[Biofuel] Propaganda and Haditha
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13563.htm Propaganda and Haditha In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies. - Winston Churchill, British Prime Minister during World War II By Dahr Jamail and Jeff Pflueger 06/10/06 t r u t h o u t -- -- Propaganda is when the Western corporate media tries to influence public opinion in favor of the Iraq War by consistently tampering with truth and distorting reality. It is to be expected. And it is to be recognized for what it is. On occasions when the media does its job responsibly and reports events like the November 19, 2005, Haditha Massacre, it must also be willing and able to anticipate and counter propaganda campaigns that will inevitably follow. It is to be expected that the responsible members of the media fraternity will stick to their guns and not join the propagandists. This piece is a summary of five most commonly deployed crisis management propaganda tactics which the State and Media combine that we can expect to see in relation to the Haditha Massacre. Listed in a loose chronological order of their deployment, the tactics are: Delay, Distract, Discredit, Spotlight and Scapegoat. Each of the five public relations campaigns will here be discussed in the context of the Haditha Massacre. Delay Al-Jazeera channel, with over 40 million viewers in the Arab world, is the largest broadcaster of news in the Middle East. It has been bearing the brunt of an ongoing violent US propaganda campaign. Their station headquarters in both Afghanistan and Baghdad were destroyed by US forces during the US invasions of both countries. In Baghdad, the attack on their office by a US warplane killed their correspondent Tareq Ayoub. Additionally, al-Jazeera reporters throughout Iraq have been systematically detained and intimidated before the broadcaster was banned outright from the country. These are somewhat contradictory actions for an occupying force ostensibly attempting to promote democracy and freedom in Iraq. On November 19, 2005, the day of the Haditha Massacre, al-Jazeera had long since been banned from operating in Iraq. The station forced to conduct its war reporting from a desk in Doha, Qatar, was doing so via telephone. Two Iraqis worked diligently to cover the US occupation of Iraq through a loose network of contacts within Iraq. Defying the US-imposed extreme challenges, al-Jazeera, by dint of its responsible reporting, had the entire Haditha scoop as soon as it occurred, which they shared with Western and other media outlets, while the latter were content to participate in delaying the story nearly four months by regurgitating unverified military releases. Two days after the massacre, DahrJamailiraq.com was the only free place on the Internet that carried al-Jazeera's report translated into English (it could be viewed at MidEastWire.com for a fee). The anchorperson for al-Jazeera in Doha, Qatar, interviewed journalist Walid Khalid in Bahgdad. Khalid's report, translated by MidEastWire.com, was as follows: Yesterday evening, an explosive charge went off under a US Marines vehicle in the al-Subhani area, destroying it completely. Half an hour later, the US reaction was violent. US aircraft bombarded four houses near the scene of the incident, causing the immediate death of five Iraqis. Afterward, the US troops stormed three adjacent houses where three families were living near the scene of the explosion. Medical sources and eyewitnesses close to these families affirmed that the US troops, along with the Iraqi Army, executed 21 persons; that is, three families, including nine children and boys, seven women, and three elderly people. Contrast this to the reportage of the slaughter by the New York Times, the newspaper of note in the United States. Unquestioningly parroting the military press release, their story of November 21, 2005, read: The Marine Corps said Sunday that 15 Iraqi civilians and a Marine were killed Saturday when a roadside bomb exploded in Haditha, 140 miles northwest of Baghdad. The bombing on Saturday in Haditha, on the Euphrates in the Sunni-dominated province of Anbar, was aimed at a convoy of American Marines and Iraqi Army soldiers, said Capt. Jeffrey S. Pool, a Marine spokesman. After the explosion, gunmen opened fire on the convoy. At least eight insurgents were killed in the firefight, the captain said. The organization Iraq Body Count (IBC) immediately endorsed this, clearly demonstrating how its tally of Iraqi civilian deaths due to the war is way below the actual numbers. Exclusively referencing samples from the Western media that willingly embrace the official propaganda, IBC can hardly constitute an unbiased or truthful source of information. In April 2006, their database of media sources cited an AP story and a Reuters story from November 20, 2005, along with a March 21, 2006, London Times article.
[Biofuel] The Ethics of Eating Meat: A Radical View
http://www.westonaprice.org/healthissues/ethicsmeat.html The Ethics of Eating Meat: A Radical View By Charles Eisenstein Most vegetarians I know are not primarily motivated by nutrition. Although they argue strenuously for the health benefits of a vegetarian diet, many see good health as a reward for the purity and virtue of a vegetarian diet, or as an added bonus. In my experience, a far more potent motivator among vegetarians-ranging from idealistic college students, to social and environmental activists, to adherents of Eastern spiritual traditions like Buddhism and Yoga-is the moral or ethical case for not eating meat. Enunciated with great authority by such spiritual luminaries as Mahatma Gandhi, and by environmental crusaders such as Frances Moore Lappe, the moral case against eating meat seems at first glance to be overpowering. As a meat eater who cares deeply about living in harmony with the environment, and as an honest person trying to eliminate hypocrisy in the way I live, I feel compelled to take these arguments seriously. A typical argument goes like this: In order to feed modern society's enormous appetite for meat, animals endure unimaginable suffering in conditions of extreme filth, crowding and confinement. Chickens are packed twenty to a cage, hogs are kept in concrete stalls so narrow they can never turn around. Arguing for the Environment The cruelty is appalling, but no less so than the environmental effects. Meat animals are fed anywhere from five to fifteen pounds of vegetable protein for each pound of meat produced-an unconscionable practice in a world where many go hungry. Whereas one-sixth an acre of land can feed a vegetarian for a year, over three acres are required to provide the grain needed to raise a year's worth of meat for the average meat-eater. All too often, so the argument goes, those acres consist of clear-cut rain forests. The toll on water resources is equally grim: the meat industry accounts for half of US water consumption-2500 gallons per pound of beef, compared to 25 gallons per pound of wheat. Polluting fossil fuels are another major input into meat production. As for the output, 1.6 million tons of livestock manure pollutes our drinking water. And let's not forget the residues of antibiotics and synthetic hormones that are increasingly showing up in municipal water supplies. Even without considering the question of taking life (I'll get to that later), the above facts alone make it clear that it is immoral to aid and abet this system by eating meat. Factory or Farm? I will not contest any of the above statistics, except to say that they only describe the meat industry as it exists today. They constitute a compelling argument against the meat industry, not meat-eating. For in fact, there are other ways of raising animals for food, ways that make livestock an environmental asset rather than a liability, and in which animals do not lead lives of suffering. Consider, for example, a traditional mixed farm combining a variety of crops, pasture land and orchards. Here, manure is not a pollutant or a waste product; it is a valuable resource contributing to soil fertility. Instead of taking grain away from the starving millions, pastured animals actually generate food calories from land unsuited to tillage. When animals are used to do work-pulling plows, eating bugs and turning compost-they reduce fossil