From wrenchwench at blast.com Wed Mar 1 08:03:22 2006 From: wrenchwench at blast.com (Rachel Burton) Date: Wed Mar 1 08:03:22 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] Sounds Good to Me ! References: <8D15541F2E16C84B8BE05C60FF5F03891F9AA4@exchange.sys.p2pays.org> Message-ID: Begin forwarded message: > http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/02/loremo_ag_157_m.php > THE FUTURE IS NOW The concept is refreshingly simple: Make an ultra- > efficient car that?s light, has exceptionally low drag, and sips > diesel with a small engine. (Ok, ok, so that?s not *super*-eco all > by itself, but you (yes you!) could run it on biodeisel!) This is > the Loremo AG, a car that is a combination of innovative technology > and back-to- basics thinking. To be shown at the upcoming car show > in Geneva, this German creation claims a fuel economy of 157 miles > per gallon with no fancy hybrid drive-train, fuel cells, or plug-in > paraphernalia. Weighing less than one thousand pounds, this sporty > rear-wheel drive four-seater is designed to be maximally > aerodynamic. The Loremo sports a modest two-cylinder, 20 - > horsepower turbo diesel motor, has a top speed of 100 miles per > hour, and does zero to 60 in ten seconds. If that sounds like less > than elite performance, the anticipated $13,000 price tag should > put it in a bit more perspective. Due to hit the European market in > 2009. ::more ::Loremo AG > > From wrenchwench at blast.com Wed Mar 1 08:35:22 2006 From: wrenchwench at blast.com (Rachel Burton) Date: Wed Mar 1 08:37:01 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] Fwd: Job posting References: Message-ID: Begin forwarded message: > > Southern Energy Management, a sustainable energy company located in > Raleigh, > NC, has an outstanding opportunity for the right sales > professional. We are > a progressive and dynamic company committed to having a positive > impact on > the lives of our customers, our community and each other. We are > seeking an > environmentally conscious, highly personable and energetic > individual to > join our team of energy efficiency and solar technology professionals. > Experience in the building science/construction industry is required. > > Primary Responsibilities Include: > > Manage all aspects of the sales cycle for clients interested in > reducing > their energy costs: > - Respond promptly to customer inquiries. > - Schedule/perform in-home and small business sales calls during > which you > will diagnose/identify major opportunities for energy savings. > - Create proposals, generate work orders, execute contracts, and > coordinate > fulfillment with production staff. > - Provide post-sales support to ensure customer satisfaction, maximize > company goodwill, and identify/develop referral opportunities. > > Participate in a wide variety of business development activities: > - Assist with development/implementation of ongoing marketing > strategy. > - Attend regular team meetings. > - Represent company and educate consumers at trade shows and > environmental > expos. > > Requirements: > > Creative, self-motivated team player with a cooperative, > positive attitude. > Superior oral and written communication skills. > Proficiency in Microsoft Office software package. Autocad, Photoshop > experience a plus. > Strong mechanical aptitude. > > Compensation package commensurate with experience. > > Interested parties should send a cover letter and resume to > info@southern-energy.com . > No phone calls, please. > > -------------- next part -------------- From wedmonds1 at nc.rr.com Wed Mar 1 22:37:12 2006 From: wedmonds1 at nc.rr.com (Wayne) Date: Wed Mar 1 22:36:49 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] Kids build a diesel-electric hybrid Message-ID: <006301c63daa$98439b60$d1e33942@wedmond> I came across this story about some high schoolers' after school project: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/17/eveningnews/main1329941.shtml One of my favorite quotes from the article, about the oil companies: "They're making billions upon billions of dollars," he says. "And when this car sells, that'll go down - to low billions upon billions." From george at sunsetcoachmen.com Fri Mar 3 11:02:02 2006 From: george at sunsetcoachmen.com (George Bostic) Date: Fri Mar 3 16:23:30 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] BioDiesel Meeting / Charlotte Message-ID: <4408687A.6020404@sunsetcoachmen.com> Saturday, March 11th. 1200 South Graham. 3:30-6:30pm. Covered dish. Please come if you can. 704.392.8193. George From john.bonitz at gmail.com Mon Mar 6 13:25:05 2006 From: john.bonitz at gmail.com (John Bonitz) Date: Mon Mar 6 13:27:20 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] know anyone in Kansas? Illinois? Iowa, S.Dakota, Neb., NY, PA, Mont., or Co? Message-ID: <84a57a420603061025r44d95cdctdeda515719cae4ad@mail.gmail.com> NEWS FROM THE AMERICAN CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION For Immediate Release Contact: Larry Mitchell (202) 835-0330 www.acga.