loving, American hating leebrul, you can dismiss any cognitive dissonance that might result from me challenging your worldview. jh Jerry Turner wrote: I bet you voted for Clinton. Jerry - Original Message - From: John Hayes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 6:31 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Re: was Robin's solution... was: DA Drops... No it isn't. It's naive isolationist biggoted xenophobic crap. jh Jerry Turner wrote: Doesn't make a damn to me who said itits just plain good ole advise. Jerry - Original Message - From: Alt.EnergyNetwork [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 12:42 PM Subject: [Biofuel] Re: was Robin's solution... was: DA Drops... What a load of bull. I sincerely doubt that the Robin Williams was the author of the xenophobic rant below. tallex ---Original Message--- From: Jerry Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Robin's solution... was: DA Drops... Sent: 05 Jun 2005 03:42:17 AMEN - Original Message - FROM: Michael Redler TO: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org SENT: Saturday, June 04, 2005 8:27 PM SUBJECT: Re: [Biofuel] Robin's solution... was: DA Drops... Why do all the xenophobic emails end with: If you agree with the above forward it to a friend...If not, and I would be amazed, DELETE it ! as if the third choice (spreading this email with a description of what it really is) is not an option. After watching Patch Adams, I have to believe that there is another Robin Williams who wrote this trash. Be amazed Lisa...be very amazed! Mike _LISA SIMPSON _ wrote: You gotta love Robin Williams... Leave it to Robin Williams to come up with the perfect plan .. what we need now is for our UN Ambassador to stand up and repeat this message. Robin William's plan. (Hard to argue with this logic!) I see a lot of people yelling for peace but I have not heard of a plan for peace. So, here's one plan. 1.) The US will apologize to the world for our interference in their affairs, past present. You know, Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Noriega, Milosevic and the rest of those 'good ole boys,' We will never interfere again. 2.) We will withdraw our troops from all over the world, starting with Germany, South Korea and the Philippines. They don't want us there. We would station troops at our borders. No one sneaking through holes in the fence. 3.) All illegal aliens have 90 da! ys to get their affairs together and leave. We'll give them a free trip home. After 90 days the remainder will be gathered up and deported immediately, regardless of who or where they are. France would welcome them. 4.) All future visitors will be thoroughly checked and limited to 90 days unless given a special permit. No one from a terrorist nation would be allowed in. If you don't like it there, change it yourself and don't hide here. Asylum would never be available to anyone. We don't need any more cab drivers or 7-11 cashiers. 5.) No foreign students over age 21. The older ones are the bombers. If they don't attend classes, they get a D and it's back home baby. 6.) The US will make a strong effort to become self-sufficient energy wise. This will include developing nonpolluting sources of energy but will require a temporary drilling of oil in the Alaskan wilderness. The caribou will have to cope for a while. 7.) Offer Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries $10 a barrel for their oil. If they don't like it, we go some place else. They can go somewhere else to sell their production. (About a week of the wells filling up the storage sites would be enough.) 8.) If there is a famine or other natural catastrophe in the world, we will not interfere, They can pray to Allah or whomever, for seeds, rain, cement or whatever they need. Besides most of what we give them is stolen or given to the army. The people who need it most get very little
Re: [Biofuel] Nice teeth but your leg has to come off..........
And what is the incidence of osteosarcoma compared to dental caries? Anyway. if you search PubMed for bassin eb you'll find Dr Bassin is the lead author on an article from 2004 entitled: Problems in exposure assessment of fluoride in drinking water. The primary conclusion in that 2004 paper was that Researchers need to consider limitations of using a secondary data source to estimate fluoride in drinking water, particularly in studies where exposure to fluoride is the primary exposure of interest. Curious, no? Why would she be first author on a paper that speaks directly to the validity of her dissertation work unless she herself had questions about her findings? With regard to the inability of various interested parties to get a hold of Dr Bassin's dissertation, I can't speak to the specifics of her case but I can speak to how dissertations are published in general. Master's theses and doctoral dissertations are typically bound at the expense of the student, meaning copies are very very rare (on the order of single digits.) For example, when I finished my MS at Cornell, one copy went to the grad school, one went to the rare books collection for archiving, one went to my advisor, and I kept 2 copies. Thus, if you wanted to actually read my bound thesis, you'd need to travel to Cornell yourself and read or photocopy it in the Special Collections reading room. That, or email me personally and hope I have a pdf copy available. Sometimes you can request a microfilm copy via University Microfilms Inc, but that is hit or miss. A quick search of UMI returns no hits for Dr Bessin's dissertation. In short, I don't see anything unseemly with the Fluoride Action Network needing to check out the copy from the Harvard Medical Library's Rare Book Collection. It's likely a simple matter of economics rather than a conspiracy. But that doesn't make for good copy... jh bmolloy wrote: Hi All, 'Specially for those who think good dentition comes with the water Bob. BOYS AT RISK FROM BONE TUMOURS, RESEARCH REVEALS By Bob Woffinden The Observer - UK 12 June 2005 Fluoride in tap water can cause bone cancer in boys, a disturbing new study indicates, although there is no evidence of a link for girls. New American research suggests that boys exposed to fluoride between the ages of five and 10 will suffer an increased rate of osteosarcoma - bone cancer - between the ages of 10 and 19. In the UK, fluoride is added to tap water on the advice of bodies such as the British Dental Association. The Department of Health maintains that it is a cost-effective public health measure that helps prevent tooth decay in children. About 10 per cent of the population, six million people, receive fluoridated water, mainly in the Midlands and north-east, and the government plans to extend this, with Manchester expected to be next. About 170 million Americans live in areas with fluoridated water. The increased cancer risks, identified in a newly available study conducted at the Harvard School of Dental Health, were found at fluoride exposure levels common in both the US and Britain. It was the first examination of the link between exposure to the chemical at the critical period of a child's development and the age of onset of bone cancer. Although osteosarcoma is rare, accounting for only about 3 per cent of childhood cancers, it is especially dangerous. The mortality rate in the first five years is about 50 per cent, and nearly all survivors have limbs amputated, usually legs. The research has been made available by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a respected Washington-based research organisation. The group reports that it has assembled a 'strong body of peer-reviewed evidence' and has asked that fluoride in tap water be added to the US government's classified list of substances known or anticipated to cause cancer in humans. 'This is a very specific cancer in a defined population of children,' said Richard Wiles, the group's co-founder. 'When you focus in and look for the incidence of tumours, you see the increase. 'We recognise the potential benefits of fluoride to dental health,' added Wiles, 'but I've spent 20 years in public health, trying to protect kids from toxic exposure. Even with DDT, you don't have the consistently strong data that the compound can cause cancer as you now have with fluoride.' Half of all fluoride ingested is stored in the body, accumulating in calcifying tissue such as teeth and bones and in the pineal gland in the brain, although more than 90 per cent is taken into the bones. MPs who have recently voted against fluoridation proposals in Parliament include Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, and Michael Howard, the Conservative leader. Anti-fluoride campaigners argue that the whole issue has become highly politically sensitive. If health scares about fluoride were to be
Re: [Biofuel] VW Diesel
Just FYI, there is a major debate on SVO use raging at TDIclub.com right now. It's actually spilled over into 3 different threads in the biodiesel section of the forums(sic). jh Lyn Gerry wrote: Hi Mike and All, I just had my 1999 Jetta TDI converted, and so far, I'm really pleased. I live in central New York State and the conversion was done by Lucas MacDonald at Vegpower http://www.vegpower.com/ They can do the work or you can buy components from them. Lucas is also an experienced VW/volvo mechanic. Lyn On 22 Jun 2005 at 16:26, Mike wrote: Has anyone ever converted a VW diesel to run on leftover oil from restaurants or fast foods like Krispy Kreeme and McDonalds etc... I'm about to do it and want to follow the lead of someone else who's done it. Thanks. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -- John E Hayes, M.S. Instructor, Dietetics Program, DIET 203 / DIET 215 Doctoral Student, Nutritional Sciences University of Connecticut - 326 Koons Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 860.486.0007 ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
MS/unix was Re: [Biofuel] Cheating bully
Is that why OSX is the largest unix platform on the market today? Just to be clear, I think linux and OSX both have a important place in today's OS market and I don't mean to pit OSX and linux against each other. That having been said, I don't think you can realistically discuss the pending end of Microsoft's monopoly without even mentioning OSX. jh r wrote: Yet, I think there is still hope. Microsoft, one of the world's biggest bullies, is facing its biggest battle from the community: Linux. I have been tracking Linux for a while now, and countries around the world are finally standing up to the Microsoft bully. It is nice to finally see people who have balls. Countries, spending less on infrastructure software, will be able to spend more toward pressing social needs. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -- John E Hayes, M.S. Instructor, Dietetics Program, DIET 203 / DIET 215 Doctoral Student, Nutritional Sciences University of Connecticut - 326 Koons Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 860.486.0007 ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Re: Environmentalism is dead. What's next?
Yes, but in the 15th century, those dues got you what passed for national defense and maybe some roads? Today my taxes cover national defense, roads, trains and airports, educational services, the court system and social services. They also provide money to fund scientific research, space exploration, protect the environment, and fund public health measures and institutions like the CDC. So yes, you're spot on, that's progress for you. jh Chris Lloyd wrote: Some bright spark in the UK did a n in depth study last year and found we spend more time earning money to pay our taxes than the 15^th century tenants did to pay off the dues to their landlords and that included the house that went with the land. That’s progress for you.Chris. feu·dal·ism** : the system of political organization prevailing in Europe from the 9th to about the 15th centuries having as its basis the relation of lord to vassal with all land held in fee and as chief characteristics homage, the service of tenants under arms and in court, wardship, and forfeiture ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Brazil's ethanol effort
Can't speak to consumer use, but yes, at least in racing, that is exactly why E85 is used. Putting out a pit fire, or worse a flaming crew member, when you can't see the flame is a rather difficult task. Also, I suspect it makes taxation and permitting issues much much easier ATF-wise, as 15% gasoline makes one heck of an adulturant with regard to human consumption. jh Greg Harbican wrote: I seem to recall reading somewhere, that part of the problem of using pure alcohol, was a safety issue, with lack of a highly visible flame when it burns.According to the article was that the addition of aproximitly 15% gasoline made the mix burn with a flame that was visible in full daylight. This went along with what I recall from chemistry class in jr high school were the alcohol burners burned with a pale blue flame that was sometimes hard to see under the lights. Greg H. - Original Message - From: RobT [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 07:02 Subject: RE: [Biofuel] Brazil's ethanol effort SNIP I would think that even with port fuel injection this effect may manifest itself in cold weather conditions. Probably why you generally see E85 max in the US. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -- John E Hayes, M.S. Instructor, Dietetics Program, DIET 203 / DIET 215 Doctoral Student, Nutritional Sciences University of Connecticut - 326 Koons Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 860.486.0007 ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Re: Environmentalism is dead. What's next?
Well, I'm certainly not a constitutional scholar, nor am I exceptionally familiar with the details of the case, but from what I do know, your depiction isn't entirely accurate. In fact, NPR had a story on it this morning while I was putting down mulch in the garden. New London CT, the town in question, is an economic disaster, frankly. The unemployment rate in New London is double that for the rest of the state and is in serious need of economic redevelopment. Having driven through parts of New London several times over the past couple of years, I can confirm that vast areas of New London appear to be blighted. Anyway, according to the NPR story and other things I've read, the New London Development Corp wanted to redevelop a piece of waterfront along the Thames River that had recently been vacated by the Navy. At the same time, Pfizer announced it wanted to bring a $300 million dollar global RD center to New London. Thus, the NLDC's eventual plan included using Eminent Domain to take 90-odd homes. Of those 90-odd homes, all but 7 agreed to sell for fair market value. The remaining 7 home owners refused to sell for any price and filed a lawsuit. They lost. They then appealed to the Supreme Court and, on a 5-4 vote, lost. This isn't some Walmart or a mall or housing for the wealthy or even the end of private property in the US as you imply. It's about a city's right to take land for the greater public good, which consistant with prior rulings according to the Supreme Court majority decision, can include economic redevelopment if just compensation is provided. Do I feel bad about the 7 homeowners that don't want to move? Sure, but that doesn't change the fact the constitution allows the government to take land for the public good if compensation is provided. In my mind, talking land for a redevelopment project is no different that taking land for a bridge or a highway. I fail to see any change in the status quo here. jh Brian wrote: I'm not sure where to put this, but for those in the US it seems that an important story is being missed. Thought I would bring it here to see if anyone had any ideas of how to call more attention to the implications. Since fascism was mentioned in this thread, thought I'd just go ahead and mention it here. It seems that there were some folks in Connecticut approached by a corporation a few years ago and offered money for their homes. They made the decisions to keep their homes and pass up the money. The corporation then went to the town board and said that it needed these homes for their private development (I am guessing some sort of shopping mall or planned housing development for the wealthy, but really don't know). The town board decided to use eminent domain to tell the homeowners that their property was being taken, for the greater good of the community. The homeowners filed suit, saying that they understood eminent domain in the case of security or public use of land, but did not feel it applied when the use of the land was commercial development for a profit. Unless I misunderstood what I read, the Supreme Court decided 5-4 in favor of the town council two days ago. Private property is no longer a right if some government body decides that the land would better serve the public if a Wal Mart was placed on it. I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound like it fits with the US Constitution that I am familiar with. I have attempted to contact MoveOn.org about this, but can't seem to break through their website and figure out how to ask a question. As they are involved in the fight for America's courts, and it seems to me that this is a prime example of why we don't want the majority to have the ability to place anyone they want in the judicial system for life, it would seem like a no-brainer for them to publicize this decision. I would also think that the Democratic Party would jump all over it. But, everyone seems to be silent. So, I am bringing it here. Anyone have ideas on how to make sure that the people on the street know that there is no longer such thing as private property in this country? Again, sorry for using bandwidth here for a purely US cause. I just didn't know where else to look. Brian - Original Message - From: --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 9:21 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Re: Environmentalism is dead. What's next? Bears!? I should have known that, but liked the sentence too much to think. Of scavengers and hunters the headlines abound, despite the efforts to pin smiley faces to the heads of vultures. What has always mystified me about the parade of the right wing is how blind they are to the consequences of their crusade. Given that the crusade is obviously not about freedom or democracy or even capitalism, which would require a measure of cooperation, compromise, yikes even understanding, it
Re: [Biofuel] Re: Environmentalism is dead. What's next?
