Re: [Biofuel] The Case for the Electric Tractor
Perhaps I'm reading the article too critically. Diesel tractors do not need the PTO to operate cultivation and seeding implements, that I'm aware of, so it would stand to reason an electric tractor wouldn't either. Desi el or electric a PTO will required to operate some crop harvesting implements. Yes in the past their operation was powered by the wheels of horse pulled ancestors. I would have to think their wouldn't be enough time in a 24 hour day for a modern versions of the to do the amount of work powered equipment in a much shorter, but still plenty long,work day. The AC and they hydraulics will need power, perhaps the hydraulics will provide enough heat for the cab during the winter. Certaintly they will be quieter, but hear the chirping birds quit, may be a stretch I'm sure electric tractors will have to be a part of the solution, so it will be interesting to see how they take shape and if over the road electric tractors will be developed alongside them. Doug, N0LKK Kansas USA inc. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Market Meltdown: Understanding Climate Economics
to Biofuel List fromLewis L Smith Thanks to Keith for his many references on ecological economics. I checked out some of them. [ A tedious process, since I am traveling and must use dialup. ] I have heard of Georgescue and read some things by him and about him but do not recall why he is no longer an icon. Certainly his main point, that there exist binding operational constraints on the energy resources available to human use, is more valid than ever. Greed, newly recognized human needs and technology are of course constantly changing the calculation of what those limits are. For example, nowadays many of us consider that adequate medical care is a basic human right. This was not true in my childhood. And as I indicated in a previous post, I am an admirer of Costanza, the poser of a question which should be famous, What is a swamp worth ? There is no question that certain natural assets [ such as swamps ] perform useful services for human beings and that one can estimate both the value of the services and the value of the assets in many cases. Indeed when we damage one of the assets and have to replace them with an asset of human confection [ or have to give up the stream of net benefits which we long received from Nature ] then we very quickly discover what these values are. By not recognizing these values, we exploit these natural assets without giving them due care and maintenance, so they deteriorate to the point that they start costing us money instead of saving us money. In brief, there are a whole series of benefits and also charges for operating expense, maintenance expense and depreciation, which ought to appear on everybody's books of account but don't. However, it is my impression is that very few people nowadays, except for those eternal optimists at CERA, the Energy Information Agency and Exxon/Mobile, regard natural resources as an endless cornucopia. This is particularly so in a world where the Saudis must inject 32 barrels of water into the aging Gwahar field to get out 100 barrels of crude, from which some of the injected water must be then removed. Or a world where the energy cost of processing tar sands and putting a salable liquid in a tank on the surface is equivalent to 35-45% of the energy content of that same liquid. As for the Marxists, in the first place they have a nasty habit of exiling, killing, jailing and/or torturing people who don't agree with them. In addition, Marx, Spengler and Toynbee are all sequence historians. That is, history has to unfold in a sequence of more or less rigid steps. By contrast, complexity finds that the future of complex systems beyond the short run, cannot be predicted with an accuracy greater than that provided by a sophisticated scenario-based planning system. Who is right ? My experience in the stock market, 16 administrations in four countries and maybe a dozen new ventures tells me that the students of complexity are right and that the sequence historians are wrong. Then there is the matter of the rate of profit. Both Neoclassical [ Neoliberal ] and Marxist economists come a cropper on that one. First off is there is the question of whether it is even useful to think of such a thing. For example, British energy economists are inclined to favor a separate cost of capital for each project. This has its logic when one realizes that each project incorporates a different mix of old and new technologies, some of which are unique to the project, so the risk premium incorporated into the target rate of return must be different for each project. [ Because of the new technology component, it will also be in part a good guess ! ] Secondly the actual behavior of historic rates of return defy both of these economic theories, in two senses at least. Actual rates, however calculated, vary too much across space and time and levels of organization, such as the firm, the industry and the economy. And rates do not converge or trend as the theories say they should. These facts can be readily observed in the weekly publication, Value Line Investment Survey, which calculates the rate of return FOUR different ways for some 1,500 US private enterprises ! Cordially. ### ** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20070826/dbca71b1/attachment.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] The End of 'Easy Oil'