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MEDIA ADVISORY WHO: American Corn Growers Association (ACGA), in cooperation with Farm Aid South Dakota Corn Utilization Council National Biodiesel Board American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE) National Farmers Organization (NFO) Agricultural Policy Analysis Center (APAC) Kansas Farmers Union Pennsylvania Farmers Union WHAT: American Corn Growers 2006 Ag and Energy Workshops WHEN and WHERE: Thursday, March 23, 2006 -- 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Rolling Hills Conference Center 625 N Hedville Rd., Salina, Kan Contact: Linda Hessman at 620-227-3688 Saturday, March 25, 2006 -- 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Bureau Valley High School Maple Street, Manlius, Ill. Contact: Keith Bolin at 815-445-5491 Monday, March 27, 2006 -- 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Iowa State University Schemann Building ? Room 275 Ames, Iowa Contact: Linda Reineke at 712-779-3503 Wednesday, March 29, 2006 -- 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Watertown Event Center 1901 9th Ave., S.W., Watertown, S.D. Contact: Mark Lounsbery at 605-623-4567 Thursday, March 30, 2006 -- 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Divots Conference Center 4200 W. Norfolk Ave., Norfolk, Neb. Contact: Keith Dittrich at 402-368-7786 Monday, April 3, 2005 -- 9:00 a.m. Civil Defense Center Route 54, Bath, N.Y. Contact: Carl Albers at 607-664-2309 Tuesday, April 4, 2006 ? 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Camelot Restaurant 4907 US Hwy 322, Reedsville, Pa. Contact: Glen Swartz at 717-734-3761 Addition workshops are being planned in Mont. & Col Farm Aid President Willie Nelson (see. http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/pressreleases/gen /20060208_WillieNelsonSanDiego.pdf ) and Keith Bolin, president of the American Corn Growers Association (ACGA) have announced their organizations' sponsorship and facilitation of a series of renewable energy workshops. In line with its mission of keeping family farmers on their land to strengthen local and sustainable food production, Farm Aid will assist ACGA in the underwriting of the workshops and facilitate presentations on the following topics; Overview of Bio-Diesel Production, Acceptance and Utilization, Overview of Ethanol "From Fields to Fuel", Wind Energy ? New Potentials for Rural Communities, Biomass production and utilization, and How Renewable Energy Production Can Be an Essential Component to Better Farm Policy. These workshops are open to farmers, rural businesses and residents, the press and electronic news media, and anyone interested in energy and agriculture policy. The workshops will begin at 9:00 a.m. and will conclude by 4:00 p.m. Lunch will be served and door prizes will be provided by Farm Aid. From marc at theforestfoundation.org Mon Mar 6 19:50:04 2006 From: marc at theforestfoundation.org (Marc Dreyfors-President) Date: Mon Mar 6 20:31:17 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] Fundraiser for Sustainable Energy Distribution Message-ID: Greetings Biofuel and Alternative Energy Users: The Forest Foundation, Inc., a 501(c)(3) non-profit registered in Durham, North Carolina recently purchased Carolina Biodiesel, Inc. (a non-profit started by Bo Lozoff and Human Kindness Foundation), acquiring a 2800 gal., GMC Top-kick tanker truck in the deal. The tanker, having previously resided in up-state New York (brrrr !), has found warmer climes for its home and is in desperate need of repair, having suffered from salt damage and neglect. The Foundation will be conducting a fundraiser over the next month to have the tanker truck repaired (specifically sandblasted, primed and painted), so that it can continue its life in service to the organization's sustainable livelihoods mission, distributing biodiesel fuel in the Triangle. The Foundation will be working with Chapel Hill High School environmental studies students and mechanics class to have a mural painted on its side, as a part of our effort to teach about sustainable energy and develop a curriculum on the subject of biodiesel. We need your help to raise approximately $5,000 and hope to have the tanker sandblasted, repaired, primed and repainted by Earth Day 2006. We are offering space on the tanker truck for businesses that want to advertise and will honor donors with their name on our website and in our marketing literature. We are tabling at conferences and festivals in the area over the next few months, and will be selling and raffling off several beautiful Mercedes diesel cars ready to run biodiesel (including a beautiful 300CD Coupe and 300D Sedan both with low miles and near mint bodies). If you are interested in helping, donating or participating in the fundraiser or raffle and diesel sale, contact us at: info@theforestfoundation.org or 919.957.1505 Thank you and "may the lard be with you!" Marc Dreyfors(MEM '90, NSOE Alumni Council '05, Board EENC '04) President, The Forest Foundation, Inc.