Graham Noyes of World Energy wrote:
>I tried to bow out gracefully but the following was a bit much:
Not graceful enough maybe, or not graceful at all. You left a whole
bunch of unanswered questions, unsubstantiated assertions and
unwarranted accusations behind you, and now we have a whole bunch
more. Rather more bluster and high dudgeon than graceful bowing
>(snip)
>
> > > Um, at the cost of having homebrewers dispensed with by means of a
> > > load of BS about us being nothing but a peril who'll bring it all to
> > > naught unless we're controlled? Or at least kept firmly in our place
> > > (our own backyards)? Though we can be useful... Check back and you'll
> > > see that that's basically what Mr Noyes of World Energy was saying.
> > > He was asked how many times? Three? Four? - to substantiate his
> > > claims that substandard-spec homebrew had caused widespread problems
> > > and industry had had to clean up the mess after us. He evaded the
> > > question each time. He can't substantiate it because it's BS. Not the
> > > only thing he evaded. If you think that will at least stop him making
> > > such unsubstantiated claims, even if he can't quite bring himself to
> > > withdraw them, don't hold your breath.
> > >
> > > Noyes, and others like him, couldn't cope with what we actually are
> > > and what we do, as opposed to his patronising idea of us. Have a look
> > > at how he handled the possibility of collaboration with us,
> > > laughable. It's on his terms or nothing, just like the other World
> > > Energy guy who wasted our time with this talk. We're more useful than
> > > these people, and it's them who make it an either-or question, not us.
> > >
> > > We're not against industry, that would be foolish, but there's
> > > industry and then there's industry. It's not a case of small vs
> > > large, there's room and need for both, as you say. Some of the big
> > > companies are just fine, no problem at all working with them. But
> > > frankly I think the world needs the likes of World Energy like it
> > > needs a hole in the head.
> > {snip}
> >
>So I'm back again, feeling the need to respond since like most
>people, I hope not to be perceived as some kind of ogre. And
>because I think these discussion groups have some significance and
>that this path leads this group nowhere.
It certainly isn't going to lead us to acceptance of a load of
prejudice that we can't make spec fuel, are a peril to biofuels and
have to be controlled. On the other hand, it has led us and a great
many other people worldwide to promote, use and make biofuels and do
a very great deal to improve the quality of what they make. I think
we're fairly happy with where our path leads us, and others, thankyou
all the same.
>For starters, since there's a strong ad hominem dimension here,
And who started that, hm? We, mainly Todd and I, were talking about
World Energy, soy, and so on, and you then attacked us directly. Go
have a look.
>let's start with me, who I am and what I do and don't think. I
>prefer Graham to Mr. Noyes and don't appreciate being shoved into a
>straight-laced corporate persona to suit the writer's agenda.
It was your own responses that did that. And it's you who's done all
the labelling.
>I like homebrewers and DIY's and got into the whole biodiesel thing
>in the first place through fascination with renewable energy, VW
>tinkering and learning about Josh and Kaia's Veggie Van through
>friends from New College.
>
>I now am lucky enough to work in the industry and I enjoy almost
>every minute of it. The unique perspective I bring to this
>discussion is from this work. My comments were not intended to be
>patronizing but to provide insight as to what industry concerns are.
Your perspective may or may not be unique but I do not think you can
claim to represent the industry view. "BIG INDUSTRY responds..."
Others in industry have a quite different perspective and have
expressed it here, and regularly in off-list discussions that have
been most productive, mutually so.
We know a lot about industry and its concerns. You say you like
homebrewers and so on but you continue to know very little about us
and our concerns, when they're relayed to you you object and go into
denial. And, yes, you patronise: your ideas on collaboration, as
noted before, are strictly one-way. Other industry figures have had a
more mutual idea of what collaboration means.
>I did not fabricate tales of vehicle problems from homebrew to
>denigrate DIY's but to share my experience. There were a signficant
>number of reports of downed vehicles in a particular area (not
>destroyed, just clogged) of the country last year that I learned
>about through my full-time work with biodiesel users in the West. I
>am not going to get more specific than that because I learned about
>these vehicles second-hand (though from several different people)
>and I have no direct personal knowledge regarding what happened.
But you've just said it's from your experience, then you say it's
only second-hand. Which?
>Frankly I would think that other members of this group would have
>heard similar reports.
No. What we have heard of, as Todd said, is this (I'd also heard of it):
>I can point to one local gross incidence of severe down time
>accrued by ODOT road crews running biodiesel manufactured to ASTM
>spec. Seems that the vendor failed to inform ODOT of the superior
>solvent capacities of biodiesel, or at least the information was
>not relayed to outposts and no measures were taken. Debris ridden
>fuel was pumped from outpost distribution tanks into field
>distribution tanks and eventually into vehicles. Needless to say
>there were numerous early and extended lunches between mid to
>late summer.
>
>Of the three ODOT employees that I know personally, each working
>out of a different outpost, all express irritation coming from
>the mechanics, crews and post management, all swearing up and
>down that they'll be damned and go to hell before they "put that
>crap in their tanks again." It should be a part of every
>distributor's and delivery driver's job to put this type of
>information (and more) into each customer's hands with each fuel
>delivery. Hard to improve product image (goodwill) and keep a
>contract with that type of negligence.