But Larry, that's not my reading of the situation here. The land was taken by the city for a greater redevelopment effort of which Pfizer was a just one part. It's not as if the city took Susette Kelo's house and just gave it to Pfizer which is how many seem, or want, to see it. In fact, according to CNN.com, the proposed Pfizer campus is *adjacent* to the 90 acre Fort Trumbell neighborhood that the city wants to redevelop. This isn't a case of big pharma stealing some woman's house. Rather, the city wanted to buy the land to make room for redevelopment and she refused so they invoked eminent domain. In the 19th century, the government used eminent domain to take land to build railroads. In the 20th, eminent domain was used to clear slums and build highways, dams and airports. The fairness of the very existance of eminent domain is certainly a topic for discussion, but the supreme court has consistantly ruled for hundreds of years that the government has this right to seize property to transform it for a greater public use. You are correct that New London didn't claim the Ft. Trumbell neighborhood was blighted. However, it's also worth noting that it had been zoned as an industrial area since *1929* and contained a junkyard, oil tank farm and railroad yard. This wasn't some treelined Norman Rockwell-esque suburb we're talking about here. So as a round about answer to your question, I don't think this case is about Pfizer or Walmart or any other corporate giant. The city wanted to take an industrial zone on the water and redevelop it for a greater public use and both the Connecticut Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court agreed this is a legal use of eminent domain. jh (for what it is worth (not much, I know), I only mentioned Walmart because Brian brought up that very possibility in his post.) Larry Foran wrote: John, I am not a consitutional scholar either, but from what I have read and heard, the neigborhood was not blighted, yes New London has a high unenployment rate, but taking one persons private property and giving it to another (corporation) simply because the corporation can generate more Taxes for the city seems unjust. Also whats the difference between Pfizer and Walmart? Just because one does RD and the other sells cheap goods on the backs of cheap labor doesn't really matter. The supreme court just authorized the transferr of private land from one owner to another based on how much money the land would provide back to the city. (IMHO) Larry On 6/24/05, John Hayes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, I'm certainly not a constitutional scholar, nor am I exceptionally familiar with the details of the case, but from what I do know, your depiction isn't entirely accurate. In fact, NPR had a story on it this morning while I was putting down mulch in the garden. New London CT, the town in question, is an economic disaster, frankly. The unemployment rate in New London is double that for the rest of the state and is in serious need of economic redevelopment. Having driven through parts of New London several times over the past couple of years, I can confirm that vast areas of New London appear to be blighted. Anyway, according to the NPR story and other things I've read, the New London Development Corp wanted to redevelop a piece of waterfront along the Thames River that had recently been vacated by the Navy. At the same time, Pfizer announced it wanted to bring a $300 million dollar global RD center to New London. Thus, the NLDC's eventual plan included using Eminent Domain to take 90-odd homes. Of those 90-odd homes, all but 7 agreed to sell for fair market value. The remaining 7 home owners refused to sell for any price and filed a lawsuit. They lost. They then appealed to the Supreme Court and, on a 5-4 vote, lost. This isn't some Walmart or a mall or housing for the wealthy or even the end of private property in the US as you imply. It's about a city's right to take land for the greater public good, which consistant with prior rulings according to the Supreme Court majority decision, can include economic redevelopment if just compensation is provided. Do I feel bad about the 7 homeowners that don't want to move? Sure, but that doesn't change the fact the constitution allows the government to take land for the public good if compensation is provided. In my mind, talking land for a redevelopment project is no different that taking land for a bridge or a highway. I fail to see any change in the status quo here. jh Brian wrote: I'm not sure where to put this, but for those in the US it seems that an important story is being missed. Thought I would bring it here to see if anyone had any ideas of how to call more attention to the implications. Since fascism was mentioned in this thread, thought I'd just go ahead and mention it here. It seems that there were some folks in Connecticut approached by a corporation a few years ago and offered money
Re: [Biofuel] Re: Environmentalism is dead. What's next?
Hi Keith. Sorry if my attempted rhetorical device fell flat. I was just trying to make two separate points wrapped up in one little sarcastic package; first, that we actually do get something worthwhile for our taxes and second, that snarky comparisons to feudel crops tariffs aren't really appropriate because of the vast differences between now and then. Clearly, NASA and the CDC have no comparable institutions in the 15th century. Sorry I wasn't clear. So sarcasm aside, yes, I agree things are different enough to make comparisions pointless. jh Keith Addison wrote: Hi John Yes, but in the 15th century, those dues got you what passed for national defense and maybe some roads? Today my taxes cover national defense, roads, trains and airports, educational services, the court system and social services. They also provide money to fund scientific research, space exploration, protect the environment, and fund public health measures and institutions like the CDC. Um, now let's have a closer look at those things... Or maybe not, eh? I can't see any of them that'll stand on their feet the way you want them to. The whole thing's gone rotten. That aside, I think the comparison's valid enough, it can stand on its own without much clutter, but the comparison you're trying to make certainly won't, truly apples and oranges, if not cabbages and oranges. Roads? How much travelling did feudal citizens do, want to do, need to do? Let alone serfs? Most of them never left the village, nor wanted to. Economies were local, along with sort of annual travelling enclave economies called fairs. And indeed their lord and his men (thugs if you will) pretty much protected them, whereas most Americans freely admit you're a lot less safe now than you were before 9/11, for all the billions of your taxes spent on the war on terror (and on fomenting fear and loathing to prop it all up). And so on and on and on. It's all either a sham or it's being drastically rolled back. That didn't happen in a 15th century feudal village either. I'm not saying it was better, I am saying it was different, far beyond any basis for the comparisons you're trying to make. Best wishes Keith So yes, you're spot on, that's progress for you. jh Chris Lloyd wrote: Some bright spark in the UK did a n in depth study last year and found we spend more time earning money to pay our taxes than the 15^th century tenants did to pay off the dues to their landlords and that included the house that went with the land. Thatís progress for you.Chris. feu…dal…ism** : the system of political organization prevailing in Europe from the 9th to about the 15th centuries having as its basis the relation of lord to vassal with all land held in fee and as chief characteristics homage, the service of tenants under arms and in court, wardship, and forfeiture ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -- John E Hayes, M.S. Instructor, Dietetics Program, DIET 203 / DIET 215 Doctoral Student, Nutritional Sciences University of Connecticut - 326 Koons Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 860.486.0007 ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Re: Environmentalism is dead. What's next?
This is not about class or income or about those people. It was zoned as an industrial area and had been zoned as such for over 75 years. As far as living on the wrong side of tracks, my house is on the wrong side of tracks. I also happen to live in a town with an economic redevelopment agency that is looking to redevelop 60 acres in the middle of town. As far as the McMansion's go, I'd be just as happy if the state of CT used eminent domain to take land in Fairfield County to fix the inadequate railroad intrastructure between NY and Boston. But why ruin the nice little assumptions you've clearly formed about me... jh Brian wrote: You are correct that New London didn't claim the Ft. Trumbell neighborhood was blighted. However, it's also worth noting that it had been zoned as an industrial area since *1929* and contained a junkyard, oil tank farm and railroad yard. This wasn't some treelined Norman Rockwell-esque suburb we're talking about here. I think that this quote perfectly emphasizes my concern. The suburbs and McMansions are safe. It is the houses that are in the other areas that are at risk. Those that people who can't afford a McMansion live in. If it was your treelined Norman Rockwell-esque suburb, this could never have been done. Since it was the other side of the tracks, however, it is inherently OK. Those people don't deserve to own property, anyway, right? Brian ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -- John E Hayes, M.S. Instructor, Dietetics Program, DIET 203 / DIET 215 Doctoral Student, Nutritional Sciences University of Connecticut - 326 Koons Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 860.486.0007 ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Re: Environmentalism is dead. What's next?
Fair enough. My point was about the area being zoned as an industrial area, but I was trying to be colorful in my description. jh Michael Redler wrote: This wasn't some treelined Norman Rockwell-esque suburb we're talking about here. This sounds harmless and in fact seems pretty logical. However, as soon as anyone begins introducing aesthetics into an eminent domain debate, it becomes legitimate to introduce it in all such debates. In my opinion, judging what is or isn't aesthetically pleasing, should always be out of bounds. Mike */Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED]/* wrote: You are correct that New London didn't claim the Ft. Trumbell neighborhood was blighted. However, it's also worth noting that it had been zoned as an industrial area since *1929* and contained a junkyard, oil tank farm and railroad yard. This wasn't some treelined Norman Rockwell-esque suburb we're talking about here. I think that this quote perfectly emphasizes my concern. The suburbs and McMansions are safe. It is the houses that are in the other areas that are at risk. Those that people who can't afford a McMansion live in. If it was your treelined Norman Rockwell-esque suburb, this could never have been done. Since it was the other side of the tracks, however, it is inherently OK. Those people don't deserve to own property, anyway, right? Brian ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -- John E Hayes, M.S. Instructor, Dietetics Program, DIET 203 / DIET 215 Doctoral Student, Nutritional Sciences University of Connecticut - 326 Koons Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 860.486.0007 ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Re: Environmentalism is dead. What's next?
Please reread my original Norman Rockwell-esque comment in context. It's in a paragraph about the industrial nature of the area in question. Yet you take it out of context and portray my comment as some sort of class war (McMansions those people etc) and sarcastically imply that I think those people don't deserve to own property anyway. Or at least that's how I read it the first time. Upon a second reading this morning, maybe you just meant to point out how political power to stop city hall is colocalized with wealth in our society? The way I see it, we can continue to waste bandwidth slinging all manner of accusations of spin, bias and other nasty aspersions about each other's motivation or we can agreed that we probably misread each other and should chalk it up to vagaries the written word transmitted over the internet. I personally would prefer to do the later. What do you think? jh Brian wrote: Sorry. No assumptions formed about you. Just a response to your comment about those affected by this decision not living in a Norman Rockwell-esque suburb. Who is it that's reading thing in here? Brian - Original Message - From: John Hayes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 5:46 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Re: Environmentalism is dead. What's next? This is not about class or income or about those people. It was zoned as an industrial area and had been zoned as such for over 75 years. As far as living on the wrong side of tracks, my house is on the wrong side of tracks. I also happen to live in a town with an economic redevelopment agency that is looking to redevelop 60 acres in the middle of town. As far as the McMansion's go, I'd be just as happy if the state of CT used eminent domain to take land in Fairfield County to fix the inadequate railroad intrastructure between NY and Boston. But why ruin the nice little assumptions you've clearly formed about me... jh Brian wrote: You are correct that New London didn't claim the Ft. Trumbell neighborhood was blighted. However, it's also worth noting that it had been zoned as an industrial area since *1929* and contained a junkyard, oil tank farm and railroad yard. This wasn't some treelined Norman Rockwell-esque suburb we're talking about here. I think that this quote perfectly emphasizes my concern. The suburbs and McMansions are safe. It is the houses that are in the other areas that are at risk. Those that people who can't afford a McMansion live in. If it was your treelined Norman Rockwell-esque suburb, this could never have been done. Since it was the other side of the tracks, however, it is inherently OK. Those people don't deserve to own property, anyway, right? Brian ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] VW Diesel
You have the 'SVO destroyed my TDI' folks. And the 'SVO is just fine' pollyannas. And the Greasel 'TDIclub member don't have a clue' people. And the professional 'we need more scientific data' skeptics. And the 'yes, we need data but your studies are too old' counter-skeptics. Yup. I think that about sums it up. jh Keith Addison wrote: Hello John Just FYI, there is a major debate on SVO use raging at TDIclub.com right now. It's actually spilled over into 3 different threads in the biodiesel section of the forums(sic). Would you perhaps be up to giving us a summary? Best wishes Keith jh Lyn Gerry wrote: Hi Mike and All, I just had my 1999 Jetta TDI converted, and so far, I'm really pleased. I live in central New York State and the conversion was done by Lucas MacDonald at Vegpower http://www.vegpower.com/ They can do the work or you can buy components from them. Lucas is also an experienced VW/volvo mechanic. Lyn On 22 Jun 2005 at 16:26, Mike wrote: Has anyone ever converted a VW diesel to run on leftover oil from restaurants or fast foods like Krispy Kreeme and McDonalds etc... I'm about to do it and want to follow the lead of someone else who's done it. Thanks. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -- John E Hayes, M.S. Instructor, Dietetics Program, DIET 203 / DIET 215 Doctoral Student, Nutritional Sciences University of Connecticut - 326 Koons Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 860.486.0007 ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Mystery logo
It means more information is available in the manual. r wrote: I saw a few logos stamped on the inside of the gas tank fuel door of my vehicle, a 2003 Dodge Caravan SE. One of them, I found out is E85, the symbol for ethanol 85. Another symbol, which is a mystery to me, represents the letter i stamped on the right page of a book. Any ideas as to the meaning of the i inside a book symbol? ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] US oil war game mpg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 6/30/05 11:10:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you want to put a frown on the face of [Saudi] Wahhabis, talk about 100-mile-per-gallon vehicles, Woolsey said. We don't need a Manhattan Project to do it. It cannot be that difficult as Austin Cars in the UK used to advertise their Model 7 as Doing 100 mph and 100 mpg (UK gallon) and that was between the wars. The power unit was only 700cc or 45ci and when sold to the public the unmodified engine did 50+mpg and about 50mph. If they could get that economy and performance out of a 20s 4 cylinder engine for advertising purposes then why not now? Chris. why do the electric motors in the accord hybrid only serve to add torque rather than incease mpg? Why did the 70s, 80's vw golf/rabbit diesels get 40/50 miles a gallon then, and not much more now? greg I agree about the Accord, but with regard to the 70s era Rabbit diesels, I think you're comparing apples and oranges. A 70s diesel rabbit was small and underpowered, lacked modern safety features and design, and other than CO2, wasn't exactly the cleanest emissionswise. In constrast, a contemporary TDI can actually carry 4-5 adults and has a specious trunk. It is also much safer thanks to a more rigid frame, crumple zones, antilock brakes and 8 (yes eight) airbags. Performance is greatly improved in spite of a hefty increase in curb weight and, although it isn't as clean as a gasser, the emissions have come a long way. And it still gets between 40 and 50 mpg. Having owned an '86 Golf (gasser) and a 03 Jetta TDI, I'll take the later in a heartbeat. No question. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] Pimentel is at it again
Thanks to a post at TDIclub, I discovered that Pimentel has released yet another report on ethanol. Looking at the dates below, he's a month ahead of schedule this year. http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/ethanol.toocostly.ssl.html http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/03/8.14.03/Pimentel-ethanol.html http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/01/8.23.01/Pimentel-ethanol.html I can't speak to this newest report, but as long time readers of this list already know, Pimental's work has been repeatedly critiqued, and one of the main compliants it that he uses out of date numbers for yield and conversion efficiency. Here's a few links: http://www.mda.state.mn.us/ethanol/balance.html http://www.usda.gov/oce/oepnu/aer-814.pdf http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_rooster.html http://www.ncga.com/public_policy/PDF/03_28_05ArgonneNatlLabEthanolStudy.pdf http://www.ethanol-gec.org/corn_eth.htm All that having been said, Pimental is right that soy and corn alone cannot replace our petroleum addiction jh ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Hybrid Diesel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: earl, i'm not familiar with any federal laws protecting workers, except for anti-discrimination laws. if you're referring to more than that, please enlighten me. Chris are you serious? I can think of plenty of federal protection for workers off the top of my head. a) minimum wage b) overtime rules (40 hr work week for hourly employees) c) OSHA d) EPA e) NLRB f) maternity/paternity leave g) child labor laws You may think worker protection doesn't go far enough but we're certainly not talking about the grossly unregulated laissez faire capitalism that made unions so necessary at the turn of the *least* century. Children don't work in textile mills. Miners don't work 12 hr shifts 6 days a week. Given these protections, the benefits of unionization are far less compelling than in the past. Given the drawbacks: dues, seniority over merit, inability to cut deadwood, inability to negotiate an individual contract, it isn't suprising that union membership has steadily declined over the past several decades. as fro state laws, don't be fooled by what you found in PA. many states have very poor worker protections. for example, employers in many states can fire an employee for virtually any reason, because they are not required to have one. so although it might be illegal for a company to fire someone for, say, refusing to commit a crime, they can still fire you without justification. Tthis is called At-will employment and is the norm under US law unless your contract explicitly stipulates otherwise. However, all states also have common law exception to the at-will rule for retaliatory discharge; if an employer fires you for refusing to commit a criminal act, they are legally accountable. But yes, barring whistle-blower retaliation, a US employer can typically fire an employee without cause as is required in some other countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At_will_employment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment (wikipedia has two different pages on this topic) I assume from your comments that you think federal labor laws should provide some job security provisions? ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths
a) It's not a board. It's a mailing list. b) List rules state that calls to limit topic discussion are explicitly forbidden. Or in the words of our fearless list owner: No Topic Cops. c) It isn't your place to decide what the purpose of this board is. Learn to use your delete key; if you aren't interested, just ignore the thread as it will die soon enough anyway. jh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Excellent points Hakan. Plenty of other places to discuss nuclear. Whatever role nuclear has or doesn't have in the future, biofuels will have a critical role in meeting our future energy needs. I agree, natural tie ins are OK (e.g., wind power sited on biofuel fields), but let's avoid the distractions that take away the purpose of this Board. Bob In a message dated 7/13/2005 3:11:59 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have stopped from a participating in a few lists because of this group, which seems to be roughly the same people all the time. I am not interesting in deconstruct any Nuclear Power Myths, if there are any. All kind of discussions are ok, if they come naturally, but the clear pattern by a defined group to bring up this kind of issues, smells attempt to organized industry influence. I guess that if you answer this guy, we will have some hundreds of email about nuclear and we will find that suddenly it is some new members that like this nuclear issues. Good time to do something else until this nuke attack has blown over, because I do not think that they can hijack this list. LOL Hakan ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -- John E Hayes, M.S. Instructor, Dietetics Program, DIET 203 / DIET 215 Doctoral Student, Nutritional Sciences University of Connecticut - 326 Koons Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 860.486.0007 ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] CUMMINS B5.9TD GOD BLESS THE SOULS WHO
Based on the 1993 date, I suspect it may simply be an issue of incompatible seals and fuel lines, no? Appal Energy wrote: Terry, Ask your mechanic Why? he tells you that biodiesel cannot be used in your vehicle. I think everyone who uses biodiesel would care to hear his or her rationale(s). Todd Swearingen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I HOPE IME SENDING THIS MESSAGE TO CORRECT ADDRESS, IME ABOUT TO START MAKING BIO FROM WVO,BUT IN COVERATION I WAS TOLD BY A MECHANIC I COULD NOT USE IT IN MY RV WITH THIS MOTOR ITS A 1993 59K MILES ON THE CLOCK DOES THE MOTOR NEED MODIFICATIONS ? IF SO PLEASE CAN ANY ONE HELP IME TRYING TO DO MY BIT TO REDUCE DEPENDANCE ON OIL AND MAYBEE THE KILLING WILL STOP FOR BO0TH OUR NATIONS TERRY WHYTON,ENGLAND -- John E Hayes, M.S. Instructor, Dietetics Program, DIET 203 / DIET 215 Doctoral Student, Nutritional Sciences University of Connecticut - 326 Koons Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 860.486.0007 ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Running B20
Never believe a single tank. I'd give it 5 tanks or so, because frankly, there is no reason you should see such a dramatic drop with biodiesel. Are you certain you didn't short fill the tank? Have your driving conditions changed? More AC, shorter trips, more stop n' go traffic? jh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, I just began running B20 in my Beetle and have seen a 18% decrease in my fuel efficiency...is this normal? I've read about a 1-5% loss, but 18% seemed a bit high. I'm using a soybean based biodiesel that I am purchasing. Any ideas? Thanks, Shannon ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Fwd: pocket bike USD85.00 (hot sale)
Keith Addison wrote: Anyone want a containerful of pocket bikes? If you're in the US you won't be doing much good for the balance of trade, so to speak, but on the other hand 138 people will be using a lot less fuel so China can have it instead. - K Not really. Buncha fat little kids in serious need of exercise roaring up and down my street on smelly loud two-strokes for entertainment hasn't exactly endeared them to me. Here's what the NY Times had to say a couple of weeks back. jh A Big Load of Zip and Noise for Just 50 Pounds of Bike By ROBERT JOHNSON Published: July 10, 2005 SPEEDY, high-styled and low-slung, the minimotorcycles known as pocket rockets are hot sellers. But along with these bikes, most of them imports, have come complaints about safety and quality that have caught the attention of many police departments and lawmakers around the nation. Typically priced at $200 to $500 and with engines whose intense whine would endear them to the Wild One, the machines are miniature versions of brawnier bikes that cost many thousands of dollars. That is a combination that many consumers find irresistible. They make you think, 'Where were these when I was a kid?' said Greg McLendon, 38, a maintenance worker in Las Vegas who has bought pocket rockets for his sons, Tyler, 11, and Austin, 8. He allows them to ride only on a private commercial track under adult supervision. Pocket rockets are gaining a reputation as the skateboards of the new millennium, but they have their critics, including many police officers, who consider them a hazard, regardless of whether they are ridden legally. These things are some of the most fun you can have, but the sales are running ahead of parks and tracks where they can be ridden legally, said David Edwards, editor of Cycle World magazine in Newport Beach, Calif. It isn't realistic to let people buy these and expect them to just ride in their driveways. Why would riders feel restricted? Because pocket rockets fail to meet the minimum safety standards to be driven on many American roadways. Although state laws vary, the minis usually fall short of lighting and other safety standards. And the off-road options are limited: pocket rockets, with their small tires and low chassis, are not all-terrain vehicles fit for trails or the woods. The American market for the minimotorcycles is small, considering that roughly one million full-size motorcycles are sold annually. Precise figures are not available, but the industry estimates that some 25,000 pocket rockets, mostly Chinese imports, have been bought in the United States since the late 1990's. The bikes, usually powered by gasoline engines similar to those in lawnmowers, have a top speed of about 35 miles an hour, but they can be modified to go faster. The most popular ones weigh as little as 50 pounds, though larger ones can weigh closer to 100. Quality can be spotty. You really need to be mechanical if you're going to own one, said Sherman Smith, owner of the Multi Gear Bike and Sport shop in Riverview, Fla. Most of the nuts and bolts practically vibrate right off the chassis during a ride. He still sells them, he said, because his profit margins from repairing them are so good. He buys various brands on the Internet from California-based importers. But the brands are basically just different decals that someone puts on them, he said. The pocket-rocket makers themselves, of course, beg to differ. The Suzhou Ufree Sports Vehicle Manufacture Company, in Jiangsu, China, does offer to manufacture bikes that importers can sell under their own brand names, but says the quality of all bikes it makes is consistently excellent. The Yongkang City Bosuer Vehicle Company, based in Zhejiang province, promotes its perfect quality assurance system on its Web site and adds that winning customers with reputation is our basic strategy. Although some familiar names are available in the pocket-rocket market, they may not be what they seem. Ufree makes a bike called the Mini Harley. The wholesale price is just $142.50. But a Harley-Davidson spokesman in Milwaukee, Bob Klein, said his company had not licensed the product. Some models have at least a tenuous connection to their bigger brethren. For example, an electric-powered Honda minibike is being sold at some auto parts stores in the United States for $180. Lee Edmunds, a spokesman for American Honda Motor's motorcycle division in Torrance, Calif., said his company licensed them a few years ago to a foreign manufacturer he didn't identify. It's really more of a toy, he said, not in the same league as the gasoline-powered pocket rockets. Honda doesn't intend to enter the faster gas-powered-rocket field, he said, largely because of safety concerns. On roads, the faster pocket rockets are difficult for motorists to see, and they usually lack headlights and turn signals. Steve Kohler, a California Highway
Re: [Biofuel] Fwd: pocket bike USD85.00 (hot sale)
Keith Addison wrote: Hello John Keith Addison wrote: Anyone want a containerful of pocket bikes? If you're in the US you won't be doing much good for the balance of trade, so to speak, but on the other hand 138 people will be using a lot less fuel so China can have it instead. - K Not really. Buncha fat little kids in serious need of exercise roaring up and down my street on smelly loud two-strokes for entertainment hasn't exactly endeared them to me. Um, yes, I do believe there might well have been some such complaints 45 years ago when we were all doing it with the Italian and Spanish pocket rockets of the day. Garellis, Itoms, Mars Monzas, Maseratis, Pegasos, and they could do 60mph, not just 40 like this newfangled stuff, or only 25 even. Hey, I'd do it all over again, it was great! We weren't fat little kids, we were all pretty fit. I'm sure you're right though, these days. Somebody usually had gravel rash but nobody got killed, not even by the neighbours (good getaway speed). So you're not going to be forwarding me a fat forwarding fee then John? :-) Heh. I guess that came out a little more crotchity than I intended. I have no problem with kids being loud and having fun. Didn't mean to imply that. We had lots of fun riding way too fast on minibikes as kids, and no, nobody got killed; but then again, we didn't know about global warming, oil wasn't $60/barrel, and we weren't at war. I just question the wisdom of buying a kid a polluting toy that wastes gasoline when we're past Hubbard's Peak and in the middle of a war when instead, you could *gasp* buy the kid a bicycle which might encourage the kid to *gasp* get some exercise. That was my point. So yeah, no finders fee for you. :) (Just to be clear to the non-US readers on the list. I'm not talking about the small displacement transportation scooters you practically trip over in Rome and elsewhere. Those have utility. Instead, I'm talking about the increasingly popular new generation of highly stylized pocket bikes that are intended strictly as toys.) jh ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: [Biofuel] biofuels would need more energy to produce than they can provide
Umm. To quote Yogi Berra deja vu all over again. We already discussed Pimental's latest ethanol study once within the last 2 weeks. Either somebody is trolling or as a really short attention span. http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg51927.html But anyway, if we're gonna have this discuss yet again, I'm going to cut and paste. According to Rei over at Slashdot: Pimental assumes that all corn is irrigated (only 16% is, and that corn is rarely used for ethanol production - and Pimental even notes this, but assumes all corn is irrigated anyways!). He ignored life-cycle analysis standards. He includes one-time energy charges such as farming equipment and ethanol plant production, ignoring that oil companies have similar scale one-time energy charges for oil rigs and refineries. Pimental used energy calculations for fertilizer production from the UN's data for worldwide average costs, while the USDA and others use the energy cost of US fertilizer production (these are widely different numbers - a 2.5-fold difference). He uses 1979 ethanol plant efficiency, ignoring the huge process improvements made since (which halve the energy cost per gallon). Etc. He makes no attempt, whatsoever, to be balanced, and repeats the same inaccurate representation over and over. According to a post Kent Bullard made over at TDIclub: One major flaw of Pimentels assertions, is that his studies assign all energy costs to components of the production cycle and do not discount those numbers for other materials produced in the process. For example, in his soybean biodiesel chart, he stated that it takes 5,556 kg of soybeans to make 1,000 kg of oil. He assigns all of the energy cost of 7,800,000 keal (don't worry about this number it is a measurement like btu) for growing the soybeans to the soy oil. For an energy cost of $1,117.42 this is 92% of the final energy costs of $1,212.16. Yet, 82% of those soybeans are reduced to soy meal, which he writes off as soy byproduct waste. (Now we know better than that) This according to his numbers results in a net energy loss of 32% for the production of the soy biodiesel, because the soy byproduct wastes have no assigned energy cost. Yet in his text he allows that one can credit 2.2 million keal to the meal produced which will result in an energy loss for the final product of 8%. However, his posted table of energy inputs for soy do not include any energy credit for the meal. Now if I were to use his same numbers, yet shift 82% of the energy costs to the soy meal. We would than have a net energy gain for the soy biodiesel of 40%. This is just one example of how he is able to skew his studies conclusions by assigning energy costs as he sees fit. I have not dissected his other numbers, but I would tend to believe there are also other false assumptions in those numbers as well. So frankly, do we really need to have this discussion again? It's only been 2 weeks. jh Sam Critchley wrote: Interesting, although if ethanol production is fossil fuel intensive, how do they produce it now, and have done for decades, in Brazil? Thanks, Sam On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 05:06:34 +0200, Ray J [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would assume its this http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050717/ap_on_bi_ge/ethanol_study Ray J the skapegoat wrote: Is there an English version of this document. */F. Desprez [EMAIL PROTECTED]/* wrote: according to anglo-us scientific studies. FD Des études scientifiques portent un coup à l'éthanol 07/07/2005 Journal de l'environnement Le développement de l'éthanol utilisé comme biocarburant pourrait avoir des conséquences environnementales négatives, estiment des chercheurs. Deux recherches scientifiques viennent de remettre en cause l'intérêt du développement de l'éthanol comme biocarburant alternatif à l'essence. D'abord, une étude scientifique américaine parue dans Bioscience conclut que l'éthanol à usage de carburant réduit la biodiversité, augmente l'érosion du sol, et consomme de grandes quantités d'eau pour le nettoyage des cannes à sucre, de l'ordre de 3.900 litres par tonne. Décrits par Marcelo Dias de Oliveira et ses collègues, de l'université d'Etat de Washington, ces impacts environnementaux, uniquement liés à la culture de la canne à sucre, pourraient provoquer un coup de frein au développement de l'éthanol comme carburant qui s'est justement appuyé sur un argument environnemental: le CO2 produit par la combustion de l'éthanol est compensé par la photosynthèse de la plante, les seules émissions de CO2 provenant des transports et du processus industriel. Or actuellement, cet argument est aussi reconsidéré par les scientifiques. Cette fois-ci par une étude anglo-américaine, publiée dans Nature resources research, qui estime «qu'il n'y a aucun bénéfice énergétique à utiliser la biomasse des plantes pour fabriquer du carburant.» Selon les chercheurs de l'université de Cornell et de Berkeley, le process de fabrication
Re: [Biofuel] Propane - ABio fuel?
Doesn't NG have some small percentage of ethane, propane and butane mixed in as well? This would presumably increase the energy desnity over straight methane. Also, while I think of it, isn't biogas closer to a 50:50 mix of methane and CO2, with, as you say, some trace impurities? Reason I ask I that i thought you had to remove the CO2 before you can use biogas in a natural gas appliance. jh Thompson, Mark L. (PNB RD) wrote: Natural Gas = methane + Odorant; Bio methane just methane + some CO2 and impurities from the decomposition process. So any NG appliance will run on Bio Decomposed methane. Its just that is very difficult to liquefy NG (-200C like temps). M -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Morris Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 2:11 PM To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Propane - ABio fuel? As I understand it, methane (which can be produced from rotting waste) can be burned in most propane appliances with the appropriate slight modifications. Is propane a Bio fuel, can it be created from bio sources? ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.or g Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -- John E Hayes, M.S. Instructor, Dietetics Program, DIET 203 / DIET 215 Doctoral Student, Nutritional Sciences University of Connecticut - 326 Koons Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 860.486.0007 ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country
malcolm maclure wrote: I couldn’t resist posting this. Malcolm all the Ivy and * * Seven Sister schools, plus Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT. * a) plus Harvard and Yale? Did they get kicked out of the Ivy League when I wasn't looking? b) And if we get all 8 Ivies, that means we're stuck with Pimentel. :) jh ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Re: was...The New Blue States/Country
Alt.EnergyNetwork wrote: Me too, The once proud republican party has been highjacked by right wing neocons, powerfull corporations and xenophobic Jesus freaks. No administration in history has gone to the extent that this one has, to distort scientific data and water down or eliminate environmental and health protection measures. Hijacked is right. One just needs to look at the title of Christie Whitman's book It's my party too. If you look past the Administration, you'll find the GOP still has pro-environment moderates, or open minded conservatives. They're just not in the current administration. Off the top of my head: Sen. McCain cosponsored a Climate Change Bill. Gov. Pataki has been very active in attempting to curtail power plant and CO2 emissions. Gov. Schwartzeneger has pledged to back CARB's attempts to regulate CO2 emissions. Rep. Ehlers has spoken at length on Hubbard's Peak on the floor of the House. Sen. Domenici has been relatively friendly to alternative energy. My point is that not all republicans are head in the sand obstructionists like Joe Barton. jh ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country
malcolm maclure wrote: Lol, nice 1 John. Hadn't noticed that. Not sure about this tho: a) plus Harvard and Yale? Did they get kicked out of the Ivy League when I wasn't looking? The Ivies (the Ancient Eight) consist of Brown, Cornell, Columbia, Dartmouth, Harvard, Penn, Princeton, and Yale. No more, no less. To say all the Ivies, plus plus Harvard and Yale is redundant. That's all I'm sayin' jh ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The Rapture
bmolloy wrote: Hi All, Where can I find a background to the fundamentalist belief in the Rapture. I think we discussed it some months ago vis a vis the Israeli conflict. Regards, Bob. http://www.newsaic.com/ftvsimpsons1619i.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture jh ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energyefficiencies
There is also substantial work iniitiated by the Russians and Ukrainians (and rarely reported in the West until recently) of an abyssal, abiogenic origin of petroleum, which postulates a co-eval formation of primordial petroleum with earth about 4.5 bollion years back,much earlier than the conventional era of the dinosaurs, Ironically, the leading Western proponent of the abiotic origin of petroleum is the recently deceased Cornell professor Thomas Gold. He was a member of the National Academy of Science, the Royal Academy, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences who was known for both his brillance and being a famous contrarian (aka world class pain in the ass). He first published an article about abiotic oil in PNAS in 1992, and then followed it up with a book called The deep hot biosphere in 1999. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Gold http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/June04/Thomas_Gold_obit.hrs.html Current dogma in the geology community is that abiogenic hydrocarbons do in fact exist, but occur in such small amounts that commercially exploited sources are effectively all biogenic in origin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin jh ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Hey! Let's outsource the pres...
