Re: [Biofuel] How would any of you answer this one?

[Bill Yerkes]

Hi Ken and Hakan,

I have been reading your arguements about the energy it takes to build an 
energy producing plant.
I founded Solar Technology Inc. in 1975 and started making 20 watt solar 
panels using 36, 3" dia. silicon cell that I produced by a low cost, low 
energy consumption process.  In 2005, thirty years later, the company I 
started, located in Camarillo, CA, is now owned by Royal Dutch Shell.  The 
product produced now is a 120 watt panel using 36, 6" dia. silicon solar 
cells.  This plant is the largest solar cell and panel production plant in 
North America, making about 75 megawatts (peak) of solar panels per year. 
100% of these panels are sold, around the world, to users who connect the 
generators for various uses in remote and now local grid connected 
applications.   You questioned the amount of energy it takes to make a solar 
panel compared to the output of power in a year from the panel in normal 
sunlight.  In California (a good location) it takes less than 12 months to 
pay back all the energy input to build the panel.  This includes the 
poly-silicon purification which is the largest energy input, the glass, the 
plastic encapsulation, the aluminum frames and structures to install the 
panels, EVERYTHING.  These energy calculations are published in many papers 
for NREL written by Terry Jester of Shell Solar (before that it was called 
ARCO Solar, then Siemens Solar).  The calculations and assumptions are open 
and simple to understand, nothing is hidden.


At a new company I am starting in Santa Clara, CA, www.solaicx.com we are 
making the silicon wafers with a new crystal grower and wafer sawing process 
that is continuous and reduces energy consumption by a factor of 5X.


Another company in the San Diego area, 
http://www.jcschumacher.com/Schumacher.html, has built a pilot poly silicon 
plant using a fluid bed process, again continuous, which reduces the energy 
from 90 kwhr/kg of silicon to 15 kwhr/kg of silicon output.  When we use 
this new silicon in our continuous crystal grower this will reduce the 
payback time to less than 3 months.  The company is called Diamond Cubic on 
the web site.


Another new company funded by T.J. Rogers of Cypress Semiconductor is called 
SunPower Corp. http://www.sunpowercorp.com/html/ and is now producing 
silicon cell panels with their 21% efficient silicon cells.  This year they 
will produce and ship 25 megawatts (starting up in 1994).  Next year they 
are expanding to 100 megawatts according to published plans.  Our energy 
calculations include similar energy requirements to the SunPower Corp. 
cells.


These megawatt production levels are very small compared to the US electric 
energy requirements.  Where the solar panels are being used now is in 
California with a panel and inverter being installed on every house in new 
subdivisions that have air conditioners.  These kind of installations 
generate power in the summer when AC is on and cause the utility companies 
to not have to turn on their gas turbine back up systems when the local 
temperature goes up.  Analysis has shown this is the most cost effective use 
of solar panels, not making all the power for California, but cutting off 
the peaks due to sunlight.  Of course most of these new houses also 
incorporate passive solar design to minimize energy losses.  In Japan, Sharp 
is offering complete kitchens using efficient microwave and inductive 
cooking appliances, liquid crystal thin TV sets, and super efficient 
lighting along with solar panels to power the whole thing.  The Japanese 
probably live in a little more frugal situation than we, but I use our Sharp 
Microwave oven to cook a lot of our food.


Sharp is the largest producer of PV panels, and probably produced 400 to 500 
megawatts (peak) of solar panels in 2004.  The world-wide production in 2005 
is expected to be one gigawatt and growing at a rate of 35% per year (for 
the last 12 years).  When this type of powerplant is installed on location 
where the power is being used, as in houses or building, no transmission 
lines are required and no losses for starting and stopping the generators.


Bill Yerkes   [EMAIL PROTECTED]





- Original Message - 
From: "Ken Riznyk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] How would any of you answer this one?



Hakan,
Your argument that conservation would eliminate the
need for building nuclear power has merit but does not
speak to the use of fossil fuel as a reason to scrap
nuclear.
The problem is that many people do not care to
conserve. Look at the facts - Bush's "energy plan" is
simply to drill for more oil. Energy conserving tax
benefits have been scrapped - gone is the program to
provide insulation for houses for the poor, the tax
break for hybrid autos is gone while the tax break for
the big suv's is extended. The tax breaks for using
renewable energy are almost all gone. We are living in
a country where driving a H

[Biofuel] RE: General Motors Layoffs(.....and everything else)

[m d]

Mike, in regards to your support for the thread, thank you.  Forgive me for the 
tardy response.

