Re: [biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel
St. Lawrence County, Town of Bucks Bridge. Near Potsdam, NY. Steve Spence Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter Discussion Boards. Read about Sustainable Technology: http://www.green-trust.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: murdoch [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2002 3:54 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel On Sat, 5 Oct 2002 12:05:12 -0400, you wrote: I have 40 acres, 20 of which is tillable fields. I'm considering starting a co-op, intentional community for biofuels and sustainable agriculture. If anyone is interested in upstate NY, drop me a line. Approx. where in upstate NY? I have a friend or two in Albany, maybe they'd like to know of its existence to evaluate if they'd like to be involved. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- 4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel
they should be here talking about their process. Steve Spence Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter Discussion Boards. Read about Sustainable Technology: http://www.green-trust.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Michael S Briggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 6:04 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, motie_d wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Michael S Briggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One of our chemical engineering professors here at UNH recently completed a project on making (what he calls) bio-oil from wood waste, for home heating in the New England area. Mike I assume he is using a Pyrolysis process? I have a very crude Yes, fast pyrolysis, which yields the bio-oil, char (charcoal briquettes, which can be used as fuel), and non-condensable gases that are used to provide heat for further pyrolysis. homemade gasifier for personal experimental use. When first starting it, before it gets up to operating temp, it produces some of the bio- oil. I use it for firestarter for the next time I run the gasifier. Mine is (rough guess) 50% water. I've never made any attempt to distill it or any other further refining. If you want more info on his setup, let me know and I can put you in touch with him. They have a webpage for the group, but not much information on it yet. Mike Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- 4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel
I have 40 acres, 20 of which is tillable fields. I'm considering starting a co-op, intentional community for biofuels and sustainable agriculture. If anyone is interested in upstate NY, drop me a line. Steve Spence Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter Discussion Boards. Read about Sustainable Technology: http://www.green-trust.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Ken Provost [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 5:51 PM Subject: [biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel Motie writes: I am currently working on a proposal to use Rye and Barley in a crop rotation plan with Suger Beets, with Canola/Rape seed on the side. Primary products to be Ethanol and Canola oil with a distinct possibilty of Ethyl Ester Biodiesel. Marketable by-products would be DDG and Oilseed cakes. Process energy (electric and steam) to be provided by a gasifier running on wood waste from local sawmills. I have someone working on the details of putting this together as a Co-operative, with the suppliers (farmers and sawmill owners) being the owners. It's still pretty tentative, but I have 2 sites located, and support (at least interest) from the Mayors/County Board members. What a great idea! That rotation could probably include even more oilseeds. I'm looking hard at safflower. Canola is nice oil for biodiesel, but the plant itself may be sort of a sensitive bugger -- kinda the Toy French Poodle of the Brassica family! Where is this coop gonna be located, BTW? I'd love to come check em out when they're running (maybe I'll bring a rsum :-)) You probably know this already, but a great structure for such a coop would be an LLC, (limited liability company???). I looked into em a bit when I wanted to set up a joint beverage alcohol recycling/ waste grease recycling plant, also to make ethyl biodiesel. Good luck! Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Plan to Sell a Home? http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel
On Sat, 5 Oct 2002 12:05:12 -0400, you wrote: I have 40 acres, 20 of which is tillable fields. I'm considering starting a co-op, intentional community for biofuels and sustainable agriculture. If anyone is interested in upstate NY, drop me a line. Approx. where in upstate NY? I have a friend or two in Albany, maybe they'd like to know of its existence to evaluate if they'd like to be involved. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home for Top $ http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel
I to would be interested in the info. Greg H. - Original Message - From: Michael S Briggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 16:04 Subject: Re: [biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel If you want more info on his setup, let me know and I can put you in touch with him. They have a webpage for the group, but not much information on it yet. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home with Ease! http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel
Whats the webpage? - Original Message - From: Michael S Briggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 3:04 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, motie_d wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Michael S Briggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One of our chemical engineering professors here at UNH recently completed a project on making (what he calls) bio-oil from wood waste, for home heating in the New England area. Mike I assume he is using a Pyrolysis process? I have a very crude Yes, fast pyrolysis, which yields the bio-oil, char (charcoal briquettes, which can be used as fuel), and non-condensable gases that are used to provide heat for further pyrolysis. homemade gasifier for personal experimental use. When first starting it, before it gets up to operating temp, it produces some of the bio- oil. I use it for firestarter for the next time I run the gasifier. Mine is (rough guess) 50% water. I've never made any attempt to distill it or any other further refining. If you want more info on his setup, let me know and I can put you in touch with him. They have a webpage for the group, but not much information on it yet. Mike Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Michael S Briggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you want more info on his setup, let me know and I can put you in touch with him. They have a webpage for the group, but not much information on it yet. Mike Mike, I am definitely interested in his process, particularly if it can be done on a homeowner/sized scale or up to 50 tons/day. Motie Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel
Thanks, this is very good stuff, give me a few days to work on it. I can't offer my own data yet, but here's a few others who can: http://forums.biodieselnow.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=217 For energy density, see http://www.ott.doe.gov/biofuels/renewable_diesel.html Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Plan to Sell a Home? http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Michael S Briggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One of our chemical engineering professors here at UNH recently completed a project on making (what he calls) bio-oil from wood waste, for home heating in the New England area. Mike I assume he is using a Pyrolysis process? I have a very crude homemade gasifier for personal experimental use. When first starting it, before it gets up to operating temp, it produces some of the bio- oil. I use it for firestarter for the next time I run the gasifier. Mine is (rough guess) 50% water. I've never made any attempt to distill it or any other further refining. Motie Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home with Ease! http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel
On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, motie_d wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Michael S Briggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One of our chemical engineering professors here at UNH recently completed a project on making (what he calls) bio-oil from wood waste, for home heating in the New England area. Mike I assume he is using a Pyrolysis process? I have a very crude Yes, fast pyrolysis, which yields the bio-oil, char (charcoal briquettes, which can be used as fuel), and non-condensable gases that are used to provide heat for further pyrolysis. homemade gasifier for personal experimental use. When first starting it, before it gets up to operating temp, it produces some of the bio- oil. I use it for firestarter for the next time I run the gasifier. Mine is (rough guess) 50% water. I've never made any attempt to distill it or any other further refining. If you want more info on his setup, let me know and I can put you in touch with him. They have a webpage for the group, but not much information on it yet. Mike Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home with Ease! http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuels-biz] Re: [biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel
So, no problem producing the crops for ethanol, SVO or biodiesel, and the entire operation can easily be powered on biofuels or by-products. That would include such integrated prodedures as using the DDG from ethanol production as livestock feed, the livestock manure producing biogas for process heat, the residue subjected to aerobic composting for recycling to the soil - with the aerobic composting a constant and free source of heat for hot water (60 deg C+), also useful for process heat. Burning glyc (safely) and recovered FFAs offer further such options. Easy. Ok, so the use of non-sustainable fossil fuels can be eliminated from fertilizer and the like, and with a better integrated system, sustainable biofuels could be used in the machines which are used in the production of the bioproducts used to make biofuels. I think I've always assumed that this was possible, and not that much of an issue (never mind the Cornell Professors of the world), but I must admit that what I do question would be to get a handle, down the road, as to how *much* fuel this whole system could sustain over a very long period of time, in conjunction with healthy sustainable food production. As a matter of degree, the concepts of sustainable healthy agriculture making both food and fuels... how big of an economy can they serve? There are several important concerns here, not least of which is avoiding setting us all up for a bit of starvation. I do not mean to imply that I've calculated that it would lead to that. I mean only that it seems logical to me to give consideration to these matters. Now, you may have given consideration to these matters to the nth degree, publicly and privately, and be weary of it, but anyway: I really honestly do regret lashing out at Todd that way, now that I realize he had something different in mind. But to take an additional lesson from it: he was attempting to express weariness with going over the same topics over and over again. Ok, so that's something you've also alluded to in your own way, say when someone asks you to repeat yourself, where a topic has been covered several times recently or in easily accessible archives. And it is in the nature of these forums of our day that, perhaps since archives can be somewhat laborious, and perhaps also to human-nature-laziness and perhaps just due to the need to continually chew things over, we go over and over certain things, perhaps making some different points each time. What I want to add here is that I was thinking about your Sierra Club observations, and about the enlightening things I've learned recently about the energy efficiency advantages of diesel-engine processes, and I think for better or worse, it is in the nature of these public debates that progress can really depend not only on being right, or partly right, but on going over things again and again until the point connects with enough targets. I've communicated with and dealt with activists who were mature enough to disagree with me about this or that and yet maintain the conversation over the years until we could, by reasoning things out, both decide who might have the better side of it. And I'd bet some work that the Sierra Club folks, or folks similar to them on what is apparently the wrong side of the diesel debate, have not quite gotten what has been said about diesel, and *bio*-diesel. Part of this is I think perhaps due to the subtlety of the argument that one needs put into place engine technologies that inherently can give consumers the power to choose nonfossil fuels for the first time in a century choice (diesel leading to choosing diesel or biodiesel, batteries leading to choosing different derivations of electricity, some hybrids leading to a variety of choices). And part of this is simply that they haven't given much thought at all to Diesel issues. And part of this is that they have some legitimate points to make about the CO2 emissions when taken before the net considerations we discussed above. But overall, I think there's some ripe room there for them to be somewhat swayed, given a bit more lobbying, just as I have been. This is not to say an expert technician like Todd or whoever need weary himself over-much with going over and over things, since that may not be their bag. But those who are more on the politico-economic side of things will I guess continue to run into this work that needs doing, even if it is understandable that some of them are just sick of it and won't do it. I do think that given a bit more intellectual ammo, Kerry might continue to try to come through, to the best of his abilities. As for Dingle, he does what Detroit, particularly Union Leaders and Auto Industry Lobbyists, tells him to do, in my opinion, without deviation. As for the auto executives, now I am the one who is weary not from repetitiveness exactly, but when the topic at hand involves analyzing folks whose logic and thinking is particularly
[biofuels-biz] Re: [biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel
Hello MM 'So, no problem producing the crops for ethanol, SVO or biodiesel, and the entire operation can easily be powered on biofuels or by-products. That would include such integrated prodedures as using the DDG from ethanol production as livestock feed, the livestock manure producing biogas for process heat, the residue subjected to aerobic composting for recycling to the soil - with the aerobic composting a constant and free source of heat for hot water (60 deg C+), also useful for process heat. Burning glyc (safely) and recovered FFAs offer further such options. Easy. Ok, so the use of non-sustainable fossil fuels can be eliminated from fertilizer and the like, and with a better integrated system, sustainable biofuels could be used in the machines which are used in the production of the bioproducts used to make biofuels. I think I've always assumed that this was possible, and not that much of an issue (never mind the Cornell Professors of the world), but I must admit that what I do question would be to get a handle, down the road, as to how *much* fuel this whole system could sustain over a very long period of time, in conjunction with healthy sustainable food production. As a matter of degree, the concepts of sustainable healthy agriculture making both food and fuels... how big of an economy can they serve? There are several important concerns here, not least of which is avoiding setting us all up for a bit of starvation. I do not mean to imply that I've calculated that it would lead to that. I mean only that it seems logical to me to give consideration to these matters. It seems kind of obvious that farms would grow food, but they don't, for the most part. They produce agricultural commodities, a different matter. This leaves the US with massive unsaleable surpluses of corn, soy, whatever, and at the same time the US is the world's biggest-ever food importer. The other OECD countries are similar. There's a lot of background on this here: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_food.html Biofuels - Food or Fuel? And here: http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html Is ethanol energy-efficient? And probably elsewhere at Journey to Forever. The major problem of agriculture is, and has long been, surplus. Glut, not dearth. So the industrialized nation agriculture systems are designed (badly) to reduce glut - concentrate carbohydrates (crops) into proteins (livestock). The stuff isn't food, it's feed. If it's dearth you're worried about then it's the current production system that should be bothering you, no way is it sustainable, from any number of different points of view. Sustainable production systems are just that, sustainable. Can you see the implications of low-input high-output? Different ballgame, and infinitely more sane. So there's no problem of growing both food (real food) and fuel sustainably, and there's no danger of starvation. Everybody benefits - farmers, local communities, consumers, society, the environment. With the current system, there's not only the danger of starvation, but the reality of it - it's part and parcel of the inequitable economic system that goes with industrialized agriculture, among other things, even in the US, which has the highest levels of hunger in the OECD, and where the numbers of the hungry and poor are growing rapidly. It's not sustainable in terms of its high fossil-fuel use, industrial agriculture is a major CO2 producer, a major polluter, a major topsoil destroyer. Nobody benefits from this shit. Get rid of it. Let's do it properly at last. As for what proportion of energy could be produced by biofuels, who can say? None of the figures make much sense. If you took it down to micro-levels (which sustainable agriculture automatically does do anyway) local people would exploit local niches which don't even get counted now but might make a major overall difference. On integrated farms a lot of fuel can be produced as a by-product. A more relevant question would be the extent that current levels could be reduced, and how much more efficiently energy could be used. It's the kind of stultifying, argument-killing question you don't like, and neither do I - it'll have to be done anyway, so let's not delay any longer arguing about rather meaningless questions like that. Now, you may have given consideration to these matters to the nth degree, publicly and privately, and be weary of it, but anyway: I really honestly do regret lashing out at Todd that way, now that I realize he had something different in mind. It seems there was a misunderstanding, but I don't think you over-reacted. It was a very rude post, whichever way you look at it. But to take an additional lesson from it: he was attempting to express weariness with going over the same topics over and over again. Ok, so that's something you've also alluded to in your own way, say when someone asks you to repeat yourself, where a topic has been
[biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel
MM wrote: Did I read correctly somewhere in one of these conversations: it will be 2007 before we have low-sulfur diesel fuel? Or is that a state-to-state issue? IIRC new EPA requirements for low-sulfur diesel (cutting sulfur by 97%) come into effect in 2007. If so, that is *way* too long and is the Oil-lobby-at-its-best-in-delaying-things. Yes - yesterday would be better. Seen it with the EV situation, seen it with the California ethanol situation. When you think you've beaten them, that usually means you've lost. They are that good. Never mind, we'll kill 'em anyway! :-) We might as well say that for diesel powered vehicles to be make a significant reduction in fossil fuel emissions, we need first for diesel fuel to not only be largely biodiesel, but for that biodiesel to be made by certified sustainable low-CO2 producing sources, and then we can put the diesel engines out there to use it. Yes, putting diesels on the road would accomplish some CO2 reductions, evidently, but the bigger reductions will come with the added biodiesel angle. Should we wait? Hell no. No problem producing CO2-free biofuels. I've often said this, I have wide personal experience of these production systems to base it on, and it's very well corroborated by field results and research all over the world, dating back many decades - nothing new here. This is from the latest report I've received (I get something like this every few days). Some of these tests may have used fossil fuels for tractors etc, but not for fertilizers. The tractor fuel is easily replaced by on-farm produced ethanol, biodiesel or SVO. Note that the best improvements come from Third World countries (in fact organics was mostly developed in Third World countries). A lot of people think organics is just farming without chemicals (organics by neglect), or substituting organic-origin chemicals for synthetic ones (organics by substitution), generally low-input low-output, but well-managed organic systems (organics by management) are low-input high-output. This report is from ISIS in the UK: Another experiment examined organic and conventional potatoes and sweet corn over three years. Results showed that yield and vitamin C content of potatoes were not affected by the two different regimes. While one variety of conventional corn out-produced the organic, there was no difference between the two in yield of another variety or the vitamin C or E contents. Results indicate that long-term application of composts is producing higher soil fertility and comparable plant growth. A review of replicated research results in seven different US Universities and from Rodale Research Center, Pennsylvania and the Michael Fields Center, Wisconsin over the past 10 years showed that organic farming systems resulted in yields comparable to industrial, high input agriculture. Corn: With 69 total cropping seasons, organic yields were 94% of conventionally produced corn. Soybeans: Data from five states over 55 growing seasons showed organic yields were 94% of conventional yields. Wheat: Two institutions with 16 cropping year experiments showed that organic wheat produced 97% of the conventional yields. Tomatoes: 14 years of comparative research on tomatoes showed no yield differences. The most remarkable results of organic farming, however, have come from small farmers in developing countries. Case studies of organic practices show dramatic increases in yields as well as benefits to soil quality, reduction in pests and diseases and general improvement in taste and nutritional content. For example, in Brazil the use of green manures and cover crops increased maize yields by between 20% and 250%; in Tigray, Ethiopia, yields of crops from composted plots were 3-5 times higher than those treated only with chemicals; yield increases of 175% have been reported from farms in Nepal adopting agro-ecological practices; and in Peru the restoration of traditional Incan terracing has led to increases of 150% for a range of upland crops. Projects in Senegal involving 2000 farmers promoted stall-fed livestock, composting systems, use of green manures, water harvesting systems and rock phosphate. Yields of millet and peanuts increased dramatically, by 75-195% and 75-165% respectively. Because the soils have greater water retaining capacity, fluctuations in yields are less pronounced between high and low rainfall years. A project in Honduras, which emphasized soil conservation practices and organic fertilisers, saw a tripling or quadrupling of yields. In Santa Catarina, Brazil, focus has been placed on soil and water conservation, using contour grass barriers, contour ploughing and green manures. Some 60 different crop species, leguminous and non-leguminous, have been inter-cropped or planted during fallow periods. These have had major impacts on yields, soil quality, levels of biological activity and water-retaining capacity. Yields
Re: [biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel
So, no problem producing the crops for ethanol, SVO or biodiesel, and the entire operation can easily be powered on biofuels or by-products. That would include such integrated prodedures as using the DDG from ethanol production as livestock feed, the livestock manure producing biogas for process heat, the residue subjected to aerobic composting for recycling to the soil - with the aerobic composting a constant and free source of heat for hot water (60 deg C+), also useful for process heat. Burning glyc (safely) and recovered FFAs offer further such options. Easy. Ok, so the use of non-sustainable fossil fuels can be eliminated from fertilizer and the like, and with a better integrated system, sustainable biofuels could be used in the machines which are used in the production of the bioproducts used to make biofuels. I think I've always assumed that this was possible, and not that much of an issue (never mind the Cornell Professors of the world), but I must admit that what I do question would be to get a handle, down the road, as to how *much* fuel this whole system could sustain over a very long period of time, in conjunction with healthy sustainable food production. As a matter of degree, the concepts of sustainable healthy agriculture making both food and fuels... how big of an economy can they serve? There are several important concerns here, not least of which is avoiding setting us all up for a bit of starvation. I do not mean to imply that I've calculated that it would lead to that. I mean only that it seems logical to me to give consideration to these matters. Now, you may have given consideration to these matters to the nth degree, publicly and privately, and be weary of it, but anyway: I really honestly do regret lashing out at Todd that way, now that I realize he had something different in mind. But to take an additional lesson from it: he was attempting to express weariness with going over the same topics over and over again. Ok, so that's something you've also alluded to in your own way, say when someone asks you to repeat yourself, where a topic has been covered several times recently or in easily accessible archives. And it is in the nature of these forums of our day that, perhaps since archives can be somewhat laborious, and perhaps also to human-nature-laziness and perhaps just due to the need to continually chew things over, we go over and over certain things, perhaps making some different points each time. What I want to add here is that I was thinking about your Sierra Club observations, and about the enlightening things I've learned recently about the energy efficiency advantages of diesel-engine processes, and I think for better or worse, it is in the nature of these public debates that progress can really depend not only on being right, or partly right, but on going over things again and again until the point connects with enough targets. I've communicated with and dealt with activists who were mature enough to disagree with me about this or that and yet maintain the conversation over the years until we could, by reasoning things out, both decide who might have the better side of it. And I'd bet some work that the Sierra Club folks, or folks similar to them on what is apparently the wrong side of the diesel debate, have not quite gotten what has been said about diesel, and *bio*-diesel. Part of this is I think perhaps due to the subtlety of the argument that one needs put into place engine technologies that inherently can give consumers the power to choose nonfossil fuels for the first time in a century choice (diesel leading to choosing diesel or biodiesel, batteries leading to choosing different derivations of electricity, some hybrids leading to a variety of choices). And part of this is simply that they haven't given much thought at all to Diesel issues. And part of this is that they have some legitimate points to make about the CO2 emissions when taken before the net considerations we discussed above. But overall, I think there's some ripe room there for them to be somewhat swayed, given a bit more lobbying, just as I have been. This is not to say an expert technician like Todd or whoever need weary himself over-much with going over and over things, since that may not be their bag. But those who are more on the politico-economic side of things will I guess continue to run into this work that needs doing, even if it is understandable that some of them are just sick of it and won't do it. I do think that given a bit more intellectual ammo, Kerry might continue to try to come through, to the best of his abilities. As for Dingle, he does what Detroit, particularly Union Leaders and Auto Industry Lobbyists, tells him to do, in my opinion, without deviation. As for the auto executives, now I am the one who is weary not from repetitiveness exactly, but when the topic at hand involves analyzing folks whose logic and thinking is particularly