fuel consumption and the temptation to use pesticides. Nor do animals living outdoors require a huge input of water for sanitation. In a farm that is not just a production facility but an ecology, livestock has a beneficial role to play. The cycles, connections and relationships among crops, trees, insects, manure, birds, soil, water and people on a living farm form an intricate web, organic in its original sense, a thing of beauty not easily lumped into the same category as a 5000-animal concrete hog factory. Any natural environment is home to animals and plants, and it seems reasonable that an agriculture that seeks to be as close as possible to nature would incorporate both. Indeed, on a purely horticultural farm, wild animals can be a big problem, and artificial measures are required to keep them out. Nice rows of lettuce and carrots are an irresistible buffet for rabbits, woodchucks and deer, which can decimate whole fields overnight. Vegetable farmers must rely on electric fences, traps, sprays, and-more than most people realize-guns and traps to protect their crops. If the farmer refrains from killing, raising vegetables at a profitable yield requires holding the land in a highly artificial state, cordoned off from nature. Yes, one might argue, but the idyllic farms of yesteryear are insufficient to meet the huge demand of our meat-addicted society. Even if you eat only organically raised meat, you are not being moral unless your consumption level is consistent with all of Earth's six
[Biofuel] Jetta TDI
I was just browsing through the VW website. They now have a brief blurb on Biodiesel and say that using B5 will not void their warranty. About two years ago I remember a discussion on VW and at that time they did not approve of the use of biodiesel. Here's a change in the right direction. 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] Hello and Question
Tom Your response to Jason Kate implied that all of the carbon in a biodegradation process is released as CO2 into the atmosphere. When organisms biodegrade organic material some of the carbon in the substrate (the material being decomposed) is released as CO2 but much of it is utilized to make more microorganisms. Its also important to look at the type of biodegradation that is occurring. If its aerobic (oxygen rich degradation) then the carbon that comes off as a gas is primarily CO2. If it is anaerobic (Oxygen deficient environment) the gas produced is primarily Methane CH4. This is why secondary reactors in sewage treatment plants use anaerobic digesters to reduce sludge volume while producing methane to be used as fuel to be used to produce electricity that offsets some of the outside energy demands of the plant. David - Original Message - From: Thomas Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 11:29 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Hello and Question Jason Katie, Decomposing is the result of microbial metabolism. The energy in the stalks, leaves etc. is fuel for the decomposers. The carbon, would be released as CO2. Other nutients would be returned to the soil/water/atmosphere. Peat bogs, coal, and oil are the rare exceptions where decomposition doesn't occur. The energy and the Carbon are stockpiled. Tom - Original Message - From: Jason Katie [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 1:42 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Hello and Question ive been thinking about this, and was wondering... if during harvesting the stalks, or supporting structure, or leaves, or whatever were left in the gardens to decompose, or were composted, wouldnt the unused material returned to the soil be a carbon reduction? it doesnt get put into the fuel and it collects and adds up over time. this could bee seen as a carbon stockpile right? - Original Message - From: Thomas Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 11:45 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Hello and Question Joe, CO2 emissions should be the same. You wrote: If the CO2 reduction number of 78% attributed to biodiesel is a result of the crops it comes from, does the 78% number assume that no crops would have been grown on the land if it were not being used for fuel crops, or is the 78% in addition to whatever crops were previously growing there. No. The % reduction in CO2 refers to a reduction in Carbon that is not part of our short-term Carbon Cycle. Let me try to explain: All crops are fuel crops. Even wilderness meadows and forests are fuel crops. The energy captured during photosynthesis and stored in organic molecules will be released either as a result of metabolic activity of living things or as a result of combustion. The amount of Carbon released as CO2 will be the same as the amount taken in to construct the organic molecules (fuel). Whether or not the land is used for food crops, fuel crops, or left wild, there is a balance between the amount of carbon taken from the atmosphere and incorporated into organic matter and the amount released when that organic matter is burned. This balance is unaffected by whether the organic matter becomes fuel for cells, or for automobiles. Fuels that do not disrupt this balance are said to be Carbon Neutral. The carbon in fossil fuels has been sequestered away for tens of millions of years. Upon burning, the release of CO2 from fossil fuels has the potential to overwhelm mechanisms that maintain relatively stable atmospheric CO2 levels, and hence disrupt the balance between CO2 fixed into organic matter and CO2 released during burning. CO2 from fossil fuels is NOT carbon neutral. It is not part of the short-term Carbon Cycle. I think that there is no actual reduction in CO2 produced when biodiesel is burned vs. petro diesel. The significance is that with biofuels, we are not unleashing Carbon that has long been trapped beneath the earth as we do when we burn fossil fuels. Any %, whether 50%, 78%, or 90% emissions reduction depends on the amount of fossil fuel used to produce the biofuel. Inorganic fertilizers, large fossil fuel tractors/equipment, fossil fuel powered transportation of raw materials and finished product over great distances, all have an impact on the carbon neutrality of the biofuel produced. Ex: Using coal or oil or natural gas to distill ethanol compromises the benefits, and hence the overall % reduction in emissions. The wealth of information on small farms, small-scale local production, the use of appropriate technology, sustainability some of the things that make JTF and the biofuel mailing list so valuable. Be a thief.
Re: [Biofuel] ANYONE know anything about this?
Hi Lugano Thanks very much for your input RoyLugano Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:hi Roy, in a short period of time it is possible to achieve a 7 - 10% fuel saving in such asimple retrofitting. however, such holistic approaches are difficult to share their confidence due to complications that can develop in a long run. i __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] Help with graphics
Nemetschek which makes Vectorworks has a free viewer for engineering drawings you can view and print drawings but not edit them. www.nemetschek.net they are very Mac friendly. David Sikes - Original Message - From: Chandan Haldar [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 11:05 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Help with graphics Uh-oh... sorry, I didn't notice the mac part in your mail... this converter is Windoz sw. Send me the visio file and I'll have a go at it. Chandan Chandan Haldar wrote: Keith, You might like to download the 30-day eval copy of this converter: http://www.processtext.com/abcvisio.html which converts visio vector graphics drawings to many image or pdf formats. As far as I can see, it installs and runs fine, but I couldn't find a visio file to try it out. Cheers. Chandan Keith Addison wrote: Hello all Someone sent me some interesting diagrams, but I can't extract them. He said: the diagrams i have are microsoft visio doc.s but they may convert to html. We use Macs and I can usually get stuff out of Windoze docs, but not this time. Would anyone be able to get tiff's or jpg's or gif's out of an MS Visio doc if I sent them the file? Thanks much Keith ___ 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] ANYONE know anything about this?