Take care

Marc


___
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] How would any of you answer this one?

[Ken Riznyk]

We have basically two arguments against nuclear power
in the referenced article. 1) It is a fallicy that
production of nuclear energy does not contribute to
greenhouse gases. 2) Nuclear energy takes so much
investment energy to get started that it will take 18
years before there is a net gain in energy and if we
consider dismantling the power plant after its useful
life and storage of contaminated material it could be
an energy negative. 
My original comment related to the first argument and
not the second. I believe the second argument has
merit but I am skeptical of the figures.

> 
> As for solar photovoltaic and its lifetime net gain
> or loss, this is the 
> type of thing that should be discussed and labored
> over thoroughly, 
> rather than just relying upon any "understanding."

Using the term understanding is just lazyness on my
part, in the past I have read several articles that
maintained that photovoltaics were a energy negative.
I have neither the time or inclination to do an
internet search for the exact figures. 
> 
 
> Same questions should be asked for nuclear, wind,
> hydro, geothermal, 
> wave, hydrogen, etc.
> 
> What is perfectly clear is that if the same
> lifecycle equation was run 
> relative to emissions, coal and all fossil fuels run
> dead last. 

You might call it hard math, but I call it
questionable statistics. "There a lies, damn lies and
statistics."

There are other considerations besides your "hard
math." The intermittent nature of wind and solar will
add to its cost both in loss of energy efficiency and
net "energy investment." People still need electricity
when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow.
Geothermal may be very nice but it is of no use to me
here in central Pennsylvania, nor is photovoltaics
because of the limited amount of sunshine. 



__ 
Discover Yahoo! 
Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html

___
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] How would any of you answer this one?

[Appal Energy]

A, But Ken, you used the term "ludicrous," although you did qualify 
the degree with the words "a bit." By all accounts, that still generally 
means the thought having no merit. And if we discount one very energy 
intensive endeavor so readily, then we might as well just all throw our 
hands up in the air and discount everything exactly in the same manner, 
no? Yes?


I gathered your drift, as readily as I gather your elaboration below. 
But that still doesn't answer the question(s) as to at what age does an 
energy investment yield its first net gain calorie or btu? This is a 
question that is vital in an energy/business market with ever increasing 
costs. And it's no different an equation than any business conducts, 
only this time profit dollars are exchanged for net calories or btus.


As for:


I don't know what your point is here.


Sure you do. You eluded to it rather well with your reply.

The point is that a cradle-to-grave energy balance sheet needs to be 
laid out for each energy medium. That includes mining any materials used 
in construction and operation, transportation of materials and labor, 
maintenance and eventually disposal. All that energy consumption is 
offset by the amount of energy produced to give either a net gain or a 
net loss. And then each energy type is compared side by side.


At the same time a net emissions equation needs to be run. It's a no 
brainer to pick one energy production method over another if one has 
considerably less lifetime emissions, especially if the life cycle costs 
are comparable.


Essentially, everything needs to be judged by the EXACT SAME standard in 
order to be able to make a prudent decision. Unfortunately, the nuclear 
industry and most nuclear advocates refuse and/or neglect to do this, 
omitting whatever aspect du jour suits them.


As for solar photovoltaic and its lifetime net gain or loss, this is the 
type of thing that should be discussed and labored over thoroughly, 
rather than just relying upon any "understanding."


For instance, a short ton of coal  yields ~2,100 kWh.
On the other hand 100 watt solar panel yields ~2,475 kWh over a 15 year 
period (lifecycle?), averaging 4.5 sun hours daily.


How much energy went into materials for that 2,100 kWh portion of the 
coal plant?
How much energy went into materials for that 2,475 kWh portion of the 
solar cell?


Same questions should be asked for nuclear, wind, hydro, geothermal, 
wave, hydrogen, etc.


What is perfectly clear is that if the same lifecycle equation was run 
relative to emissions, coal and all fossil fuels run dead last. And 
since the fuel for solar and wind doesn't have to be refined and nuclear 
has the nasty little habit of being vented here and there, nuclear 
probably doesn't come in that great of a winner either.


In any event. what I'm saying is that the numbers have to be laid on the 
table. "Understandings" as we'd like to hold them, doesn't do justice 
for hard math.


Todd Swearingen

Post script: There's a lot less iron in a two-row plow and a team of 
mules than there is in an International tractor. Rule of thumb on a farm 
- if the animal doesn't pay its own way, it's not kept for very long.


Ken Riznyk wrote:


--- Appal Energy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

 


Ken,

Are you saying that the refining of uranium and
nuclear power in general 
does not contribute to greenhouse gases?
   