Rolling on the floor laughing my ass off For future reference, here is a good place to start. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_slang#Common_Internet_slang jh William Adams wrote: please bear with me. I'm learning the lingo , but que dice ROFLMAO? - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 12:26 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Hey! Let's outsource the pres... ROFLMAO! ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy efficiencies
Keith, Bob, Andrew et al. Respectfully, I need to disagree with Keith and go with Bob on this one. David Pimentel may rightfully deserve scorn for his repeatedly releasing skewed reports long after the errors have been pointed out. However, he should not be attacked for doing so, That is, science is self-correcting and already has a culture to deal with incorrect results, be they intentional or accidental. As noted by Carl Sagan, yet another iconic Cornell professor: In science it often happens that scientists say, You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken, and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion. Frankly however, with respect to Dr. Sagan, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for David Pimental to come around given his past intransigence. If Kuhn was right, we may have to wait another couple of decades for Pimental to stop publishing his misleading reports. Still, to blindly lambaste David Pimental (and frankly, any scientist we disagree with) is to move the discourse from the rational to the emotional. And that is simply unacceptable. Junk science is not a label to be capriciously applied to research that has implications we don't like. It's unacceptable whether we're talking about the right and climate change or the left and sustainability of biofuels. Instead, the best way to expose flawed calculations or conclusions is to refute the logic used to arrive at the conclusion and to rebut the argument on its merits. Problem is, that's tough to do as it requires in-depth knowledge and lots of time. Instead, its far easier just to blast the messenger, but that doesn't make it okay. The witch-hunt Congressman Barton is leading against Michael Mann is only one such egregious example. Malcolm Gladwell wrote Thomas Kuhn's legacy was that he taught the process of science was fundamentally human, that discoveries were the product not of some plodding, rational process but of human ingenuity intermingled with politics and personality--that science was, in the end, a social process. Kuhn may be right, and science may be a flawed human process, but frankly, it's the best we've got. And personally, I'd rather put my faith it in. jh Keith Addison wrote: Hello Bob, Andrew Normally I'd agree with you Bob, but not in Pimentel's case, that time was long ago, and now Andrew's response is not inappropriate. Pimentel merits little better than scorn and derision Andrew, I know you said it in jest, but the unfortunate effect of your sarcasm regarding David Pimentel, one of the nations' outstanding scientists, is to support the ignorant critics of good science who argue that, if I believe in a proposition, then anyone who presents evidence that contradicts my belief is a malicious fool and not to be believed. It is true that a few pseudoscientists acting as industry shills will (for a fee) produce a scientific study supporting any industry-desired conclusion, but your implication that Pimentel is such an Exxon shill is blatant slander, and I am ashamed to see it on the Biofuels site. I assume that you wish ethanol's EROEI (energy return over energy input) to be positive, thus making it a useful energy source as we approach the end of fossil fuels. So do I - and so would lots of other folks. I'm sure also that David Pimentel shares that wish. The difference between you and Pimentel is that as a scientist, he says, It's a great idea and I hope it's true, but what if it isn't? So let's run the numbers and seek the truth of the matter. If it turns out the EROEI is negative, we would be commiting a cruel and expensive hoax on the nation to propose ethanol as an energy solution. Not so, sad to say. Pimentel has long been aware that the data he uses is outdated and wrong, but he keeps using it anyway. Implying that he's an Exxon-et al shill is not blatant slander, the question has to be asked why he continues doing this, and asked of his publishers too. This is peer review? I think not. It certainly is not science. It's propaganda. I am as disappointed as you must be in his analysis showing a negative EROEI. And I look forward to additional valid studies testing and challenging his conclusion. Those have been to hand for a long time, more and more of them, debunking every aspect of Pimentel's claims. Pimentel takes no notice, neither do his publishers. But to lampoon his work because you don't like the color of - was it his socks? - is not a worthy act on your part. Well, I don't know, I suppose we can take his socks about as seriously as the rest of him. Nothing new here - we've been discussing Pimentel's repeated and
Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy efficiencies
Tom Irwin wrote: I don't think ethanol will be a dinosaur in 20 years but would appreciate why you think so if it is other than yields per hectare. Methanol has the capacity to produce some nasty tailpipe emmission (as does ethanol but less so) and is far more toxic to humans and animals than ethanol. Another component of sustainability is safety. I would not wish to see methanol filling stations. Most people have no concept how nasty it is. Yes, it can be handled safely by those who understand the dangers but most folks don't have that knowledge. And gasoline isn't toxic and dangerous? The average Joe has been filling up with a flammable toxic liquid for almost 100 years. I don't see how methanol requires any retraining as opposed to gasoline. jh ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy efficiencies
Tom Irwin wrote: Greeting all, What would happen to the Cornell results if a crop like sugar beets was used instead of corn? Please don't call it the Cornell results. That implies the entire university backs Pimentel's findings. As to your question, I can't answer it directly, but you may want to read this article from the economist. http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=3960775 jh ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Check out Diesel Won't Solve Our Gasoline Woes
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Check out Diesel Won't Solve Our Gasoline Woes I deconstructed that Washington Post story in my blog. http://blog.john-hayes.com/?postid=122 jh ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy efficiencies
Hi Keith. Sorry if you took my previous long winded reply as a direct reply/criticism - it wasn't intended that way. Instead, it was a broader essay I posted to my blog as as the culmination of thoughts that have resulted from the dialogue here, as well as at tdiclub.com, and in real life. (For example, the lambasting I refered to occurred over at TDIclub, not here. And the bit about junk science came up at dinner the other night.) So while it was inspired in part by the thread here, it should really have been sent to the list as a new thread. I didn't mean to set up a strawman or put words in anyone's mouth (e.g. the Barton witchhunt comment). Again, sorry about that. Anyway, did you notice the column Krugman published the very next day on intelligent design? That's the type of issue I was trying to speak to. Clearly I missed the mark. :( http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/05/opinion/05krugman.html I don't disagree with you one bit that the corporate disinformation machine has been exceptionally successful at promoting their agenda. And yes, I agree that merely promoting good science isn't enough, particularly given the American media's misguided attempts to provide balance. But that having been said, as a scientist, I had to reaffirm my faith that the process does in fact work. (And yes, I use the word faith intentionally.) It may not work as perfectly as it should (cf Kuhn), but it does work imperfectly (cf Sagan). That's what I was trying to say. If that makes me idealistic/naive, so be it. jh Keith Addison wrote: Hello John Keith, Bob, Andrew et al. Respectfully, I need to disagree with Keith and go with Bob on this one. David Pimentel may rightfully deserve scorn for his repeatedly releasing skewed reports long after the errors have been pointed out. However, he should not be attacked for doing so, I did not say he should be attacked. I said he should be questioned, and I provided the questions, and my previous post (which you've copied below) provided a link to it. Here, again: http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg52605.html Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy efficien http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg52756.html Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy efficienc We want to know why he does it. On whose behalf is also a good question. That is, science is self-correcting and already has a culture to deal with incorrect results, be they intentional or accidental. For every example of it that you can point to I'll point to another that wasn't self-corrected. I've just been saying that seeing the government as a bumbling dolt might be a dangerous delusion, and failing to see the ever-swelling influence of corporate spending on science is similarly dangerous. Especially since there have been so many peer-reviewed studies of it and its effects (some of which have been posted here before). Rely on science's self-correction if you want to, but in these circumstances I'd put about as much credence in that as in chemical industry self-policing of self-formulated pollution controls (ie what we've got now, more or less - plenty of examples of that in the archives too). It's not even happening in that arena, as I said - it's not scientific enquiry, it's a skilful and effective publicity campaign. Would your scientific self-correction (albeit 20 years late with 20 years of abuse of the public interest in the meantime) make 100% sure, as does the Cornell publicity team which is at Pimentel's disposal, that it'll get picked up by AP and get good placement in the LA Times? If not it'll be useless as well as too late. As noted by Carl Sagan, yet another iconic Cornell professor: In science it often happens that scientists say, You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken, and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion. Frankly however, with respect to Dr. Sagan, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for David Pimental to come around given his past intransigence. If Kuhn was right, we may have to wait another couple of decades for Pimental to stop publishing his misleading reports. Still, to blindly lambaste David Pimental (and frankly, any scientist we disagree with) is to move the discourse from the rational to the emotional. Blind lambasting, John? There've been some jeers (Yours in jest), but it's me you name first, apparently without checking what I'd said, which is neither blind nor a lambasting, nor emotional, nor has it ever been since I first covered this at JtF four years ago. Nor will you be able to find any instance of
Re: [Biofuel] Check out Diesel Won't Solve Our Gasoline Woes
Hi Doug. Frankly, I was very disappointed with your reply. In our culture, yes, we have a right to an opinion, but others also have the right to tell so how and why our reasoning is flawed. And in the words of advisorjim (http://advisorjim.dailykos.com/) We're all entitled to our own opinions, but we are not entitled to our own facts! You implied that the need for SUVs driven by big families with big kids. And I rebutted it with two sources and one anecdote that suggest this just isn't true. Your wishy washy statistics are too malleable statement is an intellectual cop out. If you're a going to make readily falsifiable statements on this list, you can't just wave the let's agree to disagree flag when those statements are challenged. That's just weak. jh Doug Younker wrote: What can I say, John? Both statistics and observations are both too malleable. This could become perceived myth versus perceived myth, judging others by what they drive and where we can't fully know what drove their decision, I really don't want to go there. Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. Doug - Original Message - From: John Hayes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 1:48 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Check out Diesel Won't Solve Our Gasoline Woes Doug. For the vast majority, SUVs are about status, not capability. Those 3 or 4 or 5 kids will also fit in a minivan that already gets mileage in the 20s. How do I know? My wife is one of 5 and she's the runt of the family; both her sisters are over 510 and her two brothers are over 63. Also, what proportion of American families are actually that large? According to US census data, in 48 of 50 states, families average less than two children. http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/tabST-F1-2000.pdf You can't tell me with a straight face that large families have driven the SUV boom in the 90s. Finally, don't believe the myth that American consumers were forced to buy SUVs by the disappearance of the station wagon. It's just not true. Midsized SUVs rose from 4% of all light duty vehicle sales in MY1998 to 12.3% in 2000. Midsized station wagons droped from 1.9 to 1.4 percent in the same period. Large SUVs rose from 0.5% to 5.5% while large station wagons dropped from 0.5% to 0. SUVs are far more popular today than station wagons were before CAFE. from pg 19 http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/docs/162944_web.pdf jh Doug Younker wrote: Well.. I would have to think a 22 MPG SUV is a step above the 13-16 MPG SUV of 25 to 30 years ago. As long as families continue to have 3, 4 or more kids, with some of them being 6 foot giants the demand, for larger vehicles isn't going to subside soon. Shoot it's going to be difficult enough to reduce the miles those vehicles are being driven. Doug, N0LKK From: Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 3:21 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Check out Diesel Won't Solve Our Gasoline Woes I read that. Diesel will only help if combined w/ high mileage cars, hybrid and bio. To go to diesel so Americans can get 22 mpg in their SUVs is pretty silly. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -- John E Hayes, M.S. Instructor, Dietetics Program, DIET 203 / DIET 215 Doctoral Student, Nutritional Sciences University of Connecticut - 326 Koons Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 860.486.0007 ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Check out Diesel Won't Solve Our Gasoline Woes
Dude. I think he dripped some sarcasm on my shoe. jh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: er, sorry, but were you being sarcastic or serious? -chris In a message dated 8/10/05 8:56:37 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The American way of life is not negotiable. I personally feel I need a huge SUV for my lifestyle. Why, just the other day I drove my V10 Excursion to WalMart to get a pencil. I could have walked, but that's not The American Way. I personally am furious about gas prices in the US. I'm not sure who I'm furious with, but I think it might be the Democrats. I'm pretty sure I'm also furious with the Saudis. I was furious with Saddam, what with his WMD and the whole 9/11 thing, but I think we all agree that's been taken care off. I am very angry that Asians hold most of our government debt, but I am also extremely upset that S. Korea mused aloud about diversifying out of dollars. Taxes. I'm very mad about taxes. I just sold my palatial mansion in Palm Beach and have to pay 15% capital gains!! Thank goodness my gardener, Roberto, pays 28% on his wages or it could have been worse. Mike, The Ugly American ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -- John E Hayes, M.S. Instructor, Dietetics Program, DIET 203 / DIET 215 Doctoral Student, Nutritional Sciences University of Connecticut - 326 Koons Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 860.486.0007 ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] ASTM, was ... Diesel Won't Solve...