If you buy this stuff I have a bridge I want to talk to you about LOL David - Original Message - From: ROY Washbish To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 7:07 AM Subject: [Biofuel] ANYONE know anything about this? Hi Gang My brother-in-law offered this to me to get better mileage in my viehicle. I have no idea if it works but I sure don't think it can as this type of stuff is usually all HYPE. http://www.spmpg.myffi.biz/en/section_100.asp What are your thoughts? Have a look Thanks Roy __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch 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] No New Refineries
Hello David Building new refiniries will not reduce the price of crude. It is based on global demand. The Chinese and Indians are rapidly moving from bicycles to automobiles. This is why the price of crude is $70+ for a barrel. One reason. And this is why bio based feedstocks for fuel are going to become economically viable, irrespective of environmental concerns/benefits. One reason, again, there are others. If crude were at $25/barrel we would not be having this conversation. We were having this conversation when oil was $25 a barrel, and less, and saying, along with the OECD, and many American list members, that US fuel prices were way too cheap and the sooner it hit $5 a gallon the better. You should spend some time browsing the list archives. Best Keith David - Original Message - From: Doug Younker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 5:33 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] No New Refineries This is one of those times I smell a rat, but can't find/prove it. In regards to environmental requirements, in the industry previously claimed the costs where too high and the consumer wouldn't pay the price. Here we are now: No refineries where not built and the consumer is paying unprecedented prices that result in higher profits for the industry. Chances are the industry will be allowed to build new refineries that don't meet the stricter environmental require, pocketing the savings. The cynic in me has to feel that in no way, even with relaxed environmental regulations, will the industry build capacity to significantly increase supply. Oh well... Doug, N0LKK Kansas USA Keith Addison wrote: http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/06/06/no_new_refineries.php No New Refineries Frank O'Donnell ___ 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] No New Refineries
Keith, I've recently joined this list and I will peruse the archives. I should have referenced the $25 barrel at today's dollar value. At $5/Gal (present value) we will be ripping up strip malls to plant rape seed.fields. Looking forward to talking to you again. David Sikes - Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 5:14 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] No New Refineries Hello David Building new refiniries will not reduce the price of crude. It is based on global demand. The Chinese and Indians are rapidly moving from bicycles to automobiles. This is why the price of crude is $70+ for a barrel. One reason. And this is why bio based feedstocks for fuel are going to become economically viable, irrespective of environmental concerns/benefits. One reason, again, there are others. If crude were at $25/barrel we would not be having this conversation. We were having this conversation when oil was $25 a barrel, and less, and saying, along with the OECD, and many American list members, that US fuel prices were way too cheap and the sooner it hit $5 a gallon the better. You should spend some time browsing the list archives. Best Keith David - Original Message - From: Doug Younker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 5:33 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] No New Refineries This is one of those times I smell a rat, but can't find/prove it. In regards to environmental requirements, in the industry previously claimed the costs where too high and the consumer wouldn't pay the price. Here we are now: No refineries where not built and the consumer is paying unprecedented prices that result in higher profits for the industry. Chances are the industry will be allowed to build new refineries that don't meet the stricter environmental require, pocketing the savings. The cynic in me has to feel that in no way, even with relaxed environmental regulations, will the industry build capacity to significantly increase supply. Oh well... Doug, N0LKK Kansas USA Keith Addison wrote: http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/06/06/no_new_refineries.php No New Refineries Frank O'Donnell ___ 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] Lye in the UK
Hi, If anyone just starting up in the UK is looking for a supply of NaOH in small quantities.try BQ concentrated caustic soda. It is actually pretty pure, I just made a 1L test batch with new rapeseed oil. Wash test and methanol test are both spot on. Bob ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Hi Bob, thanks for this - most helpful! I am desperate to find a sensibly priced source for Methanol in the 25-250L size range, if you know of anyone I would be very grateful for the info. I am based near Rotherham (S63 6JT postcode). Is there a definitive UK supplier list anywhere? If not, I am willing to maintain one on my web site if people are willing to contribute to it. Many thanks, Matt. ___ 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] Hello and Question
David, You wrote: some of the carbon in the substrate (the material being decomposed) is released as CO2 but much of it is utilized to make more microorganisms. Which ultimately die and break down with the release of the carbon. During the growth of microbial populations, especially during the exponential growth phase, carbon is, in fact, stored within organic matter just as during the growth of plants, there is more carbon stored in organic matter than is being released by the organisms due to cell respiration. Populations, including microbial populations, do not increase in number/mass indefinitely or they would eventually be expanding into the universe at the speed of light. Populations grow, peak, and either level off, or decline based on limiting factors in their environment. Microbes die and their carbon is released. We've been using the same atoms over and over again for billions of years. Ok, so some additions by way of cosmic dust and meteorites, but the point is, matter is recycled. Its also important to look at the type of biodegradation that is occurring. If its aerobic (oxygen rich degradation) then the carbon that comes off as a gas is primarily CO2. If it is anaerobic (Oxygen deficient environment) the gas produced is primarily Methane CH4. Actually methane is not the primary gas released in anaerobic conditions . CO2 is , (can be seen during ethanol fermentation by yeast) other gases include H2 and H2S. Methanogenic bacteria are chemoautotrophic, oxidizing the H2 produced by other anaerobes in the presence of the CO2 produced by other anaerobes. H2+ CO2 H2O + CH4 + energy This is why secondary reactors in sewage treatment plants use anaerobic digesters to reduce sludge volume while producing methane to be used as fuel to be used to produce electricity that offsets some of the outside energy demands of the plant. True, anaerobic decomposition can produce methane gas whether it be in sewage treatment plants, mud flats, or in the guts of ruminant animals. Methane, is, in fact, a more effective greenhouse gas than CO2. The ultimate fate of the C's in methane is CO2. As you point out, methane can be burned as fuel - CO2 + H2O. In the atmosphere it tends to react w. oxygen - CO2 + H20. We could consider biomass being covered by landslides with the carbon contained in it being locked away for a million years, or methane burps rising from mud flats that had been part of an earlier carbon cycle. The carbon balance is not quite as clear-cut as a business account of credits and debits. The original point was in response to a question re: CO2 emissions: fossil fuels vs biofuels. My answer involved the cycling of carbon. If we agree that we are overloading a system with carbon dioxide from ancient times, while destroying environments that have historically served as carbon sinks, then biofuels, used conservatively and with consideration of how they are produced and transported, are clearly favorable to the continued use of fossil fuels. Tom - Original Message - From: chem.dd [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 3:37 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Hello and Question Tom Your response to Jason Kate implied that all of the carbon in a biodegradation process is released as CO2 into the atmosphere. When organisms biodegrade organic material some of the carbon in the substrate (the material being decomposed) is released as CO2 but much of it is utilized to make more microorganisms. Its also important to look at the type of biodegradation that is occurring. If its aerobic (oxygen rich degradation) then the carbon that comes off as a gas is primarily CO2. If it is anaerobic (Oxygen deficient environment) the gas produced is primarily Methane CH4. This is why secondary reactors in sewage treatment plants use anaerobic digesters to reduce sludge volume while producing methane to be used as fuel to be used to produce electricity that offsets some of the outside energy demands of the plant. David - Original Message - From: Thomas Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 11:29 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Hello and Question Jason Katie, Decomposing is the result of microbial metabolism. The energy in the stalks, leaves etc. is fuel for the decomposers. The carbon, would be released as CO2. Other nutients would be returned to the soil/water/atmosphere. Peat bogs, coal, and oil are the rare exceptions where decomposition doesn't occur. The energy and the Carbon are stockpiled. Tom - Original Message - From: Jason Katie [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 1:42 PM Subject: Re:
Re: [Biofuel] No New Refineries
Hello David Keith, I've recently joined this list Welcome. and I will peruse the archives. A lot of people spend a lot of time there. On this subject, you might start with these: http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg00166.html [biofuel] Re: oil reserves 9 Apr 2000 http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg00599.html [biofuel] oil prices 29 Sep 2000 Try a search for Matt Simmons: http://snipurl.com/jgi7 Search results for 'Simmons' Or for Michael T Klare: http://snipurl.com/hkon Search results for 'Klare' Or whatever grabs you, it's easy to pick up the threads (the whole thread is linked at the end of the page). I should have referenced the $25 barrel at today's dollar value. At $5/Gal (present value) we will be ripping up strip malls to plant rape seed.fields. Fair exchange I guess. Depends what kind of rapeseed fields, agribusiness monocrops? The NBB wouldn't like that though, but Big Oil probably wouldn't mind much. Previous responses: I suspect with the projected prices and profits that they will not need new refineries. When fuel hits $5 as I suspect it will most of us wont take motor vacations etc. Carpooling will be back in vogue and SUVs will be hybrids. I'm already paying nearlly 8 dollars a UK gallon for diesel, people are addicted to their cars. Car use still increases here in the UK even as the price of fuel keeps going up. Chris. It's $5 a gallon in Japan now, but it's three years since I paid for fuel. We only use a couple of hundred gallons a year anyway. Have you read this? How much fuel can we grow? How much land will it take? http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html#howmuch Looking forward to talking to you again. Same. Best Keith David Sikes - Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 5:14 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] No New Refineries Hello David Building new refiniries will not reduce the price of crude. It is based on global demand. The Chinese and Indians are rapidly moving from bicycles to automobiles. This is why the price of crude is $70+ for a barrel. One reason. And this is why bio based feedstocks for fuel are going to become economically viable, irrespective of environmental concerns/benefits. One reason, again, there are others. If crude were at $25/barrel we would not be having this conversation. We were having this conversation when oil was $25 a barrel, and less, and saying, along with the OECD, and many American list members, that US fuel prices were way too cheap and the sooner it hit $5 a gallon the better. You should spend some time browsing the list archives. Best Keith David - Original Message - From: Doug Younker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 5:33 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] No New Refineries This is one of those times I smell a rat, but can't find/prove it. In regards to environmental requirements, in the industry previously claimed the costs where too high and the consumer wouldn't pay the price. Here we are now: No refineries where not built and the consumer is paying unprecedented prices that result in higher profits for the industry. Chances are the industry will be allowed to build new refineries that don't meet the stricter environmental require, pocketing the savings. The cynic in me has to feel that in no way, even with relaxed environmental regulations, will the industry build capacity to significantly increase supply. Oh well... Doug, N0LKK Kansas USA Keith Addison wrote: http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/06/06/no_new_refineries.php No New Refineries Frank O'Donnell ___ 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] Distributed computing and climate prediction
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/moreaboutexperiment1.shtml Distributed computing and climate prediction The BBC have teamed up with Oxford University to conduct the world's most ambitious climate modelling experiment. We want to do better than the world's supercomputers, using a technique known as distributed computing. How does distributed computing work? Modern home computers can perform billions of calculations a second. Most of the time, that's far more power than the average user needs - so even though you're working hard, most of your computer is lying idle. Distributed computing projects make use of this spare computer potential. All you need to do is install the correct software, and your computer should take care of the rest. The programme automatically manages your computer's processor, so that programmes you are running get priority. Your computer only works on the experiment when you're not using the processor for something else. Distributed computing is a particularly valuable tool for scientists who have large amounts of data to analyse, or who are modelling very complex systems like the Earth's climate. Why is climate prediction so complicated? Predicting global temperature change is hard, even though the principle sounds easy. In simple terms, energy reaches Earth from the Sun. Some of it is simply reflected. Some is absorbed and then re-emitted. If the amount of energy that leaves the Earth is the same as the energy that arrives, then temperature stays the same. If not, then the Earth's temperature changes. However, a huge number of factors affect how much energy the Earth reflects and absorbs. How much of the planet is covered in clouds - and what kind of clouds are they? How much ice is there at the poles? And of course, the amount of so-called greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide play a role too. All these factors make for an incredibly complex calculation. However, there's something else that makes climate prediction even harder. This is the existence of what we call feedback mechanisms. What are feedback mechanisms? In relation to climate change, a feedback mechanism is something that changes as a result of climate changes, and itself makes climate change happen more or less quickly. For example, heating the Earth could make the ice caps melt, which could mean that less of the Sun's light is reflected back into space, which could in turn cause the Earth's temperature to rise even faster. Some feedback mechanisms could slow climate change - some could accelerate it. Either way, they make prediction harder and mean that scientists need to run many more models to get a feel for what is likely to happen. So why do we need so many people? This experiment uses a computer model to try and calculate what the climate will be like in the future. However, small changes to the model can have large effects on the predictions that we get. There's only one way to get around this problem. If we run just one model, we have no idea how accurate it is. But if we run many thousands of models, we start to see patterns emerge. Some might be wildly inaccurate and predict warming or cooling much more severe than we are likely to see. But if a significant percentage of results fall within a smaller range, we can start to get a feel for how the climate might be changing. And of course, it's not just about the state of the planet now. The biggest question of all is the effect that we are having on the climate. What happens if we continue to pump out greenhouse gasses at the same rate as we are today? What happens if emissions to grow? And how much do we need to cut emissions by to make an impact on global warming? To get the most accurate answers to these questions, we need as many people as possible to run climate models on their own computers. What will my computer do? When you start the experiment, you'll be given your own individual climate model. Your computer will start in the year 1920 and calculate the climate, year by year, right through to 2080. Calculating the climate for the 20th century might sound like an odd thing to do. However, if your model's prediction for 2006 is very inaccurate (for example, if your whole world has turned to ice), then we know the model you are running is not a good one. But if your model has done a reasonable job of predicting 20th century climate, we know it's worth continuing with. Once your individual model is finished, it will be sent to Oxford. There scientists will assemble everyone's models to make the most accurate climate prediction they can. We'll be reporting our findings in a special programme on BBC Four. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Re: [Biofuel] Distributed computing and climate prediction