No, my point was that arguing that coal was used in
its production was spurious since everthing uses
fossil fuel to some extent.
 


Seems as if you glossed over this part:

   


Indeed, a nuclear
power plant must operate for 18 years before
producing one net calorie of energy.
 


How many years must a photo-voltaic panel or solar
thermal collector operate before it produces one net
calorie of energy?
   


I don't know what your point is here. It is my
understanding that photo-voltaics are still negative
in that its production uses more energy than is
recouped in its usable lifespan. I could build a solar
thermal collector that would pay back my investment in
less than a year but if I tried to figure out the oil
consumed to manufacture the plastics I used, and the
fossil fuel used in transporting supplies to my house,
any electricity used for pumps and electricity used
for my power tools, the fossil fuel cost of
manufacturing the power tools I used etc. etc. I
suppose it could take several years before a net
calorie is produced.
 


A wind turbine? A hydro project?
   



 


Maybe you should give up the coal-fired water pump
in lieu of a horse-driven bellows pump? Just
think!!! Double the bang for the buck, 'cause the
horse doesn't eat coal either!!!
   



Yes, but doesn't the horse does eat oats in which oil
products are used for fertilizer and gasoline for
tractors and coal in the manufacture of tractors.
 


I don't think the point was from an "all or none"
perspective, only from a relative gain/loss
perspective.
   



I wasn't coming from an all or none pe

Re: [Biofuel] How would any of you answer this one?

[Ken Riznyk]

Hakan,
Your argument that conservation would eliminate the
need for building nuclear power has merit but does not
speak to the use of fossil fuel as a reason to scrap
nuclear.
The problem is that many people do not care to
conserve. Look at the facts - Bush's "energy plan" is
simply to drill for more oil. Energy conserving tax
benefits have been scrapped - gone is the program to
provide insulation for houses for the poor, the tax
break for hybrid autos is gone while the tax break for
the big suv's is extended. The tax breaks for using
renewable energy are almost all gone. We are living in
a country where driving a Hummer is an inalienable
right and damm everyone else.

Ken

--- Hakan Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> Ken,
> 
> I do not find it ludicrous at all. 25 to 50% saving
> of
> energy nullifies the need to build nuclear power
> stations. The potential saving of energy, without
> noticeable effect on living standard is 60 to 70%,
> that is the size of the energy waste.
> 
> Considering the 5 to 10 years it take to build a
> nuclear power station, a program for energy saving
> will always outperform the nuclear alternative in
> time, return of investment and job creation. The
> problem is that it would add less to GDP, in the way
> we now is measuring GDP. This is one example
> of the flaws with including energy in GDP.
> 
> Regarding health risks, energy efficiency will make
> true improvements, compared to a shifting of
> problems
> with nuclear.
> 
> It is a question of investment priorities and it
> should
> be a moratorium on investment in nuclear, until the
> investment opportunities in energy efficiency and
> renewable are no longer available.
> 
> Hakan
> 
> 
> At 04:35 PM 6/10/2005, you wrote:
> >The argument that coal is used in the production of
> >uranium therefore nuclear power contributes to
> green
> >house gases is a bit ludicrous. If we wanted to
> >eliminate the use of coal we would essentially have
> to
> >do nothing at all. The automobile engine that you
> are
> >running your biodiesel in was manufactured using
> large
> >amounts of coal to produce the steel and to power
> all
> >the assembly plants. If you are using a thermometer
> to
> >check you biodiesel batch or turning on a light to
> see
> >it better you are using coal. Myself I have vowed
> to
> >stop my bathroom use since the water used to flush
> the
> >toilet was pumped to my house using electricity
> that
> >was generated by coal.
> >Ken
> >
> > >   Nuclear Power Isn't Clean; It's Dangerous -
> and
> > > Uneconomic
> > >
> > > By Dr. Helen Caldicott
> > >
> > > Among the many departures from the truth
> by
> > > opponents of the Kyoto protocol, one of the most
> > > invidious is that nuclear power is "clean" and,
> > > therefore, the answer to global warming.
> > > However, the cleanliness of nuclear power is
> > > nonsense. Not only does it contaminate the
> planet
> > > with long-lived radioactive waste, it
> significantly
> > > contributes to global warming.While it is
> claimed
> > > that there is little or no fossil fuel used in
> > > producing nuclear power, the reality is that
> > > enormous quantities of fossil fuel are used to
> mine,
> > > mill and enrich the uranium needed to fuel a
> > >   nuclear power plant, as well as to construct
> the
> > > enormous concrete reactor itself. Indeed, a
> nuclear
> > > power plant must operate for 18 years before
> > > producing one net calorie of energy. (During the
> > > 1970s the United States deployed seven
> > > 1,000-megawatt coal-fired plants to enrich its
> > > uranium, and it is still using coal to enrich
> much
> > > of the world's uranium.) So, to recoup the
> > > equivalent of the amount of fossil fuel used in
> > > preparation and construction before the first
> switch
> > > is thrown to initiate nuclear fission, the plant
> > > must operate for almost two decades.
> > >   But that is not the end of fossil fuel use
> because
> > > disassembling nuclear plants at the end of their
> 30-
> > > to 40-year operating life will require yet more
> vast
> > > quantities of energy. Taking apart, piece by
> > > radioactive piece, a nuclear reactor and its
> > > surrounding infrastructure is a massive
> operation:
> > > Imagine, for example, the amount of petrol,
> diesel,
> > > and electricity that would be used if the Sydney
> > > Opera House were to be dismantled. That's the
> scale
> > > we're talking about. And that is not the end of
> > > fossil use because much will also be required
> for
> > > the final transport and longterm storage of
> nuclear
> > > waste generated by every reactor.
> > >   From a medical perspective, nuclear waste
> > > threatens global health. The toxicity of many
> > > elements in this radioactive mess is long-lived.
> > > Strontium 90, for example, is tasteless,
> odorless,
> > > and invisible and remains radioactive for 600
> years.
> > > Concentrating in the food chain, it emulates the
> > > mineral calcium. Contaminat