Tom Irwin wrote: They can keep the pictures of the flag drapped caskets from view but it´s really the wounded they´re going to have the most problems with. You can pretty much calculate that half of those 11,500 have been horribly maimed or burned. Bombs and booby traps do that kind of thing. Someone is going to get their story out with words and pictures, win a Pulitzer and put an end to this incredibly, greedy stupidity. Well, it didn't win a Pulitzer...yet. But in Dec 2004, NEJM already ran a photo essay and noted surgeron/writer Atul Gawande wrote an *excellent* essay to go with it. And the editors of the NEJM decided to make the content available free to everyone. Essay by Gawande http://content.nejm.org/cgi/reprint/351/24/2471.pdf Photos (WARNING - some of these pictures are very graphic http://content.nejm.org/cgi/reprint/351/24/2476.pdf jh ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] ASTM, was ... Diesel Won't Solve...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: those are very conservative (not in the right-wing sense) numbers. there are already close to 1800 killed, and even mcglaughlin--hardly a liberal or a dove--repeats figures in excess of 25000 for woulded/maimed/incapacitated. Actually, as of 10 Aug 2005, the DoD numbers were: 1819 dead 7163 wounded - return to duty within 72 hrs 6714 wounded - did not return to duty within 72 hrs If McLaughlin his claiming 25,000+ he's either doing one of three things: a) using bad data b) including non-US forces c)implying the DoD is lying. Given the willingness of the Pentagon to openly contradict the Cheney and Rumsfeld spin as needed, I have enough faith in their professionalism to assume these numbers haven't been cooked. The numbers are updated every Tuesday at 10am. http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf jh ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Tax question
Jeremy Farmer wrote: Can anyone help me out here? I am looking into producing Biodiesel for electricity generation. I know the energy bill has a tax incentive, but are there other ones? I read something about a treas. department break for using a renewable source for electricity. Does anyone out there have any more info? Thank you. http://www.dsireusa.org/library/includes/map2.cfm?CurrentPageID=1State=TX jh ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The bad news about Biodiesel
Sten Armstrong wrote: and other bad news: Forests paying the price for biofuels http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18825265.400feedId=online-news * 22 November 2005 * NewScientist.com news service * Fred Pearce THE drive for green energy in the developed world is having the perverse effect of encouraging the destruction of tropical rainforests. From the orang-utan reserves of Borneo to the Brazilian Amazon, virgin forest is being razed to grow palm oil and soybeans to fuel cars and power stations in Europe and North America. And surging prices are likely to accelerate the destruction The rush to make energy from vegetable oils is being driven in part by European Union laws requiring conventional fuels to be blended with biofuels, and by subsidies equivalent to 20 pence a litre. Last week, the British government announced a target for biofuels to make up 5 per cent of transport fuels by 2010. The aim is to help meet Kyoto protocol targets for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. Rising demand for green energy has led to a surge in the international price of palm oil, with potentially damaging consequences. The expansion of palm oil production is one of the leading causes of rainforest destruction in south-east Asia. It is one of the most environmentally damaging commodities on the planet, says Simon Counsell, director of the UK-based Rainforest Foundation. Once again it appears we are trying to solve our environmental problems by dumping them in developing countries, where they have devastating effects on local people. The main alternative to palm oil is soybean oil. But soya is the largest single cause of rainforest destruction in the Brazilian Amazon. Supporters of biofuels argue that they can be carbon neutral because the CO2 released from burning them is taken up again by the next crop. Interest is greatest for diesel engines, which can run unmodified on vegetable oil, and in Germany bio-diesel production has doubled since 2003. There are also plans for burning palm oil in power stations. Until recently, Europe's small market in biofuels was dominated by home-grown rapeseed (canola) oil. But surging demand from the food market has raised the price of rapeseed oil too. This has led fuel manufacturers to opt for palm and soya oil instead. Palm oil prices jumped 10 per cent in September alone, and are predicted to rise 2! 0 per cent next year, while global demand for biofuels is now rising at 25 per cent a year. Roger Higman, of Friends of the Earth UK, which backs biofuels, says: We need to ensure that the crops used to make the fuel have been grown in a sustainable way or we will have rainforests cleared for palm oil plantations to make bio-diesel. Very interesting. Compare the story you forwarded to this one: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200511\NAT20051122a.html Specifically, take note of this part: I am glad that Friends of the Earth is finally recognizing the environmental threat of expanding bio-fuels. That may be the first time that I have ever heard the greens give bio-fuels the scrutiny it deserves, said Dennis Avery of the Hudson Institute's Center for Global Food Issues. Avery described his group as being concerned about feeding as many possible people from as little land as possible in order to save more room for nature. Good farmland is the scarcest resource on this planet and we are already farming 37 percent of Earth's land area to get today's food supply, Avery told Cybercast News Service. Avery slammed world governments for attempting to increase mandates for bio-fuel as an alternative to petroleum. Now, suddenly governments are saying, 'Oh we should have lots of bio-fuel so that we don't have to get oil out of the ground,' but we would have to clear 16 million square miles of forest on the planet if we wanted to make any dent in the demand for petroleum, Avery said. He added that the green movement and world governments need to wake up to the fact that bio-fuels are not a viable energy alternative. Now consider who the Hudson Institute is. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hudson_Institute While I agree that biofuels need to be done sustainably in the long term (as does virtually everyone on this list I'd guess), but this series of articles smells like astroturfing to me. jh ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Anyone have this copy of Nature magazine
Mike Weaver wrote: *Green chemistry: Biodiesel made with sugar catalyst* Masakazu Toda, Atsushi Takagaki, Mai Okamura, Junko N. Kondo, Shigenobu Hayashi, Kazunari Domen, Michikazu Hara Nature 438, 178-178 (10 Nov 2005) Brief Communications Yes, but it doesn't have anything useful for the homebrewer. http://blog.john-hayes.com/misc/biodiesel-sugar.pdf jh ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] ethanol distillation
Kenji James Fuse wrote: Getting off-topic a bit... Any concerns about consistently drinking distilled water? I've heard it can leach minerals from the body. A friend of mine uses a water distiller so I'd like to know more. Kenji Search the archives. It's in there. Short version is: If you get your energy from food rather than photosynthesis, you don't really have much to worry about. jh ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] ethanol industry popping
Greg Gordon of the Star Tribute wrote: Minnesota is the lone state with a 10 percent ethanol mandate, though Hawaii and Montana have enacted similar mandates that have yet to take effect. Minnesota will require 20 percent ethanol content in 2013. Whatchu talking about Willis? New York and Connecticut both require E10 at the pump as part of their MTBE ban. I think, but can't say for sure, that Colorado and California also require E10 as a result of their MTBE bans. jh ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] concerning rabies vaccinations
Mike Weaver wrote: With regards to making up the stories, yes, I said clearly that they we NOT TRUE in the original email. I never presented them as anything other than made up. There is a long history of using made up stories to illustrate a point. The Daily Show. The Onion. Modern Humorist. Not Neccesarily The News and so on. All use fabricated stories to make a point. In fact, that tradition is much older and more literary than the sources you mention. Failure comprehend and understand satire on the part of the reader does not constitute fraud on the part of the writer. I shall now therefore humbly propose my own thoughts, which I hope will not be liable to the least objection. I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout. I do therefore humbly offer it to public consideration that of the hundred and twenty thousand children already computed, twenty thousand may be reserved for breed, whereof only one-fourth part to be males; which is more than we allow to sheep, black cattle or swine; and my reason is, that these children are seldom the fruits of marriage, a circumstance not much regarded by our savages, therefore one male will be sufficient to serve four females. That the remaining hundred thousand may, at a year old, be offered in the sale to the persons of quality and fortune through the kingdom; always advising the mother to let them suck plentifully in the last month, so as to render them plump and fat for a good table. A child will make two dishes at an entertainment for friends; and when the family dines alone, the fore or hind quarter will make a reasonable dish, and seasoned with a little pepper or salt will be very good boiled on the fourth day, especially in winter. -from A Modest Proposal. Jonathan Swift. 1729. jh ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] MadCow additional- Organophosphates, manganese, autism, Mark Purdey, BSE
bob allen wrote: If manganese and/ or phosphate insecticides (just phosmet or all OP insecticides?)were the causative agent for TSE (transmissible spongiform encephalopathy), I have a couple of questions. the disease has been described since the 17th century in sheep and has been observed in humans in New Guinea in the fifties. Surely there were no phosphate insecticides or manganese licks there. Silly Bob. Why let facts get in the way to a good rant against the man... ;) Seriously though, I had the exact same thoughts with regard to scrapie and kuru, but beat me to it. Anyway, for what it is worth, Kuru may have peaked in the 50s/60s, but it was first noted decades before. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_%28disease%29 And scrapie was first described in 1732 (which, to be pedantic, would be the 18th, not 17th century). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrapie In any case, the fact that prion diseases predate insecticides by decades is pretty compelling evidence they aren't the causitive agent. jh ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] fraudulent emails claiming to be from Keith
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: sent several times from the above email. Can someone please explain to me how the email that belongs to Keith be hijacked like this? I don't know enough about email to understand how a name registered to someone can be used. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_fraud#Spoofing jh ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Motorbikes '16 times worse than cars for pollution'
Burak_l wrote: And finally I hope they do not research how much is waisted in car races like formula-1, Lemans endurance etc... Those machines are loud and very very thirsty. Probabily one of them during 1 race pollutes more than a typical rider can manage whole year. With regard to racing, it isn't that black and white. First, you seem to be conflating wasting resources (eg burning lots of fuel) with the amount of pollution produced. They aren't necessarily the same thing. You can burn 10 liters dirtily or you can burn 100 liters cleanly - they are different issues. Second, even if a single team in a single race uses more fuel or pollutes more that a single private individual in an entire year, you're still comparing (for F1) 10 teams (2 cars each) by 19 races to millions of riders/drivers every day over the course of a year. You're talking about a drop in the bucket. On the plus side, racing drives innovation. Consider the FSI engine technology Audi developed for the their R8 LMP (LeMans Prototype) car. Now you can buy lean burning FSI powered cars at Audi dealers. Likewise, the brand new Audi R10 LMP has a V12 TDI powerplant that gets over a 100 hp per liter. That kind of performance out of reliable diesel is amazing. An I expect those advances in diesel technology will show up in VW and Audi dealerships within 5 or 6 years. Racing also has the ability to prove to people that renewables aren't just some crunchy granola lefty tree-hugger pipedream. Demonstrating that renewables can perform is critical in the PR battle with the oil lobby. For example, the IndyRacingLeague - and thus by default, the Indy500 - is switching from methanol to renewable ethanol for the 2007 season. That's a huge win for renewables. As mentioned above, the Audi factory team is running a diesel powered LMP in ALMS this year, although I suspect Audi will be using petrodiesel, at least to start. However, that won't be the only diesel in ALMS this season - D1 Oils plc is sponsoring a biodiesel powered Lola LMP that will run b5, b20 and b50 blends. But yes, on the negative side, racing does waste resources. According to formula1.com, During a typical season a Formula One team will use over 200,000 litres of fuel for testing and racing. That's a lotta fuel. And don't get me started about the the fact that NASCAR still uses leaded gasoline. Still, I think you're throwing the baby out with the bath water and having an emotional reaction to a study you don't like. Small displacement motorcycles don't burn cleanly and pollute a lot. Acknowledge that fact and move on with your life. Don't try to justify it by pointing fingers at someone else. That's just childish. jh ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Better titration Question
Ken Provost wrote: On Jan 2, 2006, at 3:33 PM, Logan Vilas wrote: In the better Titration Method I find it's easier to mix my stock solution with 20grams in 500milliters distilled water. OK -- we now have 4% NaOH soln. That gives .4% w/v lye solution when 5ml is added to 45ml distilled water. Yes, if you add 5ml of your 4% soln. to 45ml of water, you get a 0.4% solution. This is still 4 times the concentration that everyone else uses. By doing this I do not have to divide the titration results. I don't understand what you mean by this. When using a 0.1% soln., the number of milliliters of soln. needed to neutralize 1ml of oil is equal to the number of grams NaOH which must be added to the usual 3.5g per liter of oil. With your 4X solution, you will achieve neutrality at only 1/4 as many milliliters of solution, and thus will need to multiply by four to calculate the proper excess of NaOH. I haven't had any problems yet, but I was wondering if anyone would know of a reason I shouldn't do it? As long as you make the proper multiplication by four, your solution will work fine. Or if there is anyone using this method? I can't see why anyone would. -K Then you seem to have a short memory Ken. Didn't we discuss doing exactly this back in April? http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg45657.html There is a very good reason to use a 0.4% (w/v) titration solution with 4mL of WVO - namely accuracy. By using 4mL of WVO in some volume of isopropanol with 0.4% (w/v) base, you still get a direct relationship between number of mL of base required in the titration and number of grams of lye required per liter for the reaction *AND* you get a more accurate measurement, *without* needing to do any calculations on the bench. Anyway, Logan, to answer your question, yes, some of us (ok, maybe just me) are in fact using a 0.4% (w/v) NaOH titration solution. jh ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] Pataki Wants Drivers to Fill Up With Ethanol or Biodiesel
January 7, 2006 Pataki Wants Drivers to Fill Up With Ethanol or Biodiesel By DANNY HAKIM ALBANY, Jan. 6 - Some 200,000 New Yorkers own vehicles that can run on corn-based ethanol instead of gasoline. But many have no idea that their Ford Explorers, Chevy Impalas or Nissan Titans can use this type of fuel, which some view as a way to liberate Americans from Middle Eastern oil. In any case, the closest station carrying ethanol is in Ottawa, as the Northeast is the one region of the United States that uniformly does not offer ethanol to the public. But Gov. George E. Pataki wants to change that and make ethanol and biodiesel, two controversial alternative fuels, available in the 27 service areas on the New York State Thruway and in 100 more stations throughout the state as early as this year, in a first small step toward reducing the state's petroleum consumption. The governor is also proposing incentives to bring refineries that produce ethanol into the state. Costs and further details of the plan, which Mr. Pataki first sketched out in his State of the State address on Wednesday, will not be disclosed until he makes his budget proposal later this month. If the plan is approved by the Legislature, it will give New Yorkers one of the nation's most diverse ranges of fuel choices. Only Minnesota offers an ethanol-rich blend known as E85 at more than 100 stations. Likewise, biodiesel is offered at only a few hundred of the nation's roughly 180,000 stations. Both fuels can be made from a variety of crops, trees and plant material, and even used grease from fast-food outlets in the case of biodiesel. Ethanol, or grain alcohol, is already mixed with gasoline sold in the New York metropolitan area, but in amounts of about 10 percent. By contrast, E85, as its name suggests, is 85 percent ethanol. Using it is not far-fetched. In Brazil, ethanol made from sugar cane has become a formidable competitor to gasoline. Biodiesel is more commonly sold as B20, a blend of 20 percent biodiesel, with the rest conventional diesel fuel. While ethanol smells like moonshine, a car with biodiesel can smell like cooking French fries through a tailpipe. Both fuels have their share of skeptics and believers. Willie Nelson, for instance, sells his own brand of B20 known as BioWillie and pitches it as an alternative to consuming fuel from the Middle East. The governor's plan comes after the oil price shocks of the last year and frustration with automakers for suing New York for adopting California's greenhouse gas emissions standards for cars. The plan also includes incentives to help the state modify its hybrid-electric vehicles so that the cars can be plugged into stationary outlets to enable them to use even more electricity than fuel, a practice discouraged by the auto industry. Are we supposed to sit around and wait for Detroit to do these things? said Charles G. Fox, a deputy secretary to Mr. Pataki who oversees energy issues, in an interview on Friday. Part of the plan, he said, was aimed at promoting the use of alternative fuels that can be used right away, as opposed to more futuristic fuels like hydrogen. Biodiesel can run in any diesel engine, and several million cars and trucks on the road nationwide can use E85. Criticism of the governor has come from several sides. Peter Iwanowicz, a director of environmental health for the American Lung Association of New York, said the environmental benefits of the two fuels were mixed. Ethanol increases ozone formation, which is obviously harmful for people with lung disease, and biodiesel increases emissions of nitrogen oxide, he said. But a variety of research suggests that the fuels can be environmentally beneficial, depending on how they are produced. Mr. Pataki has been criticized for promoting ethanol because it is made from corn grown in states that include Iowa, which he has been visiting recently to gauge support for a possible presidential run. But even the governor's advisers say that making ethanol from corn is a bad idea and that they prefer using wood or certain kinds of grass. Environmentalists have largely denounced making ethanol-capable vehicles, calling that a boondoggle intended for the agriculture lobby and Detroit. When automakers build cars and trucks that can use ethanol, called flex-fuel vehicles, they earn credits that make it easier to meet fuel-economy regulations, in turn giving them leeway to build more gas-guzzlers. Automakers have also not even told many customers that they own vehicles with such a capability, but Mr. Fox said New York might do so by consulting state records. Consumers can learn if they own one by examining their vehicle identification number as described at www.e85fuel.com. Only about 400 stations nationwide sell E85, and none of them are in the Northeast. On Friday, a gallon of E85 was selling for $1.73 - in part because of subsidies - at a station in Akron,
Re: [Biofuel] Appropriate Technologies Can Benefit Anyone
Michael Redler wrote: Appropriate technologies as a philosophy can benefit anyone, anywhere. I received this from my uncle today: Zero Gravity *When NASA first started sending up astronauts, they quickly discovered that ball-point pens would not work in zero gravity. To combat this problem, NASA scientists spent a decade and $12 billion developing a pen that writes in zero gravity, upside-down, on almost any surface including glass and at temperatures ranging from below freezing to over 300 C. The Russians used a pencil. Your ! taxes are due again--enjoy paying** **them. * Perhaps I'm reading too much into this and should see it simply as an observation about common sense (or the lack thereof). You are reading far too much into it, mainly because it isn't true. http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp jh ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Fw: The Indigo Evolution