Thanks David. This is a great idea! I did a quick search for other similar schemes (i.e. SETI, etc.) and found: http://distributedcomputing.info Apparently, this is getting popular with some applications. Is this is the end of supercomputers as we know it? On a similar note: I've always wanted to get a bunch of old computers and have them parallel process across an Ethernet hub to achieve a similar objective (except without the need for prioritizing like distributed computing requires). I never did enough research to actually follow through with a plan or determine if it's even worth the work. -Redler David Kramer wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/moreaboutexperiment1.shtml Distributed computing and climate prediction The BBC have teamed up with Oxford University to conduct the world's most ambitious climate modelling experiment. We want to do better than the world's supercomputers, using a technique known as distributed computing. How does distributed computing work? Modern home computers can perform billions of calculations a second. Most of the time, that's far more power than the average user needs - so even though you're working hard, most of your computer is lying idle. Distributed computing projects make use of this spare computer potential. All you need to do is install the correct software, and your computer should take care of the rest. The programme automatically manages your computer's processor, so that programmes you are running get priority. Your computer only works on the experiment when you're not using the processor for something else. Distributed computing is a particularly valuable tool for scientists who have large amounts of data to analyse, or who are modelling very complex systems like the Earth's climate. [snip] ___ 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] Full Text : The President of Iran's Letter To President Bush
Keith Addison wrote: Methinks 'tis perhaps but a task for the menials. I find myself sniggering at the prospect of the ensuing spectacle upon the arrival of the enraptured at the Pearly Gates: "Hey Peter, who the hell are all these naked guys outside trying to get in? They say they got tickets but it's only monopoly board money. Wrong address? Right." Ooops! LOL! I've read somewhere that there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth" among those who claim to do God's will, but behave otherwise. There is an irony to what you've written that would be funny if the people who behaved this way weren't so bent on increasing the world's suffering. Yeah I know, sorry. But their God isn't God, it's some other guy who hates everybody, and by the time they find out it'll be too late. A better man might manage to shed a tear for them over that but I reckon I'm doing quite well if I can wring a laugh out of it at least. "Always look on the bright side of life, ta-dum..." I mean, if you wrote a science-fiction novel where the world ended like this singularly unenrapturing bunch of total whackoes wants it to end, and they could even do it, nobody'd want to publish it, the editor would tell you it's too preposterous, the characters are like cardboard cut-outs, the plot needs work and the ending really stinks. We've discussed the "Left Behind" series before, Keith. It seems the Dispensationalist nonsense that passes for eschatology in the US these days has sold far more books than I have! (50 million copies!!! I'd be happy with 50 000 copies sold!) http://dir.salon.com/story/books/feature/2002/07/29/left_behind/index.html Of course, I'm capable of writing such tripe too, but WHY? Have you seen some of the reactions here of non-Americans when they first encounter stuff like this? "A major reason the Armageddonites have become so powerful is that most journalists can't comprehend that millions of Americans could really want, in this day and age, their God to destroy most of the human race, much less that they are donating millions to promote it..." Their beliefs are bonkers, but they are at the heart of power US Christian fundamentalists are driving Bush's Middle East policy The Guardian Bush White House checked with rapture Christians before latest Israel move The Village Voice Much more at: http://tinyurl.com/rhk2s Re: [Biofuel] The Brutal Christ of the Armageddonites - Religious fanaticism in American foreign policy Sigh . . . Sometimes it's embarrassing to be a Christian--not because I'm ashamed of my faith in Jesus, but because of how people who CLAIM to follow him behave! It certainly doesn't look like Mr. Ahmadi-Najad is the one who's crazy. Certainly not. I don't see the harm in talking to someone who is genuinely interested in solving conflicts, nor do I perceive a problem with listening and making an effort to understand someone else's point of view. The difficult part is determining the degree of sincerity from the other person, and that issue cuts BOTH ways. I've also read: "Two kings, with their hearts bent on evil, will sit at the same table and lie to each other, but to no avail for an end will still come at the appointed time." All that aside, if you'd had some foreign thugs marching into your country in 1953 and replacing your democratically elected president with a brutal dictator like the Shah and suffered all the consequences since, up to now, when the same people are threatening to nuke you, would you have managed to write such a mild letter to Mr Bush? The man is a paragon of restraint. At some point we're all going to have to learn to forgive one another and turn away from our desire to lord authority over other people. What other options do we have? Much of the difficulty in the Middle East stems from the American appetite for energy, which has a strangely synergistic effect when combined with the bizarre, Schofield-annotated eschatology of the Dispensationalists. As long as we insist that we're "right", and that we "have a right" to behave this way, at what point can we actually listen? Without listening, how can we change? Without change, how long can the world sustain its present course? How can you compare someone like Rice? And what does it say that "enough" people (she thinks) will accept her mindless response as good and wise? If you want cardboard cut-outs doing foreign policy you'd do a lot better with Max Headroom, and so would we all. You mean there's a difference? : - ) (Mr. Ahmadi-Najad, the "irrational lunatic") You could say about the same of the US media's treatment of Bin Laden's various messages. But it's so hard to hear the voice of truth when a hurricane of lies keeps screaming through the country. robert luis rabello "The Edge of Justice" Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ranger
Re: [Biofuel] Full Text : The President of Iran's Letter To President Bush
Of course, the Iranian Bahai'is may have a somewhat different take on the nature of Mr. Ahmadi-Najad... robert and benita rabello wrote: Keith Addison wrote: Methinks 'tis perhaps but a task for the menials. I find myself sniggering at the prospect of the ensuing spectacle upon the arrival of the enraptured at the Pearly Gates: Hey Peter, who the hell are all these naked guys outside trying to get in? They say they got tickets but it's only monopoly board money. Wrong address? Right. Ooops! LOL! I've read somewhere that there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth among those who claim to do God's will, but behave otherwise. There is an irony to what you've written that would be funny if the people who behaved this way weren't so bent on increasing the world's suffering. Yeah I know, sorry. But their God isn't God, it's some other guy who hates everybody, and by the time they find out it'll be too late. A better man might manage to shed a tear for them over that but I reckon I'm doing quite well if I can wring a laugh out of it at least. Always look on the bright side of life, ta-dum... I mean, if you wrote a science-fiction novel where the world ended like this singularly unenrapturing bunch of total whackoes wants it to end, and they could even do it, nobody'd want to publish it, the editor would tell you it's too preposterous, the characters are like cardboard cut-outs, the plot needs work and the ending really stinks. We've discussed the Left Behind series before, Keith. It seems the Dispensationalist nonsense that passes for eschatology in the US these days has sold far more books than I have! (50 million copies!!! I'd be happy with 50 000 copies sold!) http://dir.salon.com/story/books/feature/2002/07/29/left_behind/index.html Of course, I'm capable of writing such tripe too, but WHY? Have you seen some of the reactions here of non-Americans when they first encounter stuff like this? A major reason the Armageddonites have become so powerful is that most journalists can't comprehend that millions of Americans could really want, in this day and age, their God to destroy most of the human race, much less that they are donating millions to promote it... Their beliefs are bonkers, but they are at the heart of power US Christian fundamentalists are driving Bush's Middle East policy The Guardian Bush White House checked with rapture Christians before latest Israel move The Village Voice Much more at: http://tinyurl.com/rhk2s Re: [Biofuel] The Brutal Christ of the Armageddonites - Religious fanaticism in American foreign policy Sigh . . . Sometimes it's embarrassing to be a Christian--not because I'm ashamed of my faith in Jesus, but because of how people who CLAIM to follow him behave! It certainly doesn't look like Mr. Ahmadi-Najad is the one who's crazy. Certainly not. I don't see the harm in talking to someone who is genuinely interested in solving conflicts, nor do I