Re: [Biofuel] How would any of you answer this one?

[Ken Riznyk]

--- Appal Energy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Ken,
> 
> Are you saying that the refining of uranium and
> nuclear power in general 
> does not contribute to greenhouse gases?

No, my point was that arguing that coal was used in
its production was spurious since everthing uses
fossil fuel to some extent.
> 
> Seems as if you glossed over this part:
> 
> > Indeed, a nuclear
> > power plant must operate for 18 years before
> > producing one net calorie of energy.
> 
> How many years must a photo-voltaic panel or solar
> thermal collector operate before it produces one net
> calorie of energy?
I don't know what your point is here. It is my
understanding that photo-voltaics are still negative
in that its production uses more energy than is
recouped in its usable lifespan. I could build a solar
thermal collector that would pay back my investment in
less than a year but if I tried to figure out the oil
consumed to manufacture the plastics I used, and the
fossil fuel used in transporting supplies to my house,
any electricity used for pumps and electricity used
for my power tools, the fossil fuel cost of
manufacturing the power tools I used etc. etc. I
suppose it could take several years before a net
calorie is produced.
> 
> A wind turbine? A hydro project?

> 
> Maybe you should give up the coal-fired water pump
> in lieu of a horse-driven bellows pump? Just
> think!!! Double the bang for the buck, 'cause the
> horse doesn't eat coal either!!!

Yes, but doesn't the horse does eat oats in which oil
products are used for fertilizer and gasoline for
tractors and coal in the manufacture of tractors.
> 
> I don't think the point was from an "all or none"
> perspective, only from a relative gain/loss
> perspective.

I wasn't coming from an all or none perspective only
pointing out the foolishness in the argument buy using
extremes.
Ken

__
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/

Re: [Biofuel] When corporations rule the world

[capt3d]

so much for congress' new tort reform eliminating frivolous lawsuits!

-chris

In a message dated 6/9/05 10:48:00 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

<< Farmers buying GM seeds are required to sign technology agreements 

that relinquish to Monsanto their right to plant, harvest and sell 

the GM seeds. . . .


Farmers not buying GM seeds are not spared, as Canadian farmer Percy 

Schmeiser learned when he found his fields contaminated by Monsanto’s 

GM canola, and has had to spend years locked in a harrowing battle 

with the company accusing him of infringing its patent rights in a 

legal system that’s on the side of the corporation. He was not alone 

in being persecuted by Monsanto, although he was unique in not giving 

up the fight to the very end.


To-date, Monsanto has filed 90 lawsuits against American farmers 

involving 147 farmers and 39 small businesses, with an estimated $15m 

gained from judgments granted in its favour. Since 1999, some 500 

farmers have been investigated and harassed by Monsanto every year. >>


___
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] Smart Car - DaimlerChrysler sees growth above average

[Mike]

Maybe if there's enough interest, I could go on a
shopping spree and bring them in for y'all.