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006, Mika Feldmann wrote: But to have a personal conversation with him, one would consider him to be an idiot. I don't know where you get this idea. Einstein was an entertaining public speaker known for his sense of humor. He was also not able to operate a motor vehicle. Not being able and never learning are two very different things. He was born in 1879 - how much opportunity to learn to drive do you think existed for a middle class jew in Germany between say 1900 and 1914? He moved to Princeton, New Jersey in 1933 - if you were 53 and moved to a new country, would you a) take the time to learn to drive or b) hire a driver? I've actually been to Princeton NJ - it is a very walkable small town that has regular train service to New York and Philly. I think you're taking some piece of trivia that isn't even really that interesting in historical context, and trying to twist it to imply something else entirely. jh ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Quackbuster Busted in Court
Garth Kim Travis wrote: Doctors in this country tell people that what they eat makes no difference to their health. Diabetics are told that sugar intake has nothing to do with diabetes. Kim, I don't mean to be harsh, but that is utter and complete horseshit. My sister and her husband, both internists, counsel patients on diet, heart disease and diabetes every single day. Nor are they some wierdos outside the mainstream for doing so. Here is the AMA clinical road map for *dietary* management of adult obesity. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/433/booklet4-1.pdf Here are the ADA clinical practice guidelines for 2006: http://www.diabetes.org/for-health-professionals-and-scientists/cpr.jsp Maybe the white haired country docs in rural Texas are ignorant of current practice recommendations, but I find your sweeping generalization to be overly broad. jh ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Quackbuster Busted in Court
Hey Joe. I'll certainly admit there are physicians who are out of date and out of touch with regard to modern practice guidelines. But getting from there to blanket statements about doctors in this country is a pretty huge leap. With regard to your daughter's pediatrician, if he really believes that a Big Mac is a balanced meal, then he needs to check out the American Academy of Pediatrics practioners guide. Here's the URL if you want to print a copy: http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;117/2/544 However, I suspect what he really said was that a Big Mac can be part of a balanced *diet*. If so, I have no problem whatsoever with that. If you normally eat a diet high in fruits, vegetables and grains and low in saturated fat, then a Big Mac once in while isn't something to be concerned about. As far as nutrition education in med school goes, you need to remember that the first two years of coursework in medical school is just the beginning of a doctor's training. During the 3rd and 4th years, teaching is done at the bedside and in the clinic. Moreover, the diet-health relationship is certainly covered in cardiology, endocrinology and other training programs. My dad is a diabetic so he uses an endocrinologist as his PCP, not a family practice doc. However, if you really need specialized nutrition advice, you should be seeing an registered dietitian, not an MD (or worse yet, some self proclaimed nutritionist). You wouldn't hire a general contractor or handyman to do your plumbing, you'd hire a licensed plumber. If I need nutrition counseling, I want a referral to an RD, since that's what they are trained to do. And a good physician knows when they are outside their area of expertise and provide such a referral. Still, I think that the medical community, as a whole, is well aware of of the importance of diet in health, even if some members have failed to stay up to date. jh Joe Street wrote: Well there are two sides to every story John; I'm here to tell ya I have had discussions with my daughter's pediatrician and he thinks a Big Mac is a balanced meal. I've been told that in medical school the subject of nutrition is covered in one single course and it is mostly about memorizing the function of all the vitamins and how they work in the body. Joe John Hayes wrote: Garth Kim Travis wrote: Doctors in this country tell people that what they eat makes no difference to their health. Diabetics are told that sugar intake has nothing to do with diabetes. Kim, I don't mean to be harsh, but that is utter and complete horseshit. My sister and her husband, both internists, counsel patients on diet, heart disease and diabetes every single day. Nor are they some wierdos outside the mainstream for doing so. Here is the AMA clinical road map for *dietary* management of adult obesity. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/433/booklet4-1.pdf Here are the ADA clinical practice guidelines for 2006: http://www.diabetes.org/for-health-professionals-and-scientists/cpr.jsp Maybe the white haired country docs in rural Texas are ignorant of current practice recommendations, but I find your sweeping generalization to be overly broad. jh ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] A wealth of manuals
Why don't you make a torrent? This is a perfect application. http://www.bittorrent.com/introduction.html jh Chandan Haldar wrote: David, Since you have done so much, may I request you to also put up chooped up 50MB chunks for easier downloading of this monster? It'd certainly help those without reliable uninterrupted connectivity beyond a couple of hours at a time. Thanks a lot. Really appreciate your effort to get this to all. Chandan David Miller wrote: OK! Kirk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) got a full copy of it and we got it onto my server today. If you have winzip, pkzip, or gzip and can uncompress a file, save a bit of bandwidth on the full ISO with: http://renegade.sparks.net/cd3wd.iso.gz (471 MB) If you just need the raw ISO file, click on: http://renegade.sparks.net/cd3wd.iso (694 MB) -- John E Hayes, M.S. Instructor, Dietetics Program, DIET 203 / DIET 215 Doctoral Student, Nutritional Sciences University of Connecticut - 326 Koons Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 860.486.0007 ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Interesting Read
David Miller wrote: Chip Mefford wrote: If anyone knows how to bust an iso image up into 'chunks' that can be reassembled into a workable iso image, please let me know. As for breaking the image up, it's trivial with dd, a standard unix utility. With Windows you're on your own:) I broke it up into 32 MB chunks on renegade: See http://renegade.sparks.net/cd3wd http://renegade.sparks.net/cd3wd/readme gives brief directions on how to reassemble it. Why break it up at all? Distributing large ISOs is practically what BitTorrent was invented for. jh ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Calgary Biodiesel Group
Kirk McLoren wrote: Sulphur is not added as a lubricant. WHere do they get that rubbish? Kirk */Darryl McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED]/* wrote: Biodiesel demand is expected to balloon when a new air pollution law comes into effect in June, dropping the maximum allowable s! ulphur content in diesel fuel to 15 parts per million (ppm) from 500 ppm. Sulphur is added to diesel fuel as an engine lubricant. A two-per-cent addition of biodiesel is considered to have the same lubricating power as 500 ppm of sulphur. You are correct - sulfur is not a lubricant. Rather, it seems to me this misunderstanding is the result of sloppy language and sloppy logic. Some of the industrial processes used to remove sulfur *also* reduce lubricity of the fuel. My understanding is that some low sulfur diesel historically had lubricity related problems for this reason. If you are a mechanic and notice that your customers running LSD have lubricity issues while those that use HSD don't, you might mistakenly conclude that sulfur adds lubricity to the fuel. From that point, the logical leap to the idea that sulfur is *added* to the fuel isn't that far fetched. After all, we did add lead to gasoline for knock until the treehuggers made us stop. ;) jh ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] US Fuel Efficiency Truth-in-Advertising Act
Rating on any Golf or Jetta diesel is 46 mpg. But everyone I know who keeps their's in good repair get 50-52 mpg combined city and highway (60 mph), even in metropolitan areas. Leave the baseline alone and let the whiners and fools eventually figure out that the supposed mis-truth in advertising resides in the broken linkage between their brain and their foot. My 03 TDI (5sp) gets 46mpg lifetime. I track every fillup in a logbook that then gets entered in a spreadsheet. Out of 90 or so tanks, only a handful have broken 50 mpg. I've gotten never gotten anywhere close to 60 mpg. I try to keep tire pressure up around 40 psi, but I also use the full powerband (no lugging) to keep the variable vane turbo from sticking. Not complaining mind you, since I'm still getting 50% better mileage than my wife's Civic, but I don't want an potential TDI owners expecting 50+ mpg as the norm. Like they say your mileage may vary. jh ___ 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] US Fuel Efficiency Truth-in-Advertising Act
absolute sense. However, nor am I willing to concede that slower is always safer as the 'speed kills' lobby would have us believe. First, I'd like to suggest that you're ignoring the effect of speed differentials on safety; someone that is driving 20 mph faster *or* slower than everyone else disrupts traffic and is a threat to safety. On my daily commute, the typical speed of traffic is somewhere in the mid to upper 70s. You can get away with 70 in the far right lane, but even then, you have a good chance of forcing people to go around you. Sixty is out of the question without being a rolling roadblock. Second, the argument that you can just look farther ahead and go around the slow moving car, buick or otherwise, fails pretty quickly around here for 3 reasons: poor lane discipline, congestion and frequent high speed on-ramps. Idiots, young or old, that fail to keep right and cruise in the left or center lanes at speeds well below the flow of traffic can block up traffic and cause plenty of near misses. I see it weekly if not daily. Sure, you can argue that the lane discipline, not slow speed, is the primary cause and you'd be right. But even if they do keep right, which they don't, they can still seriously jam things up because of the highspeed onramps. Hitting the end of a ramp at 75 so you can merge safey only to hit the brakes because of the guy in front of you is doing 55 is no fun at all. You may see this entire post as a rationalization to speed. Me? I think not causing accidents is worth a couple of mpg. jh Appal Energy wrote: I believe this pretty well sums a lot up... i drive a 'safe' speed as determined by the speed limits and the flow of traffic at the time. safety trumps gas mileage for me and i've seen plenty of old folks in buicks driving slow (and i'm sure getting great gas mileage) and ultimately being the cause of accidents they so determinedly attempt to avoid. in portland You let the flow of traffic and a rectangular black and white sign dictate how you should drive, rather than you - the driver - exercising fair and somewhat uncommon sense? Safety trumps gas mileage? Since when can't a person have both? Faster doesn't mean safer, or at least not in the absolutist manner that you're somewhat implying. And old folks in buicks driving slow is one heuckuva lame excuse and disproportionally overblown stereotypical (un)rantionale for not exercising prudent sense in the achievement of good fuel economy. I reckon young folks don't drive buicks, cause accidents or drive questionably either? If you're eyes in in such a state that you can't see a slower moving buick in front of you, then don't you think that you ought to be first in line at the vision counter? Most blue hairs I know have better driving habits than two thirds of the driving population. Maybe they know something that most young folks don't yet? As for traffic light timing? You misread what I wrote, which was for the driver to time traffic lights. Funny thing about traffic lights and cars stopped at them. You can't go any faster than they do. Makes a fair bit of sense to keep the car rolling as best as possible until they start moving, rather than coming to a complete stop and burning extra fuel on another takeoff. Funny thing about clutches. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: B. Nostrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 8:41 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] US Fuel Efficiency Truth-in-Advertising Act lets get specific! i don't accelerate to a stop. i try and accelerate as gently and gradually as the vehicle allows (given its' propensity to lunge, due to the lack of sensitivity in the sender.) i leave plenty of space between myself and vehicles in front of me. it's absolutely true about braking points but i drive a 'safe' speed as determined by the speed limits and the flow of traffic at the time. safety trumps gas mileage for me and i've seen plenty of old folks in buicks driving slow (and i'm sure getting great gas mileage) and ultimately being the cause of accidents they so determinedly attempt to avoid. in portland, or. where i live the lack of accurately timed traffic lights is a frustration! they can't seem to get they're act together and time the lights to the speed limit. that presents itself as an unremediable problem (unfortunately.) the vehicle, ultimately is very heavy. start and stop traffic in a city of this size is unavoidable. mileage improves a bit when service stations remove the smog prevention additives in the summer (from 13-15mpg to 15-17mpg.) not much can be done about all the hills that have to be climbed here. our absolute best mileage on the highway was just under 22mpg coming down the east side of the mountains out of yosemite. our worst is right around 13 mpg with all city driving and no freeway mixed in whatsoever. the vehicle just weighs to much to be very efficient
Re: [Biofuel] Bad news for Diesel driver
Don't know about the rest but you should be aware that the VW engine has a very serious design fault. If the timing belt breaks the engine will be destroyed. I don't know why vw didn't shorten the valve stems and recess the valves in the head, and maybe recess a small area over the piston so the valves would not make contact with piston and destroy the engine if teh timing belt failed. That just happened to me, I had less than two thousand kms on a new belt and the technician said that snow probaply got behind the belt causing the motor to go out of time. It cost me over $2000.00 dollars to fix. On the other hand I have had a vw engine go 1,000,000 km without problems before giving up and I really don't think it was a fault with the engine that it finally gave in. Is the mechanic that gave you the snow behind the belt excuse the same one that changed out the Timing Belt 2000km ago? Frankly, I'd suspect that he didn't have the proper tools and botched the job and now he's trying to cover his butt. It's well known that you should never use the mark and pray method on a TDI. http://forums.tdiclub.com/showflat.php?Cat=0Number=927828page=fpart=allvc=1 Also, it's worth mentioning that this isn't a design flaw, let alone a serious one. It's simply a characteristic of all interference engine designs. To call it a design flaw is like saying gasoline engines are flawed because they have spark plugs. Audi, Honda, Volvo, VW and others have been using interference designs for over 25 years. In fact, most high compression engines are interference designs. Here's a list. *'s Indicate interference engines. http://www.gates.com/downloads/download_common.cfm?file=TimingBeltReplacePages.pdffolder=brochure jh ___ 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] (Biofuel)[Fwd: Re: soybeanoil a bad choice for BD making?]
Know of any good anti-oxidants that are readily available? The reason I ask, is that it might not be a bad idea to use some with mystery oil. BHA (Butylated hydroxyanisole), BHT (Butylated hydroxytoluene), and TBHQ (Tertiary Butyl Hydroquinone) are all food grade antioxidants that are readily available. ___ 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] Biodiesel additives
Sorry for the repetition of this question but my mailbox got trashed! Someone posted some information a week or so ago about what chemicals to add to biodiesel to prevent oxidation. Any chance of a repeat of the chemicals in question and also if anyone knows where they can be obtained? I tried www.biofuelsystems.com but I have had no reply to emails or fax's. Regards Chris Bennett.. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Read the 2 lines of text directly above this one. Why don't you try looking there? :) jh ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Dr Mercola
I trust Dr Mercola far more than I do the FDA. If you have been reading his articles over the last few years, you will see that he's forthright and sincere. Any claim that he makes can be backed up with real science. *snort* Pull the other one. Real science, as you put it, requires a) systematic methods to prevent bias and, generally, b) peer review. With regard to health, these methods may involve experimental (Randomized Controlled Trials) or non-experimental (Observation with appropriate statistical controls) designs. Anedotal try it for 2 weeks and see if you feel better evidence is neither and just *begs* for confirmation bias. http://skepdic.com/confirmbias.html Nor do I mean to suggest peer review is perfect by any means. As a human activity, it certainly suffers from the politics and pettiness inherent to any human activity. However, it still provides a *critical* set of checks and balances on testable claims. A self published newsletter lacks these checks and balances. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review While I think of it, real science requires a 3rd element -- the lack of a conflict of interest. Selling sensational books and supplements certainly fails this requirement. As far as whether or not you trust Mercola over the FDA, I'll simply quote Dick Taverne: Science, like art, is not a democractic activity. Further reading. http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/eletters/168/7/831-b#948 http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20020814/msgs/116830.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_science ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] CAFE vs ANWR
I always figured that the smarter move security wise for the USA was to purchase our petroleum needs from others as long as they willing to sell it and we afford it, saving our reserves for future use. Oil is fungible commodity. This idea that we are somehow using up their oil now while saving our oil for a later date is flawed. The oil will flow to the highest bidder, period. And even if we could restrict ANWR oil to the US only, at current usage rates, we'd burn through the whole lot of it in in 6 months. So implement rationing you say? Don't you think being limited to X gallons a week will be much less painful if we're all driving cars that get 40 mpg instead of 27.5mpg? But anyway, oil isn't just gonna magically run out one day at which point we tap into ANWR and say oh well, time to conserve. Instead, the situation we're in is like frog soup: you put a flog into a pan of cold water and slowy turn up the heat. The heat increases so slowly the frog never jumps out of the pan. Result? One cooked frog. Drilling in ANWR is like throwing a couple of ice cubes in the pan while I'm advocating turning down the heat. The promotion of conservation would be a wise security move as well, I agree. Silly me the money is made from sales, not conservation, why would corporatism embrace conservation? Doug, that's exactly the point of my analysis. The car companies will *never* increase efficiency unless the regulatory environment forces them to. Instead, they build minivans that have more power than a 20 year old muscle car. People today think 30 mpg is good - my beater 1986 Golf got 30 mpg. But energy is clearly a national security issue, and has been for at least the last 30 years. We're repeatedly told that 9/11 changed everything, so why is it business as usual? All that having been said, I could support ANWR drilling *if* it was part of a total energy plan that included more efficient use and an aggressive renewable energy standard. But ANWR in isolation is a bandaid jh at best. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] CAFE vs ANWR
1. Why is diesel fuel so much more expensive in the US? In MA, it costs at least 10% more, reducing its advantage. John, two quick comments: a) over the course of a year, diesel is NOT more expensive than gasoline. Diesel is more in the winter (when demand for home heating oil is high) but much lower in the summer. Averaged over the year, diesel and gas are within a penny of each other per gallon. b) Even if diesel were more, it would have to be a *lot* more to negate the advantage. Consider two VWs; if the gasoline version gets 30 mpg and the diesel gets 45 mpg, and gas were $2/gal, then the diesel would come out ahead until diesel exceeded $3/gal. Even if diesel were $.50 more all year round, you'd still be saving money. Unfortunately, 'Merkins ain't so good at math. jh ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] CAFE vs ANWR
I have a friend that lives in the NE US, and he too told me about the MA state ban on diesel sales! I wouldn't have beleived it otherwise! It's all politics and economics, aka oil companies. To be clear, there is no ban on diesel sales in MA or any other Northeast state. Very briefly, there are 2 sets of emissions standards in the US, Federal and California. States may not set their own standards: they can only choose to follow the looser Federal standard or stricter California Air Resources Board (CARB) standards. Different rules apply to lights trucks and vehicles over 8500 lbs. California, New York, Massachusetts, Vermont, Rhode Island and Maine currently follow the CARB standard. New Jersey and Connecticut have legislation in place to adopt CARB rules within the next 2 or 3 years. In short, there is no antidiesel conspiracy. It's just that no automaker currently makes a car that can meet the CARB NOx requirements. Thus, you cannot buy a diesel passenger car in CA, NY, MA, VT or RI. The hope is that cleaner Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel due in Sept 2006 will allow the use of advanced NOX reduction systems, which will in turn allow automakers to meet CARB NOx standards. jh ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] diesel, is it cleaner?