perceive a problem with listening and making an effort to understand someone else's point of view. The difficult part is determining the degree of sincerity from the other person, and that issue cuts BOTH ways. I've also read: Two kings, with their hearts bent on evil, will sit at the same table and lie to each other, but to no avail for an end will still come at the appointed time. All that aside, if you'd had some foreign thugs marching into your country in 1953 and replacing your democratically elected president with a brutal dictator like the Shah and suffered all the consequences since, up to now, when the same people are threatening to nuke you, would you have managed to write such a mild letter to Mr Bush? The man is a paragon of restraint. At some point we're all going to have to learn to forgive one another and turn away from our desire to lord authority over other people. What other options do we have? Much of the difficulty in the Middle East stems from the American appetite for energy, which has a strangely synergistic effect when combined with the bizarre, Schofield-annotated eschatology of the Dispensationalists. As long as we insist that we're right, and that we have a right to behave this way, at what point can we actually listen? Without listening, how can we change? Without change, how long can the world sustain its present course? How can you compare someone like Rice? And what does it say that enough people (she thinks) will accept her mindless response as good and wise? If you want cardboard cut-outs doing foreign policy you'd do a lot better with Max Headroom, and so would we all. You mean there's a difference? : - ) (Mr. Ahmadi-Najad, the irrational lunatic) You could say about the same of the US media's treatment of Bin Laden's various messages. But it's so hard to hear the voice of truth when a
Re: [Biofuel] Full Text : The President of Iran's Letter To President Bush
Mike Weaver wrote: Of course, the Iranian Bahai'is may have a somewhat different take on the nature of Mr. Ahmadi-Najad... You're right. My son attends school with a boy whose rather volatile mother is Persian and ascribes to the Bahai faith. She thinks Mr. Ahmadi-Najad will get what's coming to him. This is precisely what I mean when I claim that determining the relative sincerity of an adversary's willingness to negotiate in good faith is a slippery business. robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca 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/
[Biofuel] gas guzzling Americans
Op-Ed: Gas-Guzzling Americans http://www.alternate-energy.net/N/news.php?detail=n1150228987.news Get your daily alternative energy news Alternate Energy Resource Network 1000+ news sources-resources updated daily http://www.alternate-energy.net Next Generation Grid http://groups.yahoo.com/group/next_generation_grid/ Tomorrow-energy http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tomorrow-energy/ Alternative Energy Politics http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Alternative_Energy_Politics/ ___ 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] Distributed computing and climate prediction
Check out http://boinc.berkeley.edu/. If you are the kind whose computer is running most of the time even if you aren't using a lot of compute-heavy applications, you may like to join some of the projects listed at the boinc site. They come with some great screen savers. Cheers. Chandan Mike Redler wrote: Thanks David. This is a great idea! I did a quick search for other similar schemes (i.e. SETI, etc.) and found: http://distributedcomputing.info Apparently, this is getting popular with some applications. Is this is the end of supercomputers as we know it? On a similar note: I've always wanted to get a bunch of old computers and have them parallel process across an Ethernet hub to achieve a similar objective (except without the need for prioritizing like distributed computing requires). I never did enough research to actually follow through with a plan or determine if it's even worth the work. -Redler David Kramer wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/moreaboutexperiment1.shtml Distributed computing and climate prediction ___ 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] Neutralizing BD Prior TO Wash
Hello to all, While picking up some brewing supplies (beer), I got into a discussion of biodiesel with a complete stranger. He saw the BD 100 on my car's license plates .. He brews 100 gallon batches of BD ...Two Stage Base/Base method stir processes + stir washes. He seemed to be a very nice guy and very knowledgeable as well. He suggested that I neutralize the biodiesel before washing it. Mix phosphoric acid (I am not sure of the exact quantity) with one-fourth of the glycerine drained off from the reaction. Mix it back in with the biodiesel and allow it to separate "It will take a while." The caustic (KOH or NaOH) will precipitate out making washing significantly easier/much less water required. Has anyone heard of this? My concerns: 1. Will having biodiesel mixed with glycerine after the catalyst has been removed pull the reaction back in the wrong direction? This is a concern with methanol recovery prior to separating the glycerine. However, in the case of methanol recovery, the temp is high and there is 4X more "glycerine". 2. Can the addition of acid to the biodiesel prior to, or during the wash release free fatty acids from the soaps that are formed during processing? If so, wouldn'tthe FFAsremain in the BD during subsequent washes? Tom ___ 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] was...ANYONE know anything about this?
Hi, It sounds similar to other cylinder treatments such as Duralube, STP, etc. I used to use Duralube in an '93 gmc Vandura 3/4 ton I had and it made the engine run quieter and increased mileage a little by coating the cylinder walls with a silicone based liquid to reduce friction. Duralube costs about 20 bucks and I am pretty sure that this stuff is almost the same ingredients. I really don't think that you are going to find much difference. It sounds like they are trying to cash in on permenently high gas prices. I woudn't buy it. regards tallex Get your daily alternative energy news Alternate Energy Resource Network 1000+ news sources-resources updated daily http://www.alternate-energy.net Next Generation Grid http://groups.yahoo.com/group/next_generation_grid/ Tomorrow-energy http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tomorrow-energy/ Alternative Energy Politics http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Alternative_Energy_Politics/ ---Original Message--- From: chem.dd [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Biofuel] ANYONE know anything about this? Sent: 13 Jun '06 10:42 If you buy this stuff I have a bridge I want to talk to you about LOL David - Original Message - FROM: [LINK: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ROY Washbish TO: [LINK: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] biofuel@sustainablelists.org SENT: Monday, June 12, 2006 7:07 AM SUBJECT: [Biofuel] ANYONE know anything about this? Hi Gang My brother-in-law offered this to me to get better mileage in my viehicle. I have no idea if it works but I sure don't think it can as this type of stuff is usually all HYPE. [LINK: http://www.spmpg.myffi.biz/en/section_100.asp] http://www.spmpg.myffi.biz/en/section_100.asp What are your thoughts? Have a look Thanks Roy __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com __ 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 [LINK: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Biofuel@sustainablelists.org [LINK: http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org] http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: [LINK: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html] http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): [LINK: http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/] 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] Wierd Glycerine Splits Resolved
The weird glycerine splits seem to have resolved themselves. I put two of the cubies with the"weird" separations out in the hot afternoon sun today and left two in the cool basement. The ones in the sunlight "normal" separation i.e. Dark FFAs on top Lighter transparent "Glycerine" and mineral precipitate on bottom. Temp had been mentioned as a factor in the successful separation of glycerine, butafter 12 or more cubies of glycerine mix separated "normally" in my basement, I thought the temp was not a factor. Warm temps probably help all glycerine separation. If there is difficulty in separating the glycerine, consider that warmer temps may help. Tom - Original Message - From: Thomas Kelly To: biofuel Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 10:27 AM Subject: [Biofuel] Wierd Glycerine Splits I've been having good success splitting the glycerine mix. The typical split has three layers: Bottom: Mineral precipitate Middle: Reddish (crude glycerine) Top: Dark, less viscous liquid (FFAs) I've had a few oddballs: (Still three layers) The bottom and middle seem normal, but the top is not dark in color. It is clearly a different layer . less viscous, is similarto the middle layerin color, only lighter . rather than being dark. Light passes through this layer easier than through the glycerine layer. Normally the FFA layer blocks light. Is this still the FFAs? Tom ___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch 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] Distributed computing and climate prediction