--- Tony Marzolino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Mike,
> Very interesting idea.  If you try this or get
> information, please post to the list.
> Thanks,
> Tony Marzolino
> Berkshire, NY
> 
> --- robert luis rabello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > Mike wrote:
> > > H, what's process through customs for buying
> a
> > car
> > > in Canada and driving it back to the US anyone?
> > 
> > Talk to U.S. Customs and your State Department of
> > Motor Vehicles. 
> > I'm confident they will give you the most accurate
> > info.
> > 
> > robert luis rabello
> > "The Edge of Justice"
> > Adventure for Your Mind
> >
>
http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=9782>
> > 
> > Ranger Supercharger Project Page
> > http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ___
> > Biofuel mailing list
> > Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> >
>
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
> > 
> > Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> > 
> > Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list
> > archives (50,000 messages):
> >
>
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> __
> 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/
> 
> 





__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

___
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] New List

[MANOJ]

Dear Balaji
If we can produce Methonol from saw dust we can use 
it for petrol engines to be used as petrol substitute ok, what will be the 
procedure to extract Methonol like
can you please direct me or how can we generate 
electricity is it viable to do in small scale 
My concern is to find a substitute to petrol here 
its US$ 0.80 per liter thats lot of money only for petrol cos average persons 
monthly wage is like Min US$50.00 per month so how can a poor man pump some 
petrol to his motor bike
 
Thanks 
Manoj

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Balaji 
  To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org 
  
  Sent: 09 June 2005 0:05 AM
  Subject: Re: [Biofuel] New List
  
  Hello Manoj, 
   
  You can do whole lot of 
  things with saw dust, such as produce fuel briquettes for primary energy, 
  generate electricity or process heat by gasifying the saw dust briquettes and 
  even produce methanol from it. 
   
  There was a similar enquiry from 
  Upali Magedaragamage, Executive Director, National development Foundation, Sri 
  Lanka some time back to the list.  
   
  Refer to http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg40222.html
   
  Regards.
   
  balaji
   
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
MANOJ 

To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org 

Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 9:00 
PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] New List
hi guys i am from sri lanka what are u going to do with saw 
dustManoj- Original Message -From: "Ron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: 
Sent: 
07 June 2005 8:19 AMSubject: Re: [Biofuel] New List> I 
could use some design photos and diagrams. I am trying to set up a> 
fuel plant that will make 1000 gal per day from saw dust. How about 
the> grant? How does that work? Any input much needed. Thanks, 
ron>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:> > Hi ron, I built a 10 inch stripper column in 1990  
I then moved a 24inch rectifier from a> > local oil refinary a 
ran for a while, selling my wet ethanol to a localethanol plant> 
> for upgrading to anhydrous, but then we got a new govener who took 
awayour state subsidies> > and my plant turned to scrapiron, 
at the time I was selling wet feed,and feeding 800 hogs,> > 
the stripper and condenser rusted away so I cut it up.> > now I am 
in the pickeled quail egg business and I need to startup myfeed 
mill> > and install a pellet press so I can enlarge my quail 
operation.> > 30 gallons of ethanol makes 1000 pounds of complete 
feed when thedistillers grains> > 33% of the ration, so they 
kinda go together,> > for now I will use my 1000 gallon pot still 
to produce 75 gallon perday,> > I am currently applying to 
USDA for a 49000 grant, to operate thisplant,> > I will 
produce anhydrous by using anhydrous lime,> > then using the lime 
as the calcium supplement for my feed.> > I also am buliding a 
pervaporation system using PVA and chitosan> > sorry, its hard to 
keep it short, 27 years of research> >> >>From: ron 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> 
>>Date: 2005/05/28 Sat PM 02:57:28 EDT> >>To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org> 
>>Subject: Re: [Biofuel] New List> >>> >>Me 
too Fred, How did you come with 30 gal/hr? I have done small time> 
>>batch plants but yours is no batch plant. How do you do it?> 
>>Is the Gov any help?> >>Are  there grants for bio 
diesel?> >>So many questions and so little bandwidth!!!> 
>>Ron> >>> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:> >>> >>>  Just letting everyone 
know I am still here, Still trying to completemy 30 gallon per 
hour> >>>farm anhydrous ethanol/ plant feed mill, I recently 
applied for theUSDA/ DOE Grant,> >>>but there were 680 
applications, I finally hired an engineer to put mypackage 
together.> >>>I have a very good 50 page plan, The seceret 
to making smallscaleethanol work> >>>is to produce a 
complete feed with the distillers grains. Thanks forbeing here. 
Fred>   
>>>___> 
>>>Biofuel mailing list> 
>>>Biofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org> 
 >>>Biofuel at Journey to Forever:> 
>>>http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html> 
 >>>Search the full Biofuel list archives 
(46,000 messages):> 
>>>http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/> 
 >>>Search the Biofuels-biz list 
archives:> 
>>>http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuels-biz/> 
   
>>> 
>>___> 
>>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 full Biofuel list archives (46,000 messages):> 
>>http://infoarchive.