Hi Andrew Tracy. There is a Swedish survey performed by Motor Test Center, in which FAME is compared with Swedish diesel oil Mk 1 and other similar fuels. The survey is focusing on the cancerogenity of the particulants of the fuel respectively. The results suggest that the semi-violate phase from biodiesel is more carcinogenic than the correspondent from diesel fuel. But, on the other hand that phase is much smaller from biodiesel than from diesel fuel, so it makes diesel fuel more dangerous anyway. http://www.mtc.se/eng/freport.htm Emissions from Use of RME Compared to Environmental Class 1 Diesel Fuel in a HD Vehicle It should be pointed out that this report has not brought much attention to itself. Best regards Jan Is that the infamous frying pan study? Anyway, I'd counter that the US DoE/USDA research finds that pure biodiesel reduces exhaust carcinogenicity by 94% while B20 reduces it by 27%. Here's the 2 page flyer - don't have the url to the full report handy. http://www.eere.energy.gov/cleancities/blends/pdfs/5450.pdf jh ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] US Ethanol Price
What is the price range and availability of ethanol in the US Florida to be exact? http://www.e85fuel.com/database/search.php ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] biodiesel vs diesel data request
Folks, I have a statistics project due for class (im a spoh in college) and i need some data. Here is the US DOE/USDA biodiesel lifecycle report: http://devafdc.nrel.gov/pdfs/3812.pdf Virtually all the other pamphlets and fact sheets you'll find in the US (and elsewhere?) are based on this report. jh ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
[Biofuel] Titration question
Our Appleseed derived testbed reactor is now operational, and our longterm goal is to automate the heck out of the thing. Thus, I was pondering about how to automatically meter the correct amount of sodium methoxide into the reactor. My partner in crime is the electrical engineer in charge of that end of things, so I just need to figure out the chemistry bit. Anyway, if the pH of the diluted WVO is available, is titration still neccessary? That is, could one construct a simple conversion table wherein a sample pH of X requires Y grams of NaOH per liter? My gut tells me no, but I'm too many years removed from analytical chem to put my finger on why. I did find the following reference that suggests a titration free method is possible, albeit difficult: Kuselman et al. pH-metric determination of the acid value of vegetable oils without titration. J AOAC Int. 1998 Jul-Aug;81(4):873-9. Any thoughts? jh ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come(Finally an eye is opening)
This is great ... finally we are making sense. The WMD is not the issue. This is what I have said all along. People miss the big picture. Suddam Hussein was the weapon of mass destruction. 100% agreed. KS Only two problems with that: a) Iraq was a sovereign nation. We do not have the right, either legally or morally, to depose an entire regime just because we don't like the leader. If you want to insist on a standard international litmus test to identify rogue leaders that need deposing because they legitimately threaten global security, then I'd actually agee with you. Thing is, Hussein did not meet that standard. b) Your statement is revisionist history. Congress authorized the President to use force against Iraq because Iraqi WMDs were thought to represent an imminent threat to national security. Congress did not authorize force because Saddam was a bad person. If we are a nation governed by the rule of law, then the end does NOT justify the means. You really don't want to live in a world where nations run around killing or toppling leaders they don't like. jh ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come(Finally an eye is opening)
John, I agree with what you say, but I did NOT write that!!! Sheesh Oops. Very sorry Keith. I know you didn't write that. That's what I get for hastily replying while I'm waiting for the coffee to finish brewing. Again. Sorry about that. jh ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [OFF TOPIC] Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come
The US involvement in the fighting in Europe was not pivotal to the outcome. Clearly any good student of history knows that US losses in Europe during WWII were completely drawfed by those of Germany and Russian, but to claim that US involvement in the fighting in Europe was not pivotal to the outcome of the war is utterly assinine. Maybe June 6th 1944 rings a bell? Do I believe the Hollywood myth that corn fed American farm boys singlehandedly swooped it to pull the Allies chesnuts from the fire? Of course not. But Germany certainly could have thrown more forces at the Russians if not for Normandy and Italy. In case you forgot, US forces liberated Rome just 2 days before DDay. In fact, at the time of the Normandy invasion, the Italian campaign tied up 26 German divisions that could have been otherwise used as reinforcements. Not pivotal? I'd have to disagree. jh ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [OFF TOPIC] Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come
The US involvement in the fighting in Europe was not pivotal to the outcome. Clearly any good student of history knows that US losses in Europe during WWII were completely drawfed by those of Germany and Russian, but to claim that US involvement in the fighting in Europe was not pivotal to the outcome of the war is utterly asinine. Do I believe the Hollywood myth that corn fed American farm boys singlehandedly swooped it to pull the Allies chestnuts from the fire? Of course not. But maybe June 6th 1944 rings a bell? Germany certainly could have thrown more forces at the Russians if not for Normandy and Italy. Indeed, when US forces liberated Rome just 2 days before D Day, the Italian campaign was tying up 26 German divisions that could have otherwise been used as reinforcements. Not pivotal? I beg to differ. jh ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
[Biofuel] More titration questions
this one: http://www.kimble-kontes.com/html/pg-620F.html and it came already loaded with 0.1 N NaOH. I didn't really feel like dumping it out and making some fresh 0.1% w/v NaOH so I pulled out a pencil and some scrap paper. A quick calculation reveals that 0.1 Normal NaOH is a 0.4% w/v solution. Thus, whatever my titration amount is in mL, I need to multiple with value by 4 to get the number of grams of NaOH per liter WVO. But then I was thinking, if I dissolve 4mL of WVO in 40mL of isopropanol, and titrate with the 0.1N NaOH solution, then the volume of NaOH required should equal the number of grams required per liter of WVO directly. Other than using a little more isopropanol, anyone see any problems with this approach? jh ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] More titration questions
on 4/8/05 7:46 PM, John Hayes at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A quick calculation reveals that 0.1 Normal NaOH is a 0.4% w/v solution. Thus, whatever my titration amount is in mL, I need to multiple with value by 4 to get the number of grams of NaOH per liter WVO. But then I was thinking, if I dissolve 4mL of WVO in 40mL of isopropanol, and titrate with the 0.1N NaOH solution, then the volume of NaOH required should equal the number of grams required per liter of WVO directly. You're confused about the definition of molarity (or normality). Rather than get hopelessly entangled in Avogadro's number, let's just agree that if you dissolve 1 ml of oil in any random amount of alcohol, and titrate it against 0.1% NaOH solution (NOT 0.1N !!), the number of ml of solution required to neutralize the oil will be the number of grams of NaOH needed per liter of oil to neutralize the free fatty acids. (i.e. -- 0.1% means one thousandth, and 1ml of oil is one thousandth of one liter of oil.) You lost me with the factor of 4 part -- just stick with the previous paragraph :-) Actually, Ken, I don't think I am. Let me try to break down my logic into smaller steps: a) you can skip steps b-d if you remember that normality and molarity are equal for monoprotic and monobasic reagents. I didn't at first. b) Normality is defined as number of gram equivalents per liter of water. c) Gram equivalents is equal to the molecular weight divided by the number of replaceable hydrogen or hydroxide ions. d) Sodium hydroxide only has one OH- ion and has a molecular weight of 40. Thus, 1N NaOH = 40g of NaOH per liter water. e) The JtF titration page says to dissolve 1g of lye in 1 liter of water to form a 0.1% lye solution. (Note: this really should say a 0.1% (w/v) solution. 0.1% lye is unclear - it could mean (w/w), (w/v) or (v/v).) f) Anyway, by definition: 1g NaOH / L = 0.1% (w/v) = 0.025M NaOH = 0.025N NaOH g) In contrast, my titrator came loaded with 0.1 Normal NaOH. h) Thus, my titrator is loaded with a 0.4% (w/v) solution. i) If I titrate the FFAs with a base 4 times as strong, I'll only need a 1/4th as much. Thus, I need multiple the volume of base needed by 4 to determine the correct amount of lye needed per liter of oil. j) However, under the JtF Better Titration section, it suggests that 1mL of WVO is too hard to measure accurately and you might want to try to measure a larger volume and then divide to obtain the correct amount of lye required per liter. k) Indeed, coincidentally, the example given is one of dissolving 4mL WVO in 40mL isopropanol. However, because you then need to neutralize 4 times as much FFA with your base, you need to divide by 4 to get the proper amount of lye required per liter. So where does that leave us: If you combined i and k, you see the two adjustment factors will cancel out, right? In other words, by using 4mL of WVO in 40mL with 0.4% (w/v) base, you're getting the exact same result as 1mL of WVO in 40mL with 0.1% (w/v) base, namely a direct relationship between number of mL of base required and number of grams of lye required per liter. Furthermore, you get a more accurate measure, *without* needing to do any calculations on the bench. That, and I don't have to dump the 0.1N NaOH already in my titrator. :) jh ps. maybe I'm being a pedant but Keith, do you think you could change 0.1% lye to 0.1% (w/v) lye on the JtF titration page? ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] The Lutec over unity device
Evolution is not science, it's a worldview that fits a set of religious beliefs and as such is really only a religious precursor. Certainly not science. And what of the fact that I can place selective pressure on bacteria in a culture and get them to evolve a new trait, like, oh say, antibotic resistance? And then I can publish how I did it, and then Bob, who is 1000 miles away, can replicate it exactly, without us ever having met or spoken? Not science you say? I beg to differ. jh ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: Algae - was Re: [Biofuel] Gasoline Prices
source. I have seen several references to it but haven't investigated as of yet. It seems you could use all kinds of land not currently used for agriculture. Would you like me to supply some links? Mike Briggs at UNH is at the forefront of this work. http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: Algae - was Re: [Biofuel] Gasoline Prices
Hello John Mike Briggs at UNH is at the forefront of this work. http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html So people keep saying, and they've been saying it for quite awhile, but I don't see anything coming out of it other than this one article. Mike has made some coy references at tdiclub that suggest that a commercial venture may be in the works, but yes, the silence is rather deafening, isn't it. Here's an interesting 3rd party financial analysis of Mike's algae paper. Well, it's interesting for us 'Merkins, anyway. :) http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/biodiesel.html jh ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] US Takes the Lead in Trashing Planet
One may think this argument is silly (and feel free to criticize - especially if the facts are off. However, if the facts are off, please cite sources for correct facts!) However, this leads me to think that since so much CO2 production is unavoidable (breathing is a right:-)), maybe we should focus on increasing CO2 absorption instead of decreasing output. Michael. The problem isn't with your calculations. Instead, I think the problem occurs because you haven't distinguished between carbon that way already part of the carbon cycle, and carbon that was sequestered underground for millions of years. That is, the problem with carbon emissions isn't the total amount emitted, but rather the amount of additional carbon introduced into the system every year. jh ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] End of cheap oil is a blessing
There was a table in the article showing the number of occupant deaths per 100,000 vehicles sold. The lowest? Toyota Camry and VW Jetta. The highest, Ford F-150 if I remember correctly. Among the highest was also the Explorer, Chevy Tahoe, etc. The moral of the story? Avoiding an accident offers the greatest survivability, and this ability makes smaller vehicles safer. Sorry, but your big SUV is not the bastion of safety you believe. It is more of a lumbering deathtrap when the reality of the situation is examined. Are you thinking of this report? AN ANALYSIS OF TRAFFIC DEATHS BY VEHICLE TYPE AND MODEL Marc Ross, University of Michigan, Physics Department Tom Wenzel, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory March 2002 Report Number T021 I have a copy on my laptop. Let me know if you cannot find a copy via google. Here's an graphic based on the data in the report. http://blog.john-hayes.com/misc/suv-safe.jpg jh ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Re: hydrogen fire place
Who is they? Where was this being done? Without those trivial little details, your message does little to increase the signal to noise ratio on the list. jh JD2005 wrote: Hi Bob; There's not anything much more to add only that they were putting mildly radioactive material in washing powder to make the laundry dry more quickly.:-) JD2005 - Original Message - From: bob allen whoa doggies, could you elaborate on this a little? JD2005 wrote: I do not agree with the utilisation of water to get wasser stoff (hydrogen) but it is possible to dissociate water with radioactive material such as they are putting in washing power these days to make laundry dry more quickly. JD2005 - Original Message - From: bob allen I guess if you ran the electrolysis device in your living room to recover the lost heat, but still there have to be better ways to provide space heat. It would be just as efficient and a lot cheaper to run a bare nichrome wire for heat. Alt.EnergyNetwork wrote: I would think that you could power the electrolizer with PV or a wind generator regards tallex Alternate Energy Resource Network 1000+ news sources-resources updated daily http://www.alternate-energy.net ---Original Message--- From: Kirk McLoren [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Biofuel] hydrogen fire place Sent: 25 Apr 2005 21:01:21 If your electrolyzer is 50% efficient then half the power is lost. I guess they are thinking they can make hydrogen in the daytime and burn it at night. A battery and a heatpump would be enormously more efficient. Michael Redler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:OK, I did some poking around and had a little trouble finding a Watt-hr/BTU value for hydrogen production using electrolysis. Does anyone have a link with some stats? Mike Kirk McLoren wrote: Supplemental oxygen is mandatory in an unvented heater in most cases. Otherwise the oxygen level would get very low. Most ventless heaters are cycling on their low oxygen sensor as a result. Ventless heaters are cheap, thus the appeal. They are not of much use north of say Georgia. Besides, low oxygen levels are a VERY BAD idea. Kirk Alt.EnergyNetwork wrote: Hi all, This is interesting - a hydrogen fireplace. Uses standard electrolysis of water. You still have to use electricity for it to work so it is definately not free heat but it doesn't need any venting so it can be easily installed. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ -- Bob Allen http://ozarker.org/bob Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves Richard Feynman --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/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/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ -- John E Hayes, M.S. Instructor, Dietetics Program, DIET 203 / DIET 215 Doctoral Student, Nutritional Sciences University of Connecticut - 326 Koons Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 860.486.0007 ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Re: Life after the oil crash
production would fail to keep pace with demand... ...back in 1798. Seriously, even if cheap oil runs out, we are not heading toward some Malthusian crisis, because end of the world types since Malthus have ignored that ability of human beings to innovate when faced with an incentive to do so. The earth is not a closed system energywise - the sun pumps a metric assload of energy into the system every single day. As long as we can figure out an energy source that is net positive, we'll be fine. And guess what, both ethanol and biodiesel are net postive. Here's a novel idea - we'll run the tractors to harvest the crops on the biodiesel we make with the crops. Anyway, will the shift away from cheap fossil fuels cause economic disruption? Certainly. But we aren't all heading toward a Mad Max-esque dystopia where we fight over cans of dog food either. And just for the record, it isn't Keith's list to decide what's important, or not... Rather, your post was poorly received because we've because we've dealt with this meretricious crap before, hence Keith's pointer to the archive. Specifically, both the issue of ethanol energy balance and arable land have been repeatedly addressed on the list. Yet, sites like after the oil crash continue their worthless scaremongering. jh mike wrote: I only posted this one because it's a somewhat different perspective than what you have posted in your resources section, especially if you take the effort to read the 2nd page. It's a lot more realistic, but if that bores you that's OK too. It's your list; you decide what's important, or not... m-- mike wrote: A very engaging and sobering evaluation of the inevitable future we must come to grips with very soon. http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net Life After the Oil Crash Deal with Reality, or Reality will Deal with You Too true, the last bit. Otherwise... yawn. Yawn on two counts: for the book itself, and because we've had it all before, a couple of times. Eg.: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/41284/1 Re: [Biofuel] Peak Oil Cosmic Questions No harm in posting it again, but: List resources Please make use of the resources listed at the Biofuel list home page: http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Especially the searchable list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ The archives contains more than 38,000 [45,000 now] messages over nearly five years. The question you want to ask or the topic you're interested in has probably already been covered. That's no reason not to ask it again, but if you know what's gone before you'll ask a better question and get better answers. -- From: List rules http://wwia.org/pipermail/biofuel/Week-of-Mon-20040906/05.html Keith Addison Journey to Forever KYOTO Pref., Japan http://journeytoforever.org/ Biofuel list owner ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ -- John E Hayes, M.S. Instructor, Dietetics Program, DIET 203 / DIET 215 Doctoral Student, Nutritional Sciences University of Connecticut - 326 Koons Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 860.486.0007 ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