beowolf cluster Chandan Haldar wrote: Check out http://boinc.berkeley.edu/. If you are the kind whose computer is running most of the time even if you aren't using a lot of compute-heavy applications, you may like to join some of the projects listed at the boinc site. They come with some great screen savers. Cheers. Chandan Mike Redler wrote: Thanks David. This is a great idea! I did a quick search for other similar schemes (i.e. SETI, etc.) and found: http://distributedcomputing.info Apparently, this is getting popular with some applications. Is this is the end of supercomputers as we know it? On a similar note: I've always wanted to get a bunch of old computers and have them parallel process across an Ethernet hub to achieve a similar objective (except without the need for prioritizing like distributed computing requires). I never did enough research to actually follow through with a plan or determine if it's even worth the work. -Redler David Kramer wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/moreaboutexperiment1.shtml Distributed computing and climate prediction ___ 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] Distributed computing and climate prediction
MR Apparently, this is getting popular with some applications. Is this is MR the end of supercomputers as we know it? I think distributed computing and distributed hosting have an enormous potential. Unfortunately I won't be able to take part in the BBC project myself beause you need at least 1.6 GHz XP or W2000, and my pea sea is a clapped-out old 333 MHz running W98, but I thought maybe a few people in the list might be interested. And if at the end of it we can authoritatively state that on the basis of not just one model but thousands of models there is a so and so many % probability that temperatures will rise by so and so many degrees in the next so and so many years, it would make the denialists' lives a little bit more difficult. David (who is going back into lurkdom) ___ 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] compost test
ive finally done it, i dont know if its right, but ive started a compost box (paper carton) it will probably be better when my pumpkin plant gets bigger and can use bigger leaves, but i started it with some old newspapers and the wilted leaves from my wifes flowers, then i went out to the backyard and got a little bucketful of timber dirt to mix in with it. i hope this works!!! -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.3/362 - Release Date: 6/12/2006 ___ 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 Ethics of Eating Meat: A Radical View
A friend of mine raises cattle on the highline in Montana. It takes 40 acres to support 1 cow. The land is useless for agriculture as it is too dry and there is no water for irrigation. Without cattle it would yield nothing to eat unless you want to munch on the native bunch grasses.Kirkpan ruti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear and respected Keith and our list members Well and thank you to bring again for old debate on the SACRED COW, which had very good impact , even though very hot controversial debate in our list last time .Let us again have good debate on this good topic as we do have several eastern , western list members of all culture and countries.I think this topic need not be considered off topic , but very important one related with sustainability and wish to thank for the same Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.westonaprice.org/healthissues/ethicsmeat.htmlThe Ethics of Eating Meat: A Radical ViewBy I will not contest any of the above statistics, except to say that they only describe the meat industry as it exists today. They constitute a compelling argument against the meat industry, not meat-eating. For in fact, there are other ways of raising animals for food, ways that make livestock an environmental asset rather than a liability, and in which animals do not lead lives of suffering. Consider, for example, a traditional mixed farm combining a variety of crops, pasture land and orchards. Here, manure is not a pollutant or a waste product; it is a valuable resource contributing to soil fertility. Instead of taking grain away from the starving millions, pastured animals actually generate food calories from land unsuited to tillage. When animals are used to do work-pulling plows, eating bugs and turning compost-they reduce fossil fuel consumption and the temptation to use pesticides. Nor do animals living outdoors require a huge input of water for sanitation. __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch 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] Prions and junk science
http://nov55.com/prin.html Prions and Junk Science Prion proteins lack genetic material for creating their own evolution. When the genetic material is in the host, it's a genetic disease; but prion diseases are obviously not genetic diseases. Ever hear of "new variant CJD?" There cannot be such a thing as a new variant for a genetic disease. Evolution cannot work against the source of the DNA.On This Page: Prions Junk Science Point 1. There is zero probability that two mutations will support each other in creating genetic diseases. So there could not be any more than one mutation in the whole field of Scrapies-like diseases—across species and all. Point 2. Nature has had 600 million years to iron out the flaws in brain membrane proteins. It is not still killing people over it. Point 3. A protein that causes a similar protein to change does not cause the cells to produce more such proteins and destroy themselves doing so. Point 4. Proteins are not indestructible; they are among the most fragile biological molecules. Genetic material is much closer to indestructible, because it needs to maintain information without error. Point 5. There is no method of dissemination for a prion disease except eating brains, but sheep and animals in the wild spread the disease and acquire it like any other disease, while they never eat brains. The reason why it matters—bottom of page Here's the contradiction in the basic laws of genetics for prions. There has to be natural selection to create a significant disease. If natural selection picks out the most destructive proteins and promotes them, the problem is that the protein is limited by a primary structure which is coded by the host DNA. A particular primary structure cannot produce any number of different conformational alternatives for a protein. So the natural selection cannot be separated from the host DNA, and backwards evolution cannot act upon the host DNA making it more disease prone.Natural selection prevents genetic diseases from going beyond one mutation.A disease without genetic material (supposedly a prion protein) cannot have variants which change over time, and natural selection reduces genetic diseases over time preventing them from showing up in more than one species. Without its own separate genetic material, a disease has to be a single, isolated and sporadic mutation in the host DNA. There cannot be any order, complexity, or evolution to such a genetic disease. One reason for this biological principle is that the ratio of destructive mutations to constructive mutation is immense. The probability of two mutations aligning upon each other to enhance a genetic disease is functionally zero. It will never happen. Another factor involved is that natural selection improves survivability of the host by reducing genetic diseases, not enhancing them. The second mutation to worsen a genetic disease removes it from the gene pool through natural selection or survival of the fitest.And to believe the prion theory we are supposed to assume that the Scrapies-like diseases are genetic diseases, because they supposedly are not caused by a microbe. In other words, every point of complexity in prions must result from complex corruption of the host DNA, while DNA never corrupts itself in complex ways.Prions.(Americans do not pronounce i as e, except to glorify junk science.)Prions are proteins which supposedly cause Mad Cow Disease and variants such as Scrapies. The claim that a protein can do the same thing as infectious agents is in conflict with all scientific principles involved. There are better theories. Spiroplasma appears to be the most likely cause of those diseases. MadCowDiseasehastheappearanceofbeinggeneticallyengineered, since it lost its usual degree of species specificity. In other words, it jumped species from sheep to cattle and from cattle to humans. However, this property may have resulted from speeded up evolution due to recycling of carcasses as livestock feed.Scrapies is a disease that destroys the brains of sheep but does not normally affect humans. The causative agent was looked for but never found. In 1957, a variant of Scrapies was found to affect some human cannibals in New Guinea. The persons who ate the brains of their ancestors acquired the disease; others did not. So the disease was apparently promoted by eating brains.The human form is now called Creutzfeld-Jacob Disease (CJD). The group of related diseases is called Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy (TSE). The Mad Cow form is called Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). A few years ago, cattle in England acquired the BSE variant of the disease. The precipitating factor was assumed to be the feeding of dead livestock back to livestock. Soon, a few humans started acquiring the disease presumably from eating the meat of diseased cows. At that point, all cattle in England were slaughtered to protect the humans. There was