Re: [Biofuel] Smart Car - DaimlerChrysler sees growth above average

[felixocat]

Hello happy people!

Thank you for all the beautiful information that is being shared here in 
this forum!


I just wanted to share ma dad's joy: after two months waiting, he got his 
Smart yesterday!  By the way, he's 6 foot 4 inches and very comfortable in 
it!


And I should have my 1997 VW Transporter diesel in less that two weeks!

What a life!

Peace

Felix   (Quebec, Canada)

- Original Message - 
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Smart Car - DaimlerChrysler sees growth above average



H, what's process through customs for buying a car
in Canada and driving it back to the US anyone?


--- robert luis rabello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Michael Redler wrote:


> HOW CAN I GET ONE THROUGH CUSTOMS?

Buy one in Canada.  They're all over the place up
here now.  My boys
make a game of spotting them, like I used to do with
oval window VWs
when I was a kid.

robert luis rabello
"The Edge of Justice"
Adventure for Your Mind


http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=9782>


Ranger Supercharger Project Page
http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org


http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org


Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list
archives (50,000 messages):


http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/






__
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/

RE: [Biofuel] fuel filter

[Mel Riser]

Thanks Jon.

 

My tanks are now pretty clean and I am not
cleaning any more filters.

 

I have been in touch with the guys at
Greasecar.com as well as greasel.com.

 

The racor heated
filters seem to be the best.

 

mel

 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 6:33
AM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: [Biofuel] fuel filter

 



Mel, 





 





Your
fuel filter must be have no bypass ability, should be of the same micron as the
original fuel filter for your vehicle and all of the fuel that is used should
be pre filtered to a micron smaller than the fuel filter.  





 





As an
example my original fuel filter is 10 micron so my new filter for vegetable oil
is 10 micron and all my fuel is pre filtered through paper then through a one
half micron filter sock.  This assures my filter will last much longer
because the filter clogging takes place over a 55 gallon drum, not inside my
fuel filter.   





 





There
are filters for sale at:





 





http://www.greasecar.com





 





and 





 





http://www.greasel.com





 





Do not
use an engine lubricating oil filter ... most will bypass and allow
gunk to flow to your injectors, use a fuel filter.  The secret to running
on SVO is overkill on the pre filtering.  Depending on your climate there
are heating options available on some filter styles.  I need all the heat
I can get here in Vermont.  I like running SVO because I need no lye or
methanol.  The gunk from filtering gets pot burned in my stove for cooking
and heat.  





 





Hope
that helps.  





 





Jon
Normandin










--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.6.6 - Release Date: 6/8/2005
 

  

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.6.6 - Release Date: 6/8/2005
 
___
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] fuel filter

[JonNormandin]

Mel, 
 
Your fuel filter must be have no bypass ability, should be of the same 
micron as the original fuel filter for your vehicle and all of the fuel that is 
used should be pre filtered to a micron smaller than the fuel filter.  

 
As an example my original fuel filter is 10 micron so my new filter for 
vegetable oil is 10 micron and all my fuel is pre filtered through paper then 
through a one half micron filter sock.  This assures my filter will last 
much longer because the filter clogging takes place over a 55 gallon drum, not 
inside my fuel filter.   
 
There are filters for sale at:
 
http://www.greasecar.com
 
and 
 
http://www.greasel.com
 
Do not use an engine lubricating oil filter ... most will 
bypass and allow gunk to flow to your injectors, use a fuel filter.  The 
secret to running on SVO is overkill on the pre filtering.  Depending on 
your climate there are heating options available on some filter styles.  I 
need all the heat I can get here in Vermont.  I like running SVO because I 
need no lye or methanol.  The gunk from filtering gets pot burned in my 
stove for cooking and heat.  
 
Hope that helps.  
 
Jon Normandin
___
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] Reprocessing Biodiesel

[Appal Energy]

Richard,

No reprocessing should be necessary. If all the "little bits" came from 
skimmings from wash stages or accumulations from base reactions then 
they've already been processed suffciently.


Take a sample and wash it. If it separates quickly and cleanly there 
should be no reason to be concerned.