The End of 'Easy Oil' By Michael T. Klare, Tomdispatch.com Posted on August 18, 2007, Printed on August 18, 2007 http://www.alternet.org/story/60086/ When peak oil theory was first widely publicized in such path breaking books as Kenneth Deffeyes' Hubbert's Peak (2001), Richard Heinberg's The Party's Over (2002), David Goodstein's Out of Gas (2004), and Paul Robert's The End of Oil (2004), energy industry officials and their government associates largely ridiculed the notion. An imminent peak -- and subsequent decline -- in global petroleum output was derided as crackpot science with little geological foundation. Based on [our] analysis, the U.S. Department of Energy confidently asserted in 2004, [we] would expect conventional oil to peak closer to the middle than to the beginning of the 21st century. Recently, however, a spate of high-level government and industry reports have begun to suggest that the original peak-oil theorists were far closer to the grim reality of global-oil availability than industry analysts were willing to admit. Industry optimism regarding long-term energy-supply prospects, these official reports indicate, has now given way to a deep-seated pessimism, even in the biggest of Big Oil corporate headquarters. The change in outlook is perhaps best suggested by a July 27 article in the Wall Street Journal headlined, Oil Profits Show Sign of Aging. Although reporting staggering second-quarter profits for oil giants Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell -- $10.3 billion for the former, $8.7 billion for the latter -- the Journal sadly noted that investors are bracing for disappointing results in future quarters as the cost of new production rises and output at older fields declines. All the oil companies are struggling to grow production, explained Peter Hitchens, an analyst at the Teather and Greenwood brokerage house. [Yet] it's becoming more and more difficult to bring projects in on time and on budget. To appreciate the nature of Big Oil's dilemma, peak-oil theory must be briefly revisited. As originally formulated by petroleum geologist M. King Hubbert in the 1950s, the concept holds that worldwide oil production will rise until approximately half of the world's original petroleum inheritance has been exhausted; once this point is reached, daily output will hit a peak and begin an irreversible decline. Hubbert's successors, including professor emeritus Kenneth Deffeyes of Princeton, contend that we have now consumed just about half the original supply and so are at, or very near, the peak-production moment predicted by Hubbert. Since the concept burst into public consciousness several years ago, its proponents and critics have largely argued over whether or not we have reached maximum worldwide petroleum output. In a way, this is a moot argument, because the numbers involved in conventional oil output have increasingly been obscured by oil derived from unconventional sources -- deep-offshore fields, tar sands, and natural-gas liquids, for example -- that are being blended into petroleum feedstocks used to make gasoline and other fuels. In recent years, this has made the calculation of petroleum supplies ever more complicated. As a result, it may be years more before we can be certain of the exact timing of the global peak-oil moment. On tap: The tough-oil era There is, however, a second aspect to peak-oil theory, which is no less relevant when it comes to the global-supply picture -- one that is far easier to detect and assess today. Peak-oil theorists have long contended that the first half of the world's oil to be extracted and consumed will be the easy half. They are referring, of course, to the oil that's found on shore or near to shore; oil close to the surface and concentrated in large reservoirs; oil produced in friendly, safe, and welcoming places. The other half -- what (if they are right) is left of the world's petroleum supply -- is the tough oil. They mean oil that's buried far offshore or deep underground; oil scattered in small, hard-to-find reservoirs; oil that must be obtained from unfriendly, politically dangerous, or hazardous places. An oil investor's eye-view of our energy planet today quickly reveals that we already seem to be entering the tough-oil era. This explains the growing pessimism among industry analysts as well as certain changes in behavior in the energy marketplace. In but one sign of the new reality, the price of benchmark U.S. light, sweet crude oil for next-month delivery soared to new highs on July 31, topping the previous record for intraday trading of $77.03 per barrel set in July 2006. Some observers are predicting that a price of $80 per barrel is just around the corner; while John Kildruff, a perfectly sober analyst at futures broker Man Financial, told Bloomberg.com, We're only a headline of significance away from $100 oil. New disruptions in Nigerian or Iraqi supplies,
Re: [Biofuel] The Case for the Electric Tractor