[biofuels-biz] Re: [biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel
Hello MM 'So, no problem producing the crops for ethanol, SVO or biodiesel, and the entire operation can easily be powered on biofuels or by-products. That would include such integrated prodedures as using the DDG from ethanol production as livestock feed, the livestock manure producing biogas for process heat, the residue subjected to aerobic composting for recycling to the soil - with the aerobic composting a constant and free source of heat for hot water (60 deg C+), also useful for process heat. Burning glyc (safely) and recovered FFAs offer further such options. Easy. Ok, so the use of non-sustainable fossil fuels can be eliminated from fertilizer and the like, and with a better integrated system, sustainable biofuels could be used in the machines which are used in the production of the bioproducts used to make biofuels. I think I've always assumed that this was possible, and not that much of an issue (never mind the Cornell Professors of the world), but I must admit that what I do question would be to get a handle, down the road, as to how *much* fuel this whole system could sustain over a very long period of time, in conjunction with healthy sustainable food production. As a matter of degree, the concepts of sustainable healthy agriculture making both food and fuels... how big of an economy can they serve? There are several important concerns here, not least of which is avoiding setting us all up for a bit of starvation. I do not mean to imply that I've calculated that it would lead to that. I mean only that it seems logical to me to give consideration to these matters. It seems kind of obvious that farms would grow food, but they don't, for the most part. They produce agricultural commodities, a different matter. This leaves the US with massive unsaleable surpluses of corn, soy, whatever, and at the same time the US is the world's biggest-ever food importer. The other OECD countries are similar. There's a lot of background on this here: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_food.html Biofuels - Food or Fuel? And here: http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html Is ethanol energy-efficient? And probably elsewhere at Journey to Forever. The major problem of agriculture is, and has long been, surplus. Glut, not dearth. So the industrialized nation agriculture systems are designed (badly) to reduce glut - concentrate carbohydrates (crops) into proteins (livestock). The stuff isn't food, it's feed. If it's dearth you're worried about then it's the current production system that should be bothering you, no way is it sustainable, from any number of different points of view. Sustainable production systems are just that, sustainable. Can you see the implications of low-input high-output? Different ballgame, and infinitely more sane. So there's no problem of growing both food (real food) and fuel sustainably, and there's no danger of starvation. Everybody benefits - farmers, local communities, consumers, society, the environment. With the current system, there's not only the danger of starvation, but the reality of it - it's part and parcel of the inequitable economic system that goes with industrialized agriculture, among other things, even in the US, which has the highest levels of hunger in the OECD, and where the numbers of the hungry and poor are growing rapidly. It's not sustainable in terms of its high fossil-fuel use, industrial agriculture is a major CO2 producer, a major polluter, a major topsoil destroyer. Nobody benefits from this shit. Get rid of it. Let's do it properly at last. As for what proportion of energy could be produced by biofuels, who can say? None of the figures make much sense. If you took it down to micro-levels (which sustainable agriculture automatically does do anyway) local people would exploit local niches which don't even get counted now but might make a major overall difference. On integrated farms a lot of fuel can be produced as a by-product. A more relevant question would be the extent that current levels could be reduced, and how much more efficiently energy could be used. It's the kind of stultifying, argument-killing question you don't like, and neither do I - it'll have to be done anyway, so let's not delay any longer arguing about rather meaningless questions like that. Now, you may have given consideration to these matters to the nth degree, publicly and privately, and be weary of it, but anyway: I really honestly do regret lashing out at Todd that way, now that I realize he had something different in mind. It seems there was a misunderstanding, but I don't think you over-reacted. It was a very rude post, whichever way you look at it. But to take an additional lesson from it: he was attempting to express weariness with going over the same topics over and over again. Ok, so that's something you've also alluded to in your own way, say when someone asks you to repeat yourself, where a topic has been
Re: [biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel
On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Bush Administration's lack of urgent action on a dozen fronts on reducing foreign petroleum dependencies, insofar as it is an obvious and critical economic and military strategic issue, is *stunning*. It is unethical. It is a political advantage over him waiting to be exploited. Yup, I agree. What's particularly surprising about that is that he has a large house in Texas that is entirely powered by alternative energy (solar). Some head officials (Rumsfeld in particular, and I beleieve also Powell) have said that we need to find other sources of energy. Unfortunately, they don't seem to be focusing much on that. Mike Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- 4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel
On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, motie_d wrote: And if Bush would take that initiative, the Dems would be all over him for the slightest failure of any one of the proposed programs as a waste of taxpayer money, and a favor to his rich buddies in Detroit, whether he has any or not. Liberal College Professors would be demanding years of research grants to study each of the proposals before they could ever be implemented. We have a very serious problem with gridlock because of all of the regulations that need to be addressed, and permissions granted. Good points. A huge problem with our political system right now is the partisan politics. The Democrats and Republicans don't want to make any significant changes, because if they don't pan out, they'll be continually lambasted for it by the other party. Also, if one party introduces an idea/bill that could benefit the country, often the other party will try to shoot it down so that that party can't take credit for it (for example, when Clinton introduced a health care bill, Democrats were for it, and Republicans against it. Bush introduced an almost identical bill, and Republicans were for it, and Democrats against it). Partisan politics is an excellent way of preventing progress. I've been 'involved' locally with net-metering and grid interties. I don't see any bright prospects there, unless you just ignore all the regs and just hook up quietly without permissions. Try not to feed back much more than whatever increased amounts you can use. Keep your Net monthly usage about the same, or they will come checking. Personally, I think one thing we should do is have graduated electric rates. When electricity is cheap, the problem becomes that people get even more inefficient - leave TVs on all day, don't bother with compact fluorescent lights, etc. etc.. Either graduated electric rates (i.e. the first 500 kWhrs per month might be fairly cheap, but then it goes up for the next 250, more for the next 200, etc.), or an inefficiency tax for using a high amount of electricity. I never did see a total committment to the War. I saw a bunch of Politicians trying to blame each other for any shortcomings, and using the defensive posture that if you don't do anything, you can't be critisized for making any mistakes. It's all just a blame-game being played by Eunuchs! Yup. Mike Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel
I've been 'involved' locally with net-metering and grid interties. I don't see any bright prospects there, unless you just ignore all the regs and just hook up quietly without permissions. Try not to feed back much more than whatever increased amounts you can use. Keep your Net monthly usage about the same, or they will come checking. Personally, I think one thing we should do is have graduated electric rates. When electricity is cheap, the problem becomes that people get even more inefficient - leave TVs on all day, don't bother with compact fluorescent lights, etc. etc.. Either graduated electric rates (i.e. the first 500 kWhrs per month might be fairly cheap, but then it goes up for the next 250, more for the next 200, etc.), or an inefficiency tax for using a high amount of electricity. In addition, I think we need to have more-transparent up-to-the-minute in-your-face devices available to consumers so that they can see their usage and the amounts they're spending more clearly. I've seen and experienced this in some of the hybrid cars (the Civic for example) where the dashboard is designed so that it makes it *fun* to drive in a way that conserves energy. At present, it seems like most electric metering is in a closet out-of-sight-out-of-mind somewhere so that conservation efforts are more haphazard. I doubt the electric companies mind that much. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- 4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Michael S Briggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: SNIP If petro diesel and gasoline cost $3 a gallon, then more people wouldn't mind paying the $2.20 or so a gallon to buy biodiesel made from soy. Hopefully then more companies would start making biodiesel, and in particular using oils other than soy (such as canola), since soybeans don't yield very much oil per acre. Mike I am in total agreement about using nearly anything else in place of Soy for Oil, and Corn for Ethanol. However, in the current situation, it is better to make Etahnol and Oil from them instead of leaving them to rot for lack of market. It's kind of like recycling a 'waste' product from overproduction. If farmers want to grow 'energy crops', Canola and Sugar Beets and Jerusalem Artichokes should be much more productive. There are also some people studying Cattails as an energy crop. I am currently working on a proposal to use Rye and Barley in a crop rotation plan with Suger Beets, with Canola/Rape seed on the side. Primary products to be Ethanol and Canola oil with a distinct possibilty of Ethyl Ester Biodiesel. Marketable by-products would be DDG and Oilseed cakes. Process energy (electric and steam) to be provided by a gasifier running on wood waste from local sawmills. I have someone working on the details of putting this together as a Co-operative, with the suppliers (farmers and sawmill owners) being the owners. It's still pretty tentative, but I have 2 sites located, and support (at least interest) from the Mayors/County Board members. Motie Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel
Motie writes: I am currently working on a proposal to use Rye and Barley in a crop rotation plan with Suger Beets, with Canola/Rape seed on the side. Primary products to be Ethanol and Canola oil with a distinct possibilty of Ethyl Ester Biodiesel. Marketable by-products would be DDG and Oilseed cakes. Process energy (electric and steam) to be provided by a gasifier running on wood waste from local sawmills. I have someone working on the details of putting this together as a Co-operative, with the suppliers (farmers and sawmill owners) being the owners. It's still pretty tentative, but I have 2 sites located, and support (at least interest) from the Mayors/County Board members. What a great idea! That rotation could probably include even more oilseeds. I'm looking hard at safflower. Canola is nice oil for biodiesel, but the plant itself may be sort of a sensitive bugger -- kinda the Toy French Poodle of the Brassica family! Where is this coop gonna be located, BTW? I'd love to come check em out when they're running (maybe I'll bring a rsum :-)) You probably know this already, but a great structure for such a coop would be an LLC, (limited liability company???). I looked into em a bit when I wanted to set up a joint beverage alcohol recycling/ waste grease recycling plant, also to make ethyl biodiesel. Good luck! Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home for Top $ http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ken Provost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What a great idea! That rotation could probably include even more oilseeds. I'm looking hard at safflower. Canola is nice oil for biodiesel, but the plant itself may be sort of a sensitive bugger -- kinda the Toy French Poodle of the Brassica family! Where is this coop gonna be located, BTW? I'd love to come check em out when they're running (maybe I'll bring a rsum :-)) You probably know this already, but a great structure for such a coop would be an LLC, (limited liability company???). I looked into em a bit when I wanted to set up a joint beverage alcohol recycling/ waste grease recycling plant, also to make ethyl biodiesel. Good luck! Ken, The most promising site is located at Bagley, Mn US. Feel free to call the Mayor and discuss the idea. He is NOT a typical politician. He owns the local Pharmacy, and is capable of understanding/following conversations, which is a BIG plus. I HATE that glazed-eyes look when attempting to explain something. An LLC has been discussed. I'm leaving that to others who are more expert on the subject to make recommendations. I am not going to finance the project. For it to be successful, it needs local support and input. I have determined that the best way to get involement, is to have the locals put up the money, and own the facility. Final determination on the Legal Structure will be made by those who put up their money/assetts. (Golden Rule!) He who puts up the Gold, makes the Rules. My role is to make sure it is an INFORMED decision, by making sure the various options are accurately understood. At this time, I am working Pro Bono, including expenses entailed. Motie Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- 4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel
We also have vegetable oil, available at most restaurants just outside the back door. Steve Spence Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter Discussion Boards. Read about Sustainable Technology: http://www.green-trust.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Michael S Briggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:45 AM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, motie_d wrote: Just my personal opinion, but I think Diesels will become much more acceptable when we have better fuel to run in them. We do - biodiesel. :) Unfortuntely, it's not available at pumps in many places, so those of us who want to use it have to either make our own or buy large quantities of it to store. Biodiesel is gaining popularity though, and actual biodiesel pumps are gradually springing up around the country. I don't know what incentive may be needed to get that to happen. Heavy trucks are using all that the refineries can produce now. There is no incentive to clean up the fuel and expand the demand for it, unless there is an acceptably higher price to be made from it. It all comes down to money! I agree. Petroleum fuels are simply way too cheap in the US. They should cost twice what they do (in reality, the true cost we pay is probably somewhere around twice the sticker price, if you factor in things like subsidies to oil companies, and military/economic involvement in other countries). But, since the subsidies and other things are paid for with taxes, people don't think they're really paying all that much for petroleum fuels. Double the price of petroleum fuels, and people would stop buying SUVs that get 12 mpg, instead looking at more fuel efficient vehicles, including VW's TDI (which is already selling incredibly well). Eventually, the other automakers would take notice, and start selling their diesels here as well. If petro diesel and gasoline cost $3 a gallon, then more people wouldn't mind paying the $2.20 or so a gallon to buy biodiesel made from soy. Hopefully then more companies would start making biodiesel, and in particular using oils other than soy (such as canola), since soybeans don't yield very much oil per acre. Mike Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home with Ease! http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel
On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, murdoch wrote: but I must admit that what I do question would be to get a handle, down the road, as to how *much* fuel this whole system could sustain over a very long period of time, in conjunction with healthy sustainable food production. As a matter of degree, the concepts of sustainable healthy agriculture making both food and fuels... how big of an economy can they serve? That's why we'll eventually need to primarily use oils from algaes for making biodiesel (and some from WVO, but that won't account for much). The beauty of algaes is that not only can they produce in the neighborhood of 400 times as much oil per acre as crops like soybeans, but also that they are ideally grown in climates that are not suitable for food crops. Algaes are ideally grown in shallow saltwater pools in hot climates (i.e. states like Arizona would be ideal, as well as Mexico). Aglae pools in desert regions would not displace food crops at all. As for Dingle, he does what Detroit, particularly Union Leaders and Auto Industry Lobbyists, tells him to do, in my opinion, without deviation. Not entirely. His recent support of diesels does not seem to be what Detroit would want. Yes, Ford and Chrysler do make small quantities of diesels for the European market - but other automakers are far ahead of them. Ford's best diesel is a small version of the Focus (I think) that gets around 40 mpg. Compare that to VW's Lupo TDI that gets close to 100 mpg, or Audi's larger diesel hybrid that gets around 87 mpg. Mike Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel
On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, motie_d wrote: I am in total agreement about using nearly anything else in place of Soy for Oil, and Corn for Ethanol. However, in the current situation, it is better to make Etahnol and Oil from them instead of leaving them to rot for lack of market. It's kind of like recycling a 'waste' product from overproduction. Very true. Even though there are other crops that would be much better for making ethanol (and hopefully someday we'll get most of our ethanol for making biodiesel from them), we'll still always get a fair amount from corn. Why? Because after making ethanol from corn, it then leaves a nice high protein feed for animals. Similarly, while other crops would be much better for producing oil for biodiesel, we'll still always get some from soy. I am currently working on a proposal to use Rye and Barley in a crop rotation plan with Suger Beets, with Canola/Rape seed on the side. Primary products to be Ethanol and Canola oil with a distinct possibilty of Ethyl Ester Biodiesel. Marketable by-products would be DDG and Oilseed cakes. Process energy (electric and steam) to be provided by a gasifier running on wood waste from local sawmills. One of our chemical engineering professors here at UNH recently completed a project on making (what he calls) bio-oil from wood waste, for home heating in the New England area. Mike Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home with Ease! http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuels-biz] Re: [biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel
Blah...Blah. Blah...Blah...Blah Blah...Blah...Blah...Bla, ad infinitum If all that you can come up with, in response to what I write, is malevolent filth, then I ask that you killfile me through your email client. If you think that what I write is nonense and that you must say so for the benefit of others, I would point out that I have received at least two *very* productive responses from Mr. Spence and Mr. Briggs. Even if they do not agree with all or much or some of what I write, they have found a way to make good and valuable points in response to it. I have read over your posts (not having paid them much attention for many moons) and you are obviously erudite when it comes to the real and important nuts and bolts of making the substances in question. I'm not sure you have much to say as to the issues of political economy, philsophy, activism, etc., but maybe I've missed it. I wouldn't mind understanding how to make fuel, but unfortunately I have to presently grant it a very low priority, and I do not own a garage or yard in which to do some of the work. Thus, I do not normally read the posts of those whose concern is the real chemsistry nuts and bolts here. Maybe someday this will change for me and I will want to get into making fuel. In the meantime, I will continue to post, as resources allow, on the more armchair-topics of activism, economics, and so forth. If you have an actual intelligent response to those points I occassionally able to make on these relevant topics, however half-baked my screed may often be, maybe I will be able to get to reading it. It seems less likely now, though, that I would make an effort, or that you will have much response, intelligent or otherwise, to anything I write. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/9bTolB/TM -~- Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://www.webconx.dns2go.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuels-biz] Re: [biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel
All right then, I apologize for what was apparently an over-reaction and a misdirected-reaction. I think I interpreted a couple of your posts as seeming to make clear that you thought my own points were run-on total crud. But it was apparently more the topic and what you perceive as over-doing it that was your complaint. On that point, I'd say that each person unfortunately only has so much time and comes to some topics at their own pace, so every forum I've ever been-in, there's a lot of repetitiveness, for years. At least with this forum, the posts are archived in our email clients and I think going forward forums of the future will make points-already-made more accessible on the web so maybe that will slightly lessen the repetitiveness. But anyway, I seem to have basically misinterpreted your point, so I'm sorry about my reaction. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- 4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/MVfIAA/9bTolB/TM -~- Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://www.webconx.dns2go.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuels-biz] Re: [biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel
that convinced Dingell that that was not true. A big part of getting diesels to start becoming more mainstream will just be the public learning that there have been advances in diesel engine technology, and when run on ULSD (or preferably biodiesel), they don't have the big black cloud effect anymore. Mike Just my personal opinion, but I think Diesels will become much more acceptable when we have better fuel to run in them. I don't know what incentive may be needed to get that to happen. Heavy trucks are using all that the refineries can produce now. There is no incentive to clean up the fuel and expand the demand for it, unless there is an acceptably higher price to be made from it. It all comes down to money! If it can be shown that more widespread use of diesel and diesel engines decreases petroleum dependency and improves access to a domestic alt-fuel (biodiesel), then it becomes a war issue and a matter of greater urgency. The Bush Administration's lack of urgent action on a dozen fronts on reducing foreign petroleum dependencies, insofar as it is an obvious and critical economic and military strategic issue, is *stunning*. It is unethical. It is a political advantage over him waiting to be exploited. Never mind whether one likes him, dislikes him, I'm not trying to fish for an excuse on either side. I'm saying: What have they done? What *could* they have done? If they took up four or five of these issues and really put an effort into them, I don't think they'd have all that much trouble getting into ANWR. Their refusal to abandon their mentally-challenged one-sidedness in seeking to change energy policy has been their undoing. Let's say that Bush really challenged Detroit to behave as though the nation really is at war against folks who have expropriated what were arguably some of our own oil assets and who can never be defeated if we continue to pay so much money for foreign oil. Let's say he got tough on the matter (this would probably have to involve transferring Andrew Card to some foreign embassy if he's still at the White House) and demanded several thousand EV's per year from each of the makers... no excuses, immediate action on low-sulfur diesel, much more urgent commitment to better-mileage vehicles with some eye to grid-chargeability, etc., in the name of trying everything possible (even if some of it didn't work) to cease and desist exporting billions to murderers. I also think they should do more about a national commitment to power grid issues and net metering, but I do think they're trying (FERC recently talking about trying to come up with some sort of national policy). I think that would be a good thing. Failure to do this has not only become bizarre. It's become a sign of a lack of a total commitment to winning the war. The Bush administration has been very strong on planning military campaigns and on planning some hard-nosed diplomacy. They've been weak on other war fronts, particularly on Energy Policy. I've been beating this drum for years, and I thought it would come across as I told you so to keep talking about energy policy and its relation to security. But what have they done while some of us have let it go for a year or so? Not nearly enough. I won't say they've done nothing, but they're not doing everything possible. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home with Ease! http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/9bTolB/TM -~- Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://www.webconx.dns2go.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel
Blah...Blah. Blah...Blah...Blah Blah...Blah...Blah...Bla, ad infinitum - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 11:58 PM Subject: [biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel Certainly, no one argues with international automotive test findings that better fuel economy can be had with diesel/electric hybrids than with gasoline/electric hybrid vehicles. I do most certainly argue with this. I measure mileage by miles-per-unit-energy, and on that basis, it is not clear to me if diesel gets better mileage or not. It looks to me like: about the same, though it's hard to say. I also think that the Battery Electric Vehicle mileage figures I've seen, on a per-unit-energy-onboard basis, by and large get better mileage than the gasoline or diesel cars I've seen, by a wide margin, and they also get better mileage even than the hybrids. I calculate the RAV4 EV as something like 93 mpg gasoline equivalent, though I'd have to review some of the issues there, such as whether the mileage is measured at the meter, or onboard, (since there are inefficiencies of charging, in some cases very very high). diesels most certainly do get higher mpg, The article stated that diesels get better fuel economy. If this means that a vehicle gets better miles per gallon, then the assertion is correct and my dispute with it is not correct. *However*, the use of the term fuel econonomy, in the present vernacular, has not been sufficiently made clear in my view, and I guess that's what I'm trying to get across. In fact, it is ambiguous not only in that it is somewhat natural to view fuel as having a standardized energy content (of course: it does not particularly compared to other fuels) but also because the word economy somehow makes it easier to allow us to think that the term fuel economy might connote energy efficiency. Most people, if they show some interest in fuel economy have *no clue* that there is more energy in a gallon of diesel than in a gallon of gasoline. Upon learning this, I have seen some assume, wrongly, compounding the problem, that it is somehow even better that one is able to wring more mpg out of a gallon of diesel, when in fact the opposite is true, and it is usually not impressive (though it is a matter of degree). Much of this could be cleared up by measuring not fuel economy but *energy* economy. Many people assume without discussion that mpg means energy economy which of course is not an equivalency, something that makes it very hard to compare different fuels. I'm sure the oil companies don't mind *one bit* that it becomes difficult to compare different fuels' energy economy, or that even energy activists accept, without a shred of discussion, that it is ok to standardize energy economy discussions to terms already defined in petroleum inexact terms, thus conceding much of the battle to Big Oil before it is even begun. mpg: foo-ey I say. I think this all needs exact clarification and saying diesel gets better fuel economy is wrong because it leaves the matter ambiguous for too many readers whom you and I both know have not enough understanding of the matter to sort out that there might be a very significant difference between fuel economy and energy economy. The author of the article we're discussing probably knew this but thought it might be ok to do some shorthand because everyone else does it. It's not ok, in my view. I have yet to see an article which makes the matter clear, except one or two articles which pointed out that PNGV vehicles which came close to 80 mpg on diesel were sort of cheating (though the matter was often glossed-over.) I have a further question that I've never seen examined or discussed which is this: if diesel has more btu per unit volume or mass than gasoline, then I wonder if it takes more of a barrel of petroleum to make x number of gallons of diesel than it does to make x number of gallons of gasoline. If so, then how much more? It becomes possible that the miles-per-gallon of diesel is *worse* than that of gasoline if we are talking about the gallons of crude used per mile. I reckon it might take some doing to get a hard idea as to the answer to that one. because diesel has a higher btu count / gallon. btu / mile is similar. Yes, I'll agree with that. You and I know this. Most people, including many many energy activists, would have little idea of what you're talking about. I tried to put this chart together a couple of years ago with some of these ideas in mind. I think the best thing for all would be to standardize mileage discussions to a neutral energy unit (MegaJoules, BTU, maybe kWh, Erg? what is an Erg anyway?) but some are less neutral than others. We concede too much, in my opinion, by continuing serious energy discussion on terms defined in Oil, (terms brought
Re: [biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel
On Mon, 30 Sep 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have yet to see an article which makes the matter clear, except one or two articles which pointed out that PNGV vehicles which came close to 80 mpg on diesel were sort of cheating (though the matter was often glossed-over.) Cheating? How? By making the cars lightweight and aerodynamic? I have a further question that I've never seen examined or discussed which is this: if diesel has more btu per unit volume or mass than gasoline, Diesel does not have more btu per unit mass than gasoline. It has more energy per unit volume, but less per unit mass (diesel is considerably more dense (mass density) than gasoline, and has a lower amount of energy per unit mass). then I wonder if it takes more of a barrel of petroleum to make x number of gallons of diesel than it does to make x number of gallons of gasoline. Petroleum diesel is essentially made from the left-over material from refining crude oil into gasoline. Also, how much of a barrel of oil goes into diesel vs. gasoline can vary significantly depending on the crude oil used to make the fuels (the denser the oil, the more appropriate for diesel, and vice versa). But, the greatest advantage of diesel engines is that they can run on fuels derived from vegetable oils, requiring no fossil fuels at all. because diesel has a higher btu count / gallon. btu / mile is similar. No, it is not similar. The energy efficiency of diesel engines is considerably higher than gasoline engines (more than twice as efficient with many modern diesel engines). Here is the chart. Note that it is only when we deal in standardized terms that it *starts* to become possible to discuss EV's and HEV's, and to compare other fuels and their energy content. Of course at that But in your chart you are not using anything close to standardized terms for EVs. You are basing their efficiency on the amount of energy in the batteries - not the amount of energy it takes to charge those batteries. To do that, if you're comparing apples to apples, you have to start with the efficiency of the power plant, the energy losses in the power lines, AC-DC conversion to charge the batteries, etc.. Those are huge losses that you have ignored. Did you read my energy/mile analysis that I did yesterday? If you don't believe that diesels are more energy efficient than gasoline engines, then try this - drive a diesel in winter. What you'll find is that it takes considerably longer to get heat out of the heater, because the diesel engine is far more efficient, and therefore does not produce nearly as much waste heat as a gasoline engine. (unless you use electric heaters designed to heat up the coolant more quickly so you don't have to freeze on cold mornings) point the Madding Crowd chimes in with various other conversation-enders, such as the energy losses between power plant and EV, and plenty of other assumptions, but one has to start somewhere to get on with this research: http://www.herecomesmongo.com/ae/comptab.html If you want to make the most important comparison, how about pollution per mile? For similar cars (i.e. comparing a little tiny two seat honda insight to a larger car tells you nothing about the efficiency of the drive systems). A VW Jetta TDI wagon running on biodiesel (if made with using plant derived alcohols) produces zero CO2 per mile. This is technology in use TODAY. A little tiny honda insight hybrid produces how much CO2 per mile? (let's see, burning one gallon of gasoline produces 22 pounds of CO2. It gets 56 mpg on the highway, so that's 0.4 pounds of CO2 produced per mile. 0.4 is considerably bigger than 0. :-) Compare it to a Jetta wagon with the 2.0 liter gas engine (30 mpg highway) and it's up to 0.73 pounds per mile. Mike Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home for Top $ http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel
Blah...Blah. Blah...Blah...Blah Blah...Blah...Blah...Bla, ad infinitum If all that you can come up with, in response to what I write, is malevolent filth, then I ask that you killfile me through your email client. If you think that what I write is nonense and that you must say so for the benefit of others, I would point out that I have received at least two *very* productive responses from Mr. Spence and Mr. Briggs. Even if they do not agree with all or much or some of what I write, they have found a way to make good and valuable points in response to it. I have read over your posts (not having paid them much attention for many moons) and you are obviously erudite when it comes to the real and important nuts and bolts of making the substances in question. I'm not sure you have much to say as to the issues of political economy, philsophy, activism, etc., but maybe I've missed it. I wouldn't mind understanding how to make fuel, but unfortunately I have to presently grant it a very low priority, and I do not own a garage or yard in which to do some of the work. Thus, I do not normally read the posts of those whose concern is the real chemsistry nuts and bolts here. Maybe someday this will change for me and I will want to get into making fuel. In the meantime, I will continue to post, as resources allow, on the more armchair-topics of activism, economics, and so forth. If you have an actual intelligent response to those points I occassionally able to make on these relevant topics, however half-baked my screed may often be, maybe I will be able to get to reading it. It seems less likely now, though, that I would make an effort, or that you will have much response, intelligent or otherwise, to anything I write. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home for Top $ http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel
All right then, I apologize for what was apparently an over-reaction and a misdirected-reaction. I think I interpreted a couple of your posts as seeming to make clear that you thought my own points were run-on total crud. But it was apparently more the topic and what you perceive as over-doing it that was your complaint. On that point, I'd say that each person unfortunately only has so much time and comes to some topics at their own pace, so every forum I've ever been-in, there's a lot of repetitiveness, for years. At least with this forum, the posts are archived in our email clients and I think going forward forums of the future will make points-already-made more accessible on the web so maybe that will slightly lessen the repetitiveness. But anyway, I seem to have basically misinterpreted your point, so I'm sorry about my reaction. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home with Ease! http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not enough debate. More than there was, and a legislative push by John Dingell, but still not enough. US 1%, Germany 37% - which Liedtke says would be the case in the US too if consumers were given a choice. http://www.dieselforum.org/inthenews/boschspeech_080702.html Diesels Are Ready. Why Aren't We? Kurt Liedtke, Chairman, President and CEO Robert Bosch Corporation Thank you Dave. Good afternoon. It is a pleasure to be on this panel with 2 prestigious colleagues. I feel a little bit troubled by the theme of this conference - Fast, Fun and Scary. It sounds like the title of a Spaghetti Western Movie - The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. I guess the expectation is that Tim shall be the fast one, Bill the funny one and I the scary one. So I shall try to stand up to the expectation and talk to you about something really scary - diesel in the United States. (Big Snip) Keith, I agree that there isn't enough debate or consideration of Diesel engines in the US. I also believe that Diesel engine technology in the US is nearly at it's limit...UNTIL we can get some decent fuel to burn in them. Our current fuel is barely able to be burned, let alone try to do it cleanly and efficiently. I can foresee some difficulty in making a transition to better fuels, also. There are a LOT of industrial-use engines that are decades old still in use. Perhaps a change only in highway-use fuels to begin with? This has been partially begun with low(er)-sulfer fuels for highway use. I assume refineries have already implemented a system for producing 2 different versions of Diesel fuel, or does a portion of it get further refining in an additional step? Anyone? That is my trifle of input for now. Motie Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Michael S Briggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Keith Addison wrote: I get the sense things are changing somewhat with diesels anyway, there seems to be some movement, some momentum gathering. For instance, Kerry's rather mild pro-diesel stance got his fingers burnt, yet Dingell can try to push a bill through now? Okay, I don't know much about US politics, but doesn't that show some movement? Yes, getting Dingell onboard the diesel bandwagon should be a big plus. Getting (i.e. forcing) oil companies to start selling ULSD (ultra low sulfur diesel) in the US should really have an impact that will fortunately help out biodiesel. Most US automakers currently do make some nice diesel engines - but they only sell them in Europe. Part of that is simply because many americans still picture diesels as noisy, dirty engines that won't work at all in cold weather. It was a ride in a VW TDI that convinced Dingell that that was not true. A big part of getting diesels to start becoming more mainstream will just be the public learning that there have been advances in diesel engine technology, and when run on ULSD (or preferably biodiesel), they don't have the big black cloud effect anymore. Mike Just my personal opinion, but I think Diesels will become much more acceptable when we have better fuel to run in them. I don't know what incentive may be needed to get that to happen. Heavy trucks are using all that the refineries can produce now. There is no incentive to clean up the fuel and expand the demand for it, unless there is an acceptably higher price to be made from it. It all comes down to money! Motie Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- 4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel
Certainly, no one argues with international automotive test findings that better fuel economy can be had with diesel/electric hybrids than with gasoline/electric hybrid vehicles. I do most certainly argue with this. I measure mileage by miles-per-unit-energy, and on that basis, it is not clear to me if diesel gets better mileage or not. It looks to me like: about the same, though it's hard to say. I also think that the Battery Electric Vehicle mileage figures I've seen, on a per-unit-energy-onboard basis, by and large get better mileage than the gasoline or diesel cars I've seen, by a wide margin, and they also get better mileage even than the hybrids. I calculate the RAV4 EV as something like 93 mpg gasoline equivalent, though I'd have to review some of the issues there, such as whether the mileage is measured at the meter, or onboard, (since there are inefficiencies of charging, in some cases very very high). diesels most certainly do get higher mpg, The article stated that diesels get better fuel economy. If this means that a vehicle gets better miles per gallon, then the assertion is correct and my dispute with it is not correct. *However*, the use of the term fuel econonomy, in the present vernacular, has not been sufficiently made clear in my view, and I guess that's what I'm trying to get across. In fact, it is ambiguous not only in that it is somewhat natural to view fuel as having a standardized energy content (of course: it does not particularly compared to other fuels) but also because the word economy somehow makes it easier to allow us to think that the term fuel economy might connote energy efficiency. Most people, if they show some interest in fuel economy have *no clue* that there is more energy in a gallon of diesel than in a gallon of gasoline. Upon learning this, I have seen some assume, wrongly, compounding the problem, that it is somehow even better that one is able to wring more mpg out of a gallon of diesel, when in fact the opposite is true, and it is usually not impressive (though it is a matter of degree). Much of this could be cleared up by measuring not fuel economy but *energy* economy. Many people assume without discussion that mpg means energy economy which of course is not an equivalency, something that makes it very hard to compare different fuels. I'm sure the oil companies don't mind *one bit* that it becomes difficult to compare different fuels' energy economy, or that even energy activists accept, without a shred of discussion, that it is ok to standardize energy economy discussions to terms already defined in petroleum inexact terms, thus conceding much of the battle to Big Oil before it is even begun. mpg: foo-ey I say. I think this all needs exact clarification and saying diesel gets better fuel economy is wrong because it leaves the matter ambiguous for too many readers whom you and I both know have not enough understanding of the matter to sort out that there might be a very significant difference between fuel economy and energy economy. The author of the article we're discussing probably knew this but thought it might be ok to do some shorthand because everyone else does it. It's not ok, in my view. I have yet to see an article which makes the matter clear, except one or two articles which pointed out that PNGV vehicles which came close to 80 mpg on diesel were sort of cheating (though the matter was often glossed-over.) I have a further question that I've never seen examined or discussed which is this: if diesel has more btu per unit volume or mass than gasoline, then I wonder if it takes more of a barrel of petroleum to make x number of gallons of diesel than it does to make x number of gallons of gasoline. If so, then how much more? It becomes possible that the miles-per-gallon of diesel is *worse* than that of gasoline if we are talking about the gallons of crude used per mile. I reckon it might take some doing to get a hard idea as to the answer to that one. because diesel has a higher btu count / gallon. btu / mile is similar. Yes, I'll agree with that. You and I know this. Most people, including many many energy activists, would have little idea of what you're talking about. I tried to put this chart together a couple of years ago with some of these ideas in mind. I think the best thing for all would be to standardize mileage discussions to a neutral energy unit (MegaJoules, BTU, maybe kWh, Erg? what is an Erg anyway?) but some are less neutral than others. We concede too much, in my opinion, by continuing serious energy discussion on terms defined in Oil, (terms brought to us by the same people who cannot give anyone in the US or perhaps on Earth a straight answer as to the price of a gallon of their wares, but insist on this insulting 9/10 of a cent tacked on to every unit sold). The number of BTU per gallon gasoline and I think also diesel is not at all an exact number, so the terms are arguably