To which you never responded. This is what you'd said:
>The big fear of the biodiesel industry is that homebrewers
>are going to destroy the market. I have seen home-brewed biodiesel
>cause problems in multiple locations and it has taken significant
>efforts to undo the damage. One region of the country in particular
>had large quantities of homegrown off-spec fuel that was being sold
>and distributed. The use of biodiesel was substantially delayed in
>this area until trust for the fuel was re-established.
Where have large quantities of fuel ever been sold and distributed by
homebrewers?
>At any rate, this certainly does not prove homebrew inferior but was
>intended to show what the industry is concerned about. My personal
>opinion is that this part of the country was delayed in the
>acceptance of biodiesel because of these problems. This would be
>the case whether the biodiesel was commercially-produced or
>home-brewed. But the industry knows where to point the finger when
>commercial biodiesel is out of spec and how to respond.
How did they respond to the ODOT case Todd describes, if at all?
So, this is the best you can do? You can't substantiate your claims -
that was already obvious from the way you repeatedly evaded the issue
when you were asked. Now you admit it's just hearsay, you don't know
the facts and are apparently not willing to take the trouble to find
out. Just an industry myth, as I said - but that's not going to stop
you making these claims, is it? As you've just done, again. I said
you'd rather maintain your prejudices, and I was right. Now, not for
the first time, you've tried to soften it down a bit, hoping nobody'd
notice: previously you were much more assertive and confident in your
statements that only "industry" could do it right and the small guys
can't. Well, maybe you're learning - or are you only learning that
you have to be a little more careful of us here, that we're not quite
the pushover you thought we'd be?
You talk of "laying the groundwork for better communication and
potential cooperation between the existing industry and smaller scale
enterprises" and so on, as usual - maybe it should start at home, in
your case? Why would you think small producers, local producers,
homebrewers would want to "collaborate" with industry people who keep
spreading this BS about them?
James Slayden said this:
>In this last weekends class we did a little homebrew test for quality
>against commerce BD and a batch from the Berkley co-op and they were about
>the same. If anything, the commerce BD that gets sent for ASTM and EPA
>testing is prolly from a VERY carefully processed batch, whereas most
>homebrew is carefully processed with each batch out of necessity (more
>lovingly ;-) ). I wouldn't say all homebrewers are that concerned with
>their batches, but to be a DIY'r is in itself a passion, and thus usually
>more concerned.
Quite so.
>Homebrew, as it has been pointed out, is more elusive and difficult
>to control.
"Control", yes, as you keep saying. Maybe we don't need your control.
That's all your idea of "collaboration" seems to amount to as well,
that and putting us to use on your behalf (as with the soy subsidies).
>I like much of what DIY's have achieved and have always been a fan
>of de-centralized and renewable power production. I am particularly
>stoked that there is progress toward providing developing countries
>with some of these tools. I know that there are real hurdles to
>legal production for small producers. These have far more to do with
>the EPA than the NBB.
If you'd been following this you'd have seen that we've made a lot of
progress here and that the EPA has changed it's stance and is now
playing according its own rules, which it wasn't doing before:
small-scale producers no longer need to pay the swingeing costs of
Tier I and II testing, nor to join the NBB. (Though it still needs a
test-case.)
Tom Leue of Yellow Biodiesel wrote this, specifically in response to
an enquiry about people's experience of the NBB:
>Only a couple of experiences with the NBB. First, it was a NBB member who
>told me I had to register my production operation with the EPA. I fully
>believe he knew that the EPA would refuse my registration and threaten me
>with fines of up to $25,000 per day, since I was not a member of the NBB.
>That put me in jeopardy and was not appreciated. In addition, Joe Jobes,
>Director of the NBB, told me to change a somewhat unflattering reference to
>the NBB on my web site, www.yellowbiodiesel.com
>I accomodated him, but I thought they were excessively sensitive.
>
>Needless to say, they do not encourge small producers like myself.
>If you think the NBB is behind the scenes influencing our fuel
>regulatory policy, you are suffering delusions of grandeur on the
>NBB's behalf. If you want the industry to support your agenda,
>consider participating in the NBB.
Much of the industry does support "our" "agenda", whatever that is.
(Once again, neither the industry nor homebrewers are as monolithic
as you seem to think.) Too often, however, factions of industry, Big
Soy and the NBB have insisted on imposing their own agenda. As you
tend to do. What you've actually said here previously is that we
should support Big Soy, the NBB and especially World Energy and when
we failed to do so to your satisfaction you said we were
"anti-biofuels", LOL!
>While not claiming to be an ambassador, Josh did a great job last
>week at the NBB meeting in St. Louis laying the groundwork for
>better communication and potential cooperation between the existing
>industry and smaller scale enterprises.
Good on Josh. Pity he doesn't wash his fuel, and encourages others
not to do so either. Sub-spec homebrew.
>BTW, please do recognize that most NBB members (and other human
>beings) think that using hole in the head metaphors is a pretty
>crappy way to deal with people.
Depends how they've behaved, eh?
I don't accept that either you or World Energy speaks for most NBB
members, our experience of many of them has been somewhat different.
You've once again failed to address the concerns raised and the
questions asked. I suggest you do a little homework, go back through
the previous posts and attempt a more thorough job, if you really
hope to convince anyone, or even just to defend yourself
successfully. No use just ignoring the awkward bits hoping they'll go
away, they won't.
Keith Addison
>Regards and Respects,
>
>Graham
Biofuels at Journey to Forever
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel at WebConX
http://webconx.green-trust.org/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/