Todd Swearingen

Richard Keith wrote:

Hi All, I posed this question back on the 5th and didn't get any 
responses.  I was hoping someone out there would have some idea on how 
to proceed.  I've been pouring all the little bits of biodiesel and 
soap or water into a 55 gallon drum.  The soap and water have settled 
to the bottom and there is several gallons of biodiesel floating on 
top.  The bioD looks pretty good but I'd feel better if it was 
reprocessed.  I can dewater it with heat but then I will need to 
figure out how much methanol and lye to use for reprocessing.  Does 
anyone have any idea how to figure the amount of each to use?  Thanks 
-Richard
 




___
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] RE: General Motors Layoffs(.....and everything else)

[Keith Addison]

Hi Marc


Hi Keith

"Inherent human laziness and egoism are a woefully inadequate 
explanation for corporate predation"


Absolutely.  If I have somehow conveyed this through my words, I 
will work more carefully in the future to be more clear.
"Whatever your intention, you didn't talk about "many aspects of 
human character"


My intention was to say that I think we are responsible for the poor 
decisions we make that may introduce negativity into our/others 
lives.  I made the mistake of connecting this to the corporate 
issue.


My only comment would be that the all-pervasive spin and disinfo 
campaign that's an essential part of the corporate issue, mostly 
covert as it is, makes it rather difficult to conclude just who is 
making our decisions for us, us or them, no matter what we might 
think.


Most people think they're immune. Most of the spin is subliminal: the 
appeal is not to reason and facts but to the emotions. Partly, it 
works by making you *want* to see things in a certain way. It's 
unlikely that people would be immune unless they had professional 
media/information training or experience. It would be more prudent to 
assume that you're not immune. Everybody has to take steps constantly 
to unspin themselves, IMNSHO. Otherwise, spun you most certainly will 
be. It's possible people are encouraged to think they're immune - 
nothing like an overconfident mark with his defences right down.


I cited laziness and egoism as barriers of people taking 
responsibility for their own actions.  I don't think I needed to 
point out the many other inherent qualities that exist in people to 
express my opinion.


"Of course human laziness and egoism play a role, but it's 
essentially a secondary role"


Point taken.

"That's what my reply was all about."
Thank you.
"...hide behind the smokescreen and continue with what they see as 
"business as usual", to everybody's detriment."
"..and therefore the greater is the PR and message-massage factor, 
the more people tend to think this way, that it's human frailties 
that are to blame"


Pharmaceutical companies come to mind.  Shiny commercials with green 
glowing butterflies lit by the moon selling sleep deprivation relief 
in the form of a pill.  Pills pills pills.  No disrespect to 
folks who need pharmaceuticals, but to me it seems the industry is 
out of control.  If there existed more adverts directed at 
preventative maintenance, would there be an increase in healthy 
humans?  Therefore a decrease in pharmaceutical quarterly profits? 
Where does the responsibility sit here, pharma giants for their 
persuasive ads, or people for believing they need a silver pill for 
a symptom?  ( I take no offence if someone picks this example apart).


I doubt anyone will manage to do that. The closer you look the worse 
it gets. Count 'em:


http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2004/122004/mokhiber.html
The Ten Worst Corporations of 2004

http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/top100.html
Corporate Crime Reporter
Top 100 Corporate Criminals of the Decade

All the usual suspects:

"The Anti-Disinformation Society -- Founded in 1977, Consumer Alert 
looks like a soccer mom's best friend. It's friendly Web site 
promotes a good solid meal and is against anything that might invade 
consumers' privacy. This sounds well and good, until you dig a little 
deeper to discover that, not only is Consumer Alert against almost 
any government regulation of the marketplace-in other words, they 
agitate against consumer safety standards on issues like 
flame-retardent clothing-the group is funded by the likes of 
Anheuser-Busch, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Philip Morris, Eli Lilly, 
Exxon and Monsanto, to name just a few. Indeed, on almost every 
product or issue area, Consumer Alert seems to sit on the opposite 
side of the table from actual grass-roots groups such as Consumers 
Union." [more]

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg29936.html
[biofuel] The Anti-Disinformation Society

Have a look at this:
http://www.msbp.com/fda.htm
Wednesday, Dec. 20, 2000, Los Angeles Times
How a New Policy Led to Seven Deadly Drugs
Once a wary watchdog, the Food and Drug Administration set out to 
become a "partner" of the pharmaceutical industry. Today, the public 
has more remedies, but some are proving lethal. [more]


"The culture at FDA views the pharmaceutical industry it is supposed 
to regulate as its client, over-values the benefits of the drugs it 
approves and seriously under-values, disregards and disrespects drug 
safety."
- Dr David Graham, a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug safety 
official, see:

Blowing the Whistle on the FDA - An Interview with David Graham
Multinational Monitor, December 2004 - VOLUME 25 - NUMBER 12
http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2004/122004/interview-graham.html

Last year Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-La., officially stepped down as 
chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Members of the 
committee-and the chairman, 

Re: [Biofuel] Smart Car - DaimlerChrysler sees growth above average

[Tony Marzolino]

Mike,
Very interesting idea.  If you try this or get
information, please post to the list.
Thanks,
Tony Marzolino
Berkshire, NY

--- robert luis rabello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Mike wrote:
> > H, what's process through customs for buying a
> car
> > in Canada and driving it back to the US anyone?
> 
>   Talk to U.S. Customs and your State Department of
> Motor Vehicles. 
> I'm confident they will give you the most accurate
> info.
> 
> robert luis rabello
> "The Edge of Justice"
> Adventure for Your Mind
>
http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=9782>
> 
> Ranger Supercharger Project Page
> http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Biofuel mailing list
> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
> 
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> 
> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list
> archives (50,000 messages):
>
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
> 
> 


__
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] Send for free Biodiesel stickers

[Myk Hill]

 Link for free stickers at;



http://www.chelseagreen.com/2004/items/biodiesel/BumperSticker



More news; Willie Nelson opens new Biodiesel pump in South Carolina



http://www.biodiesel.org/news/events/SC_TruckStop/default.shtm







Myk Hill

Environmental Builder Professional

http://customsuperhomes.com/myk

Ph & Fx: 206-600-5632

 PO Box 291

Morrisville, NC 27560
___
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] RE: General Motors Layoffs(.....and everything else)

[Marc DeGagne]

Hi Keith

"Inherent human laziness and egoism are a woefully inadequate explanation for 
corporate predation"

Absolutely.  If I have somehow conveyed this through my words, I will 
work more carefully in the future to be more clear. 


"Whatever your intention, you didn't talk about "many aspects of human 
character"

My intention was to say that I think we are responsible for the poor 
decisions we make that may introduce negativity into our/others lives.  
I made the mistake of connecting this to the corporate issue.  I cited 
laziness and egoism as barriers of people taking responsibility for 
their own actions.  I don't think I needed to point out the many other 
inherent qualities that exist in people to express my opinion.


"Of course human laziness and egoism play a role, but it's essentially a secondary 
role"

Point taken.

"That's what my reply was all about."  

Thank you. 


"...hide behind the smokescreen and continue with what they see as "business as 
usual", to everybody's detriment."
"..and therefore the greater is the PR and message-massage factor, the more people 
tend to think this way, that it's human frailties that are to blame"

Pharmaceutical companies come to mind.  Shiny commercials with green 
glowing butterflies lit by the moon selling sleep deprivation relief in 
the form of a pill.  Pills pills pills.  No disrespect to folks who 
need pharmaceuticals, but to me it seems the industry is out of 
control.  If there existed more adverts directed at preventative 
maintenance, would there be an increase in healthy humans?  Therefore a 
decrease in pharmaceutical quarterly profits?  Where does the 
responsibility sit here, pharma giants for their persuasive ads, or 
people for believing they need a silver pill for a symptom?  ( I take no 
offence if someone picks this example apart).


"I'm interested to know whether you read some of the articles I linked in my 
response. Like these:"

Ah yes.  I had some time to skim through most.  More knowledge.

"And who is to be punished - the ad firms themselves or just a few individual 
employee scapegoats, as per usual?"

Thankfully one is THE head of a communication company in question. 


Some hope perhaps?
http://www.interfacesustainability.com/pdf/action.pdf

Take care

Marc





___
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] Reprocessing Biodiesel

[Neil Goatman]

why 
?
just 
wash it 
Neil

  -Original Message-From: Richard Keith 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, 11 June 2005 2:41 
  PMTo: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSubject: [Biofuel] 
  Reprocessing Biodiesel
  Hi All, I posed this question back on the 5th and didn't get 
  any responses.  I was hoping someone out there would have some idea on 
  how to proceed.  I've been pouring all the little bits of biodiesel and 
  soap or water into a 55 gallon drum.  The soap and water have settled to 
  the bottom and there is several gallons of biodiesel floating on top.  
  The bioD looks pretty good but I'd feel better if it was reprocessed.  I 
  can dewater it with heat but then I will need to figure out how much methanol 
  and lye to use for reprocessing.  Does anyone have any idea how to figure 
  the amount of each to use?  Thanks -Richard
   

This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared by 
MailMarshal - For more information 
please visit www.marshalsoftware.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/