PTO IS USED during planting and cultivating. Often used to run the planter or sprayer. Larry Ruebush west central IL - Original Message - From: Doug Younker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 1:00 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The Case for the Electric Tractor Perhaps I'm reading the article too critically. Diesel tractors do not need the PTO to operate cultivation and seeding implements, that I'm aware of, so it would stand to reason an electric tractor wouldn't either. Desi el or electric a PTO will required to operate some crop harvesting implements. Yes in the past their operation was powered by the wheels of horse pulled ancestors. I would have to think their wouldn't be enough time in a 24 hour day for a modern versions of the to do the amount of work powered equipment in a much shorter, but still plenty long,work day. The AC and they hydraulics will need power, perhaps the hydraulics will provide enough heat for the cab during the winter. Certaintly they will be quieter, but hear the chirping birds quit, may be a stretch I'm sure electric tractors will have to be a part of the solution, so it will be interesting to see how they take shape and if over the road electric tractors will be developed alongside them. Doug, N0LKK Kansas USA inc. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Market Meltdown: Understanding Climate Economics
Hi Lewis, thanks My comment would be that Toynbee is not wrong, or at least not in that way. This is an interesting time (!) to observe the mechanisms Toynbee described at work. I don't see a contradiction with the complexity view of things, other than to comment that that is a very mechanistic way of viewing it. You could say the same of a new-born babe - of course there's too much complexity involved to predict the course of it's life, but it's life will nonetheless unfold within a certain pattern, and much of that pattern is a known and can be predicted. Much the same with Toynbee's view of how civilisations live and die. His description of how societies adapt to challenges is certainly accurate. It's not a sequence of more or less rigid steps as you say. As for the Marxists, in the first place they have a nasty habit of exiling, killing, jailing and/or torturing people who don't agree with them. Actually the so-called democracies have often been more aggressive than the oppressive regimes, at least towards other countries. Leave out the exiling bit and you could well be describing the US these days (and not only these days). It's probably more accurate to say though that neither Marxism nor democracy have really been tried yet. Propaganda is to a democracy what violence is to a dictatorship, says William Blum in Rogue State, on how governments control their citizens - ie a dictatorship with gloves on. I don't think Marxism is any more compatible with dictatorship than democracy is. All best Keith to Biofuel List from Lewis L Smith Thanks to Keith for his many references on ecological economics. I checked out some of them. [ A tedious process, since I am traveling and must use dialup. ] I have heard of Georgescue and read some things by him and about him but do not recall why he is no longer an icon. Certainly his main point, that there exist binding operational constraints on the energy resources available to human use, is more valid than ever. Greed, newly recognized human needs and technology are of course constantly changing the calculation of what those limits are. For example, nowadays many of us consider that adequate medical care is a basic human right. This was not true in my childhood. And as I indicated in a previous post, I am an admirer of Costanza, the poser of a question which should be famous, What is a swamp worth ? There is no question that certain natural assets [ such as swamps ] perform useful services for human beings and that one can estimate both the value of the services and the value of the assets in many cases. Indeed when we damage one of the assets and have to replace them with an asset of human confection [ or have to give up the stream of net benefits which we long received from Nature ] then we very quickly discover what these values are. By not recognizing these values, we exploit these natural assets without giving them due care and maintenance, so they deteriorate to the point that they start costing us money instead of saving us money. In brief, there are a whole series of benefits and also charges for operating expense, maintenance expense and depreciation, which ought to appear on everybody's books of account but don't. However, it is my impression is that very few people nowadays, except for those eternal optimists at CERA, the Energy Information Agency and Exxon/Mobile, regard natural resources as an endless cornucopia. This is particularly so in a world where the Saudis must inject 32 barrels of water into the aging Gwahar field to get out 100 barrels of crude, from which some of the injected water must be then removed. Or a world where the energy cost of processing tar sands and putting a salable liquid in a tank on the surface is equivalent to 35-45% of the energy content of that same liquid. As for the Marxists, in the first place they have a nasty habit of exiling, killing, jailing and/or torturing people who don't agree with them. In addition, Marx, Spengler and Toynbee are all sequence historians. That is, history has to unfold in a sequence of more or less rigid steps. By contrast, complexity finds that the future of complex systems beyond the short run, cannot be predicted with an accuracy greater than that provided by a sophisticated scenario-based planning system. Who is right ? My experience in the stock market, 16 administrations in four countries and maybe a dozen new ventures tells me that the students of complexity are right and that the sequence historians are wrong. Then there is the matter of the rate of profit. Both Neoclassical [ Neoliberal ] and Marxist economists come a cropper on that one. First off is there is the question of whether it is even useful to think of such a thing. For example, British energy economists are inclined to favor a separate cost of capital for each project. This has its logic when one realizes that each