Re: [Biofuel] The Ethics of Eating Meat: A Radical View
Excellent Piece Keith, I did enjoy it and must agree. I may add to the argument that is stated, primal conviction that killing is wrong. It is just plain wrong to take another animal's life unnecessarily; it is bloody, brutal, and barbaric. If this is true then why is the Wolf wired to kill (among so many others)? Some may even say that the wolf does not kill unnecessarily. That is not always the case and has been well documented. Lets face the facts the planet is a food chain that involves killing and we were once a part of that in a big way. Only the protections of our technology can take us out of the cycle where we are among the hunted as well as the hunter. Jim Keith Addison wrote: http://www.westonaprice.org/healthissues/ethicsmeat.html The Ethics of Eating Meat: A Radical View By Charles Eisenstein Most vegetarians I know are not primarily motivated by nutrition. Although they argue strenuously for the health benefits of a vegetarian diet, many see good health as a reward for the purity and virtue of a vegetarian diet, or as an added bonus. In my experience, a far more potent motivator among vegetarians-ranging from idealistic college students, to social and environmental activists, to adherents of Eastern spiritual traditions like Buddhism and Yoga-is the moral or ethical case for not eating meat. Enunciated with great authority by such spiritual luminaries as Mahatma Gandhi, and by environmental crusaders such as Frances Moore Lappe, the moral case against eating meat seems at first glance to be overpowering. As a meat eater who cares deeply about living in harmony with the environment, and as an honest person trying to eliminate hypocrisy in the way I live, I feel compelled to take these arguments seriously. A typical argument goes like this: In order to feed modern society's enormous appetite for meat, animals endure unimaginable suffering in conditions of extreme filth, crowding and confinement. Chickens are packed twenty to a cage, hogs are kept in concrete stalls so narrow they can never turn around. Arguing for the Environment The cruelty is appalling, but no less so than the environmental effects. Meat animals are fed anywhere from five to fifteen pounds of vegetable protein for each pound of meat produced-an unconscionable practice in a world where many go hungry. Whereas one-sixth an acre of land can feed a vegetarian for a year, over three acres are required to provide the grain needed to raise a year's worth of meat for the average meat-eater. All too often, so the argument goes, those acres consist of clear-cut rain forests. The toll on water resources is equally grim: the meat industry accounts for half of US water consumption-2500 gallons per pound of beef, compared to 25 gallons per pound of wheat. Polluting fossil fuels are another major input into meat production. As for the output, 1.6 million tons of livestock manure pollutes our drinking water. And let's not forget the residues of antibiotics and synthetic hormones that are increasingly showing up in municipal water supplies. Even without considering the question of taking life (I'll get to that later), the above facts alone make it clear that it is immoral to aid and abet this system by eating meat. Factory or Farm? I will not contest any of the above statistics, except to say that they only describe the meat industry as it exists today. They constitute a compelling argument against the meat industry, not meat-eating. For in fact, there are other ways of raising animals for food, ways that make livestock an environmental asset rather than a liability, and in which animals do not lead lives of suffering. Consider, for example, a traditional mixed farm combining a variety of crops, pasture land and orchards. Here, manure is not a pollutant or a waste product; it is a valuable resource contributing to soil fertility. Instead of taking grain away from the starving millions, pastured animals actually generate food calories from land unsuited to tillage. When animals are used to do work-pulling plows, eating bugs and turning compost-they reduce fossil fuel consumption and the temptation to use pesticides. Nor do animals living outdoors require a huge input of water for sanitation. In a farm that is not just a production facility but an ecology, livestock has a beneficial role to play. The cycles, connections and relationships among crops, trees, insects, manure, birds, soil, water and people on a living farm form an intricate web, organic in its original sense, a thing of beauty not easily lumped into the same category as a 5000-animal concrete hog factory. Any natural environment is home to animals and plants, and it seems reasonable that an agriculture that seeks to be as close as possible to nature would incorporate both. Indeed, on a purely horticultural farm, wild animals can be a big problem, and artificial measures are required to keep
Re: [Biofuel] No New Refineries
No; building refineries will not reduce the price of crude. Products refined from crude are traded as commodities. Along with the supply and demand of crude, the supply and demand of refined products also affects the price the consumer pays for those products. The question can become if the industry is making money in the current situation, will it build new refineries given relaxed regulation, if new refineries that may increase supply, resulting in lower prices for the refined product. Doug, N0LKK Kansas USA chem.dd wrote: Building new refiniries will not reduce the price of crude. It is based on global demand. The Chinese and Indians are rapidly moving from bicycles to automobiles. This is why the price of crude is $70+ for a barrel. And this is why bio based feedstocks for fuel are going to become economically viable, irrespective of environmental concerns/benefits. If crude were at $25/barrel we would not be having this conversation. David - Original Message - From: Doug Younker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 5:33 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] No New Refineries This is one of those times I smell a rat, but can't find/prove it. In regards to environmental requirements, in the industry previously claimed the costs where too high and the consumer wouldn't pay the price. Here we are now: No refineries where not built and the consumer is paying unprecedented prices that result in higher profits for the industry. Chances are the industry will be allowed to build new refineries that don't meet the stricter environmental require, pocketing the savings. The cynic in me has to feel that in no way, even with relaxed environmental regulations, will the industry build capacity to significantly increase supply. Oh well... Doug, N0LKK Kansas USA Keith Addison wrote: http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/06/06/no_new_refineries.php No New Refineries Frank O'Donnell ___ 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] The Ethics of Eating Meat: A Radical View
JJJN wrote: Excellent Piece Keith, I did enjoy it and must agree. You and Keith are SUCH savage carnivores! : - ) I may add to the argument that is stated, primal conviction that killing is wrong. It is just plain wrong to take another animal's life unnecessarily; it is bloody, brutal, and barbaric. If this is true then why is the Wolf wired to kill (among so many others)? I once posed this question to my saintly grandfather, except I used the example of dinosaurs with big, sharp teeth. My saintly grandfather believed that killing was not the natural order of things, but resulted from the introduction of sin into the world. (This idea, by the way, is NOT supported in the book of Genesis. There's a passage in Romans 8: 20 - 22 that refers to the creation being subject to the bondage of decay that is often used to underscore the concept that killing ANYTHING, including Bessie the cow and Henry the rooster, is morally wrong.) So what do we do about Allosaurus, T Rex and the raptors that long preceeded the arrival of humanity on earth? Hmm . . . Maybe that's not what the scriptures are referring to, anyway. Maybe I'd better go back and read that verse again. And then, isn't there something about fishermen spreading nets along the River of Life in the book of Ezekiel? Hmm . . . So it's morally ok to eat fish, but not cow, or turkey? Didn't Jesus eat lamb? Oh, the moral dilemma! Some may even say that the wolf does not kill unnecessarily. That is not always the case and has been well documented. Lets face the facts the planet is a food chain that involves killing and we were once a part of that in a big way. Only the protections of our technology can take us out of the cycle where we are among the hunted as well as the hunter. There's a good reason I don't go into the woods! I don't own a gun anyway, and I don't eat anything that had brown eyes and a mom . . . I guess that means I'd probably taste pretty good to a carnivore, though now that I'm losing weight I might seem a bit bony. robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca 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/