[Biofuel] Improving Peer Review
http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v8/n4/pdf/nn0405-397.pdf jh ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Iran's Nuclear Program
Chris Lloyd wrote: Why a war if it is only to remove the enrichment facilities, Israel just nipped across the border and blew up Iraq’s nuclear site. I’m sure a few missiles fire from off shore would do the job. But that does mean they would still control their own oil. Chris. After the Osirak raid, I suspect the Iranians might be better prepared today than than the Iraqis were in '81. But yes, an air strike and an invasion are two very different things. http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/docs/41osi.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/7/newsid_3014000/3014623.stm jh ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] What has the world come to
Is the source for this correct ? It might be good to cite the source if we are going to assasinate not only a living person but also a man's character. If you have the original source for this information then maybe we should post it here to help clear this up. Just a thought... Clif I JUST heard it on NPR! Here's the quote: http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?feed=TopNewsarticle=UPI-1-20050823-09170200-bc-us-robertson.xml I to sadly have heard the quote out of his own mouth. I have also heard his contrite apology. Unfortunately we all say things in the moment we later regret. Two things are true in this world.. There is a God ... And I am not Him. I cannot speak to another man's salvation. It is regretable that men who are called men of God still have some of the old nature in them. Fortunately the process of sanctification is an ongoing process much like our process here to find the perfect method creating good fuel. May Mr. Robertson consider this episode part of his refining. Clif Clif, you're still being an apologist for Robertson. First you question the source and imply that his character is being assassinated, and now, when faced with the statement straight from the horse's mouth, you dissemble and imply that it's really ok because we're all just God's imperfect creatures and it's alright because he said he was sorry. If Robertson is so sorry, why is he blantantly LYING about what he said? I thought christians of his ilk were all about taking personal responsibility? I find any contrite apology rather thin when only *yesterday* he was still claiming he was misinterpreted. Why did he go on the air yesterday and claim he never used the word assassinate when Monday's video clearly shows he did? Refining my ass. The man is a lying hypocrite and you know it. jh August 24, 2005 Robertson Apologizes but Says He Was 'Misinterpreted' By LAURIE GOODSTEIN The Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson issued a statement today apologizing for his televised remarks calling for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. Is it right to call for assassination? he said in the statement. No, and I apologize for that statement. I spoke in frustration that we should accommodate the man who thinks the U.S. is out to kill him. But Mr. Robertson was far from apologetic on his television show today, instead insisting that he had been been misinterpreted by The Associated Press and that he had never used the word assassination. I said our special forces should 'take him out.' 'Take him out' could be a number of things, including kidnapping, Mr. Robertson told his audience on the show The 700 Club today. The video from Monday's telecast, easily available on the internet, shows Mr. Robertson saying of the Venezuelan president: If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don't think any oil shipments will stop. Mr. Robertson went on at length about Mr. Chávez, suggesting that covert operatives could do the job and then get it over with. Political and religious leaders continued to denounce Mr. Robertson today. The World Evangelical Alliance issued a statement saying, Robertson does not speak for evangelical Christians. We believe in justice and the protection of human rights of all people, including the life of President Chavez. On Tuesday, Mr. Robertson's comments were denounced by both the State Department and by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. In Caracas, Mr. Robertson was criticized by the vice president of Venezuela, and in Havana by President Fidel Castro. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Cindy Sheehan: Still Not Worth It
Appal Energy wrote: No, Casey's sacrifice was not worth it and George needs to do more than wave his flag and manipulate our sense of patriotism. He needs to march his girls to a recruitment center and send them to Iraq to fight the terrorists that his moronic and callous foreign policies have recruited or he needs to wake up and smell the apple pie and bring our other sons and daughters home, now! Ditto. I was getting my haircut in New Haven on Tuesday and walked past a Yalie watering hole Barbara is known to frequent. On a telephone pole out front, there were 2 photos of injured Iraq War vets. With the photos was a sign that read something to the effect of Is it in poor taste to ask why Barbara and Jenna haven't enlisted yet? jh ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Apartment dwellers - was Re: (no subject)
In the US, fuel jugs are color-coded - red for gas, yellow for diesel and if, I remember correctly, blue for kerosene. Of course, in the vast majority of cases, the same polymer is used for all three so you can certainly substitute one for another safetywise. As to whether dispensing locations (eg gas stations/distributers) will give you a hard time about using the wrong color, I can't comment. I've had good luck finding yellow jugs locally at Home Depot. Yeah, it's big box retail, but at least it isn't Walmart. If you want to look online, try searching froogle.google.com using the phrase diesel can or blitz jug Good luck! jh Mike Weaver wrote: Dunno on the cans but some places won't let you put Diesel in a gas can. I'm pretty new here. Hello all: Question: 1. Is there a requirement to use a red gas can for biofuel (yellow for diesel)? Never heard of it, but I guess it depends where you are. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Cindy Sheehan: Still Not Worth It
John Hayes wrote: I was getting my haircut in New Haven on Tuesday and walked past a Yalie watering hole Barbara is known to frequent. On a telephone pole out front, there were 2 photos of injured Iraq War vets. With the photos was a sign that read something to the effect of Is it in poor taste to ask why Barbara and Jenna haven't enlisted yet? jh Clif Caldwell wrote: As a former Air Force officer I am want to weigh in on this ... but I'd rather ask where I can find a source for a cheap centrifugal pump and reasonable carboy containers ... A slightly cowed, Clif Clif. My sister and her husband are both Majors with the 48th MDG USAF and my wife's best friend is CO of the 514th Med Evac USA. Thank you for your service. I hope you didn't take my comments to be anti-service, as they were certainly not intended as such. However, the rallying cry of support our troops should not, and need not be a codeword for blind allegience to our civilian leadership. As far a pumps go, I can't help other than to suggest Northern Tool. http://www.northerntool.com/ Regarding carboys, check out US Plastic. http://www.usplastic.com/ jh ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Another use for glycerine
Nancy Canning wrote: Propylene glycol as it is used tons and tons of products including industrial cleaners, shampoo's, toothpaste, creams, etc. It is very toxic, the industry even has it in children's prescriptions. Wonder if this type of propylene glycol has less poison/carcinogenic toxicity qualities vrs what is out there right now? Anybody have any info? Nancy. You are mistakenly confusing ethylene glycol with propylene glycol. Both can be used as antifreeze or deicers, but they have very different metabolic fates in the body. Thus, ethylene glycol is toxic while propylene glycol is food safe. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp96-c1.pdf jh ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Sept 1 declared no buy gas day
You all probably know this, but in case some don't, the following can help in choosing which ones you might decide to boycott: Major companies that import Middle Eastern oil : Shell. 205,742,000 barrels Chevron/Texaco. 144,332,000 barrels Exxon /Mobil... 130,082,000 barrels Marathon/Speedway... 117,740,000 barrels Amoco62,231,000 barrels Some large companies that do not import Middle Eastern oil: Citgo...0 barrels Sunoco.0 barrels Conoco.0 barrels Sinclair.0 barrels BP/Phillips0 barrels Hess0 barrels ARCO...0 barrels All of this information is available from the Department of Energy and each is required to state where they get their oil and how much they are importing. *sigh* Yet another hoax. First of all, the numbers are flat out wrong. Second, even if they were correct, oil is a fungible commodity, rendering any such boycott meaningless. http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/saudigas.asp jh ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Another use for glycerine
Nancy Canning wrote: - Original Message - From: John Hayes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2005 10:01 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Another use for glycerine Nancy Canning wrote: Propylene glycol as it is used tons and tons of products including industrial cleaners, shampoo's, toothpaste, creams, etc. It is very toxic, the industry even has it in children's prescriptions. Wonder if this type of propylene glycol has less poison/carcinogenic toxicity qualities vrs what is out there right now? Anybody have any info? Nancy. You are mistakenly confusing ethylene glycol with propylene glycol. Both can be used as antifreeze or deicers, but they have very different metabolic fates in the body. Thus, ethylene glycol is toxic while propylene glycol is food safe. What is Propylene Glycol? Propylene Glycol (PG, Polyethylene Glycol (PEG), Butylene Glycol (BG) and Ethylene Glycol (EG) are all petroleum derivatives that act as solvents, surfactants, and wetting agents. They can easily penetrate the skin, and can weaken protein and cellular structure. In fact, PG penetrates the skin so quickly that the EPA warns factory workers to avoid skin contact, to prevent brain, liver, and kidney abnormalities. PG is present in many stick deodorants, often in heavier concentration than in most industrial applications. (Nyack, Dr. Vin, Ph.D., Biochemist; personal communication). And Propylene Glycol is what is used to carry the active ingredients in those transdermal patches INTO YOUR BODY Imagine a bottle of Anti-Freeze in a picture with shampoos, deodorants, cosmetics, lotions and toothpastes? The question you should be asking is .. What's Anti-Freeze doing IN my shampoos, deodorants, cosmetics, lotions and toothpaste? Yes, the main ingredient in anti-freeze is in all of these products. Shocked? You should be! http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/science/30profile.html jh ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] chicken manure
Greg and April wrote: My dad told the story about one of his collage buddies that got a 3 month old Cadillac for $50, because the previous owner went out to the desert and committed suicide in it, and was not found for many days.. He striped the car down to bare metal, sand blasted the entire thing, and rebuilt it with an all new interior, but, still got rid of the car because the smell remained. Good luck. Greg H. Didn't mythbusters test that very urban myth last season? jh ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Another use for glycerine
Myk Hill wrote: FDA has also listed Aspartame as a Neurotoxin, but there is many foods that contain it anyway Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan. Any chance you have a primary source to back up your rather extraordinary statement? Searching the FDA website for aspartame turns up no such no evidence to support your claim. In fact, searching the FDA website turns up the following page: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/qa-adf9.html which explicitly states that the FDA has concluded aspartame is safe. So while other groups, like CSPI, and even former FDA employees, like Arthur Evangelista, who may or may not have an agenda of their own, claim aspartame is a neurotoxin, I don't think the statement that FDA lists aspartame as a neurotoxin holds up to the light of day. jh ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Another use for glycerine
Keith Addison wrote: Myk Hill wrote: FDA has also listed Aspartame as a Neurotoxin, but there is many foods that contain it anyway Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan. Any chance you have a primary source to back up your rather extraordinary statement? Searching the FDA website for aspartame turns up no such no evidence to support your claim. In fact, searching the FDA website turns up the following page: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/qa-adf9.html which explicitly states that the FDA has concluded aspartame is safe. So while other groups, like CSPI, and even former FDA employees, like Arthur Evangelista, who may or may not have an agenda of their own, claim aspartame is a neurotoxin, I don't think the statement that FDA lists aspartame as a neurotoxin holds up to the light of day. jh Why would you think that the FDA might not have an agenda of its own John? They certainly may Keith, but I'd hard pressed to figure out their motivation without invoking some nefarious Rumsfeldian kabal. You'll have to forgive me if I have a little more faith in broadly focused, science based professional organizations like the ADA, the AMA, the ACS, the WHO, the MS Society, etc, than I do in alarmist single-issue advocacy groups. But in this particular case, I was just trying to provide some sorely needed skeptism toward Myk's rather extraordinary statement. Cheers. jh ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Another use for glycerine
Nancy Canning wrote: So you guys are going to believe hook line and sinker all the bs FDA passes off. I am laughing so hard at your defending the FDA. I'm not defending the FDA here (nice red herring/strawman btw) - I just pointed out that the claim the FDA listed aspartame as a neurotoxin is 100% flat out untrue. The chemicals are bad schtick gets a little old after you've been on this list for a while. We get it: * chemicals are bad * vaccines cause autism * mercury leaches out of amalgam fillings * fluoride is a comunist/NWO plot * aspartame is poison * neotame is worse * rumsfeld and cheney are behind it all * we're all just blind sheep that are pawns to the bigs * natural is good * raw is better We're heard it all before. Maybe you could do us all a favor and actually look in the archives before you share next time. As Keith likes to point out, there is a handy dandy link to the archives at the bottom of every message you get. The doctors and hospitals, insurance companies, and drug companies can't make any money of a healthy diet, vitamines, and herbal remedies. Why do you think that doctors across the country tried to ban aspartame before it was released? Wait, now I'm confused. Are doctors trying to protect us or are they trying to poison us to make money. Which side of this epic struggle are they on? How am I to know if you can't even make up your mind in the same post? WORLD ENVIRONMENTAL CONFERENCE and the MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS FOUNDATION OF D.A. ISSUING FOR COLLUSION WITH MONSANTO Article written by Nancy Markle Ten FREE Cancer Reports I have spent several days lecturing at the WORLD ENVIRONMENTAL CONFERENCE on ASPARTAME marketed as NutraSweet, Equal, and Spoonful. In the keynote address by the EPA, they announced that there was an epidemic of MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS and SYSTEMIC LUPUS, and they did not understand what toxin was causing this to be rampant across the United States. I explained that I was there to lecture on exactly that subject. Wow Nancy. That's really interesting, especially since: a) Nancy Markle doesn't exist, or at least no one by that name is known to do research on MS, lupus or aspartame. In fact, the original source of the document you cut n' pasted is originally from a Usenet posting in 1995 by Betty Martini that was modified by an unknown person and attributed to the mythical Ms. Markle. Searching groups.google.com will turn up postings from Ms. Martini as far back as 1996. b) Searching the EPA publication archive for World Environmental Congress returns ZERO hits. Go ahead and try it, I just did: http://www.epa.gov/epahome/pubsearch.html If the EPA gave the KEYNOTE talk at this WORLD conference, why doesn't anything come up? I guess the secret kabal got to them, eh? Analysis Shows Nearly 100% of Independent Research Finds Problems With Aspartame October 17, 1996 So which is it? 100%? less that 100%? This is sloppy emotional writing. An analysis of peer reviewed medical literature using MEDLINE and other databases was conducted by Ralph G. Walton, MD, Chairman, The Center for Behavioral Medicine, Professor of Clinical Psychiatry, Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine. Dr. Walton analyzed 164 studies which were felt to have relevance to human safety questions. Of those studies, 74 studies had aspartame industry-related sponsorship and 90 were funded without any industry money. That's interesting too, since a PubMed search for walton and aspartame brings up exactly two relevent references, neither of which is a systematic review of literature. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Searchdb=PubMedterm=walton+aspartame The first paper is a experimental study on the effects of aspartame in psychiatric patients. The study was designed to recruit 40 patients and 40 controls; in reality only 8 patients and 5 controls were enrolled before the university safety committee (the IRB) shut down the study due to excessive adverse events in patient population. This could be because the aspartame truly caused that many problems in the patients, or it could be because of other serious ethical/methological problems. The second reference is first a technical critique of the study and then a rebuttal by Walton. Thus, your faith in Dr Walton is rather interesting since Walton is not a toxicologist at all, but rather a psychiatrist that has published a single study on aspartame, and that one study is disputed. The fact that he is the Chairman of The Center for Behavioral Medicine at the Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine is, in fact, completely irrelevent and is nothing more than an appeal to authority, and a weak one at that. Cheers! jh ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
Re: [Biofuel] Katrina slams New Orleans. Is There Blame?
Garth Kim Travis wrote: Greetings, No one but you has brought up any stereo types. I prefer Blaupunkt over Pioneer, but my friend prefers Aiwa. Anything is better than Sony. Oh wait... nevermind. ;) jh ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