Re: [Biofuel] The End of 'Easy Oil'
curves in the middle of a decline, as has happened in the North Sea, for which good numbers exist. Under the circumstances, I make the following fearless forecast [1] There are enough mediocre to good production statistics to say with at least a 90% probability that the all-time peak will be reached on or before 2020, if it hasn't already. Since all energy programs must include some large projects with long lead times, 2020 is just around the corner. [2] There is at least a 60% probability that the decline curve will be steep rather than shallow. If so, this means that the period following the peak will see a worldwide depression, possibly followed by regional wars over energy sources. [3] We may also have a natural gas crisis of some sort by 2025, according to a consultant's report delivered to the US Army in Nov 2005 and never repudiated. Hang on to your hats ! It's going to be a bumpy ride into the future. Cordially. ### ** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20070826/26c1897c/attachment.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] Elsbett installation
Greetings, I intend to purchase a conversion kit from Elsbett (48300490) and will most likely have a local diesel mechanic perform the installation. I've tried emailing Elsbett, but they haven't responded to my requests, and I am hoping someone out there could answer a question for me. I wanted to check what the 89,76PS stands for in the kit description. All the other numbers match up to what I have. (engine displacement, etc.) I know it is a 90hp engine, and am assuming this is a similar power measurement (?). 2003 VW Jetta 1.9 TDI -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20070826/b481dec0/attachment.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The End of 'Easy Oil'
Hello Lewis We've had a lot about Matt Simmons in the past, I think most of his work's been aired here. Somebody said he sounded just like a Biofuel list member! Indeed he did. He even got the Food Miles bit right. You really should spend more time checking the archives! Offlist message from list member: Your list contains some of the best information I have found on the Internet. The archives are great and that is where I spend most of my time acquiring knowledge. This information I believe vitally important NOW and am very happy it is here. Our future may just depend upon it. Now that is important. A lot of people spend a lot of time at the list archives. http://www.mail-archive.com/search?q=%22Matthew+Simmons%22l=sustainab [EMAIL PROTECTED] Matthew Simmons 38 matches If that link breaks try this one: http://snipurl.com/1pz4i The whole thread is linked at the end of each page. I think the Peak Oil issue's a bit moot anyway. Even if there were no Peak approaching (whenever), with as much oil left as there was 50 years ago or 100 years ago, we still wouldn't be able to use it the way we've been using it up to now (wasting it mostly). We already broke the sky that way, after all. to Biofuel List from Lewis L Smith Thanks again to Keith for bringing some important developments to our attention. The worm is beginning to turn. The very people who ridiculed the idea of peak oil are beginning to admit that we have a mid-term problem, if not a short-term one. However, I must take issue with Prof. Klare on certain points, even though he is probably smarter than I am, has a tougher degree than mine and is more erudite in the energy field. My first defense is that because of my extensive multidisciplinary experience, I may be able to do a better job of collecting the dots, connecting the dots and marshaling the evidence, across time, space and disciplines. My second defense is that he makes some errors of fact and interpretation. Whatever you believe, allow me to assert the following [1] The matter of peak oil is no longer a theory, whether that word is taken in the street sense, the judicial system sense or the scientific sense, although some theories of peak oil are still hanging around [ in the first sense ] , some of which even use the obsolete Hubbert technique. Rather today the peak-oil concept is basically a collection of rather simple but tedious calculations which attempt to estimate the year in which world production of conventional crude oil and analogous liquids will reach [ or have reached ] a historic peak, never to be repeated. [ Current estimates on the table run from 2004 to 2032 ! Note that this is a geologic concept. A peak could occur before of course, for military or political reasons. ] Moreover, the differences of opinion are not so much the result of differences in estimating techniques [ as they were in the past century ] but reflect deficiencies in the data, differences in hole plugging assumptions and such like. Indeed this latest controversy got started precisely when Matthew Simmons, an engineer who had worked for Saudi-Aramco, had finished reading some 200 conference papers by Aramco engineers, he came to the conclusion that the enterprise was not telling the truth about the condition of its reservoirs ! Or they didn't know the truth, or they lied about it (Shell). [It is better to read technical conference papers than to visit a country. The speakers tell fewer lies to their fellow professionals than official hosts tell to visitors to the former's country ! ] Hm. In my experience (as a journalist who follows his nose) it's better to do both. If you're prepared to get your boots a bit muddy you'll soon get further than the official hosts' version. [2] The most savvy analysts use only production figures, not reserve figures. All statistics in the oil industry are deficient. In general, the current data is neither complete nor very accurate, while such accurate data as exists is often not very current. However, statistics for reserves are in particular plagued by errors, omissions and bald-faced lies. For example, Kuwait's published figures for reserves are probably exaggerated by 100%. A few years ago, Shell Transport admitted that its reserves had been overstated by 25%. And several important producing countries have not changed their reserve figures for several years, although extracting large quantities of crude oil from the same reservoirs for which the reserves are quoted. They would have us believe that every year, new discoveries and revisions of previous estimates exactly equal the oil withdrawn ! Hmmm ... [3] None of the production or reserve figures deduct the energy which is required to put a marketable liquid in a tank on the surface. This didn't use to be important, but now it is. For example, Saudi-Aramco must inject 32 barrels of water into its 50 year old
Re: [Biofuel] Elsbett installation
Hi, PS stands for Pferdestaerke = Horsepower ( HP) Units Result 89 76 PS = 87.78249 hp Conversion factors / Umrechnungsfaktoren * 8.778249e+01 / 1.139179e-02 Leo -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von Benjamin S. Levin Gesendet: Sonntag, 26. August 2007 20:14 An: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Betreff: [Biofuel] Elsbett installation Greetings, I intend to purchase a conversion kit from Elsbett (48300490) and will most likely have a local diesel mechanic perform the installation. I've tried emailing Elsbett, but they haven't responded to my requests, and I am hoping someone out there could answer a question for me. I wanted to check what the 89,76PS stands for in the kit description. All the other numbers match up to what I have. (engine displacement, etc.) I know it is a 90hp engine, and am assuming this is a similar power measurement (?). 2003 VW Jetta 1.9 TDI -- next part -- ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Elsbett installation
Hi Benjamin, Elsbett is a German Firm, and you are about right about PS being something like HP. ( Germany is in Europe, so, uses only metric units, no old fashioned imperial stuff. ;-) PS is a German abbreviation. PS = Pferd Starke = Horse Power But ! ... 1 American HP = not exact 1 P.S. 1PS = 0.736 kW vice versa1 kW = 1.36 PS So ... 89,76PS = 66.06 kW 90 DIN Horsepower = 67.12 KiloWatt 1 DIN PS = 1 DIN HP =0.986 American HP or 1 American HP = 1.014 DIN HP and 1 American HP = 0.7457 kW Grts Bruno M. p.s. : there are many online-convertion sites ( no need to download software ), one of them, for power convertions is www.statman.info/conversions/power.html ;-) At 20:14 26/08/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Greetings, I intend to purchase a conversion kit from Elsbett (48300490) and will most likely have a local diesel mechanic perform the installation. I've tried emailing Elsbett, but they haven't responded to my requests, and I am hoping someone out there could answer a question for me. I wanted to check what the 89,76PS stands for in the kit description. All the other numbers match up to what I have. (engine displacement, etc.) I know it is a 90hp engine, and am assuming this is a similar power measurement (?). 2003 VW Jetta 1.9 TDI = ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The End of 'Easy Oil'
to Biofuels List from Lewis L Smith Thanks again to Keith for leads. I benefit from a stream of current information from a variety of sources and occasionally download stuff for future reference, so don't have to search the archives as much as someone coming fresh upon a subject. The first of Keith's references sent me a message to the effect that it couldn't be found, but the second one panned out. The first item was a 2004 talk by Simmons in which he mentions the 217 conference reports, reading between their lines and his doubts about Saudi reserves, among other items of interest. Again I insist that the slope of the world's average decline curve is more important than the particular year in which crude-oil production peaks and that the shape of this slope could have serious consequences for the World. Since the decline will probably start no later than the year after the year of the peak, the date of the peak is not, to my way of thinking at least, a moot point. In fact, it would be very helpful to be able to anticipate the year of the peak, although I doubt that we can do so unless the producing countries give up their secrets. Cordially. ### ** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20070826/6afa4e66/attachment.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The Case for the Electric Tractor
Larry Ruebush wrote: PTO IS USED during planting and cultivating. Often used to run the planter or sprayer. Larry Ruebush west central IL I stand corrected. I'll pay a bit more attention when my my neighbors drill in the wheat this fall. Doug, N0LKK ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