-- a 501(c)(3) promoting Sustainable Livelihoods 607 Ellis Road, Bldg. 53-A1 Durham, NC 27703 (919)957-1500,1505 fax: (919)957-1502 www.theforestfoundation.org From wrenchwench at blast.com Wed Mar 8 17:40:42 2006 From: wrenchwench at blast.com (Rachel Burton) Date: Wed Mar 8 17:40:22 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] Blog aggregator Message-ID: It took some time but we have revived the blog aggregator: http://biofuels.coop/aggregator/ Thanks for your patience, Rachel & the crew at Piedmont Biofuels From wrenchwench at blast.com Thu Mar 9 13:27:10 2006 From: wrenchwench at blast.com (Rachel Burton) Date: Thu Mar 9 16:54:39 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] Reminder: The 2006 Virginia Biodiesel Conference "Small Scale Production and Use" April 3, 2006 References: <701C5AEC44005F46948DE040CCFC36996F3386@titan.CISAT.JMU.EDU> Message-ID: <31C10C65-00BE-4492-B6BE-171B71A76B23@blast.com> > The 2006 Virginia Biodiesel Conference "Small Scale Production and > Use" is just around the corner! If you have not already > registered, please do so! (If you already have, please disregard > this message.) > > > The 2006 Virginia Biodiesel Conference "Small Scale Production and > Use" is being presented by the Center for Energy and Environmental > Sustainability at James Madison University in cooperation with Blue > Ridge Clean Fuels, Virginia Clean Cities, Virginia Tech Fuels > Diversification Program and Southern States Energy Board. The > conference will be held at the James Madison University Festival > Conference and Student Center. Our speakers include: Matthew Lohr > of the Virginia House of Delegates, Rachel Burton of Piedmont > Biofuels, and Cathie Johnston of Intertek Caleb Brett. > > 8:15 a.m. Registration/ Breakfast > 8:30 a.m. Welcome > 8:35 a.m. Overview > 8:50 a.m. What is Biodiesel, Who uses it? > 9:10 a.m. State Role > 9:15 a.m. Biofuels in Agriculture/Legislation > 9:55 a.m. How Biodiesel is Made > 10:15 a.m. Fuel Testing > 10:35 a.m. Break > 10:45 a.m. Practical Implementation > 11:05 a.m. How a Reactor is Made/Fuel Quality > 11:50 a.m. Safety/Glycerol Considerations > 12:10 p.m. Lunch > 1:10 p.m. Farmer Panel-Farmer Experience > 1:55 p.m. Commercial Availability/Use > 2:10 p.m. Q & A Session > Register Online > PAYMENT INFORMATION: > Please mail your check (we are not able to accept credit cards) in > the amount of $40.00 payable to JMU postmarked by March 25, 2006 to: > L. Radocha - Biodiesel Conf. > James Madison University ISAT Dept. > MSC 4102 > Harrisonburg, VA 22807 > Registrations received/postmarked after March 25, 2006 will be > subject to an additional $10.00. No refunds will be given after > March 25, 2006. Space is limited, please reply early. If you have > any questions, please contact 540-568-2766 or send an email to > radochlm@jmu.edu > Visit http://www.cisat.jmu.edu/biodiesel/conference2006.html for > more information. > > > > Please forward this email to anyone who may be interested in > attending. > > > > > > > > > > Lynn Radocha > > Outreach Administrator > > James Madison University > > MSC 4102 > > Harrisonburg, VA 22807 > > 540-568-2766 > > radochlm@jmu.edu > > > "And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the > greatest of these is love." 1 Corinthians 13:13 > > > From wrenchwench at blast.com Thu Mar 9 17:43:33 2006 From: wrenchwench at blast.com (Rachel Burton) Date: Thu Mar 9 17:43:10 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] NCSU Partners with Volvo to Demo Idle Reduction Technology Message-ID: <0F5CDF2F-3B08-49C3-8A5A-20CD6452F198@blast.com> The North Carolina Solar Center at North Carolina State University (NCSU) recently announced it will partner with Volvo Trucks North America to design and demonstrate a prep platform for mobile idle reduction technologies (MIRTs) to help reduce the idling times for long-haul trucks. According to NCSU, the main objectives of the MIRT project are to maximize environmental benefits and potential cost savings to fleet operators, as well as to maximize market acceptance of the prep- kit by working with partners to evaluate fuel, maintenance, engine life savings, payback times and potential user reactions. NCSU noted that the NC Solar Center was awarded $500,000 in funding for the two-and-one-half year project last October from the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) SmartWay Transport Partnership. Contact: Anne Tazewell, NC Solar Center, phone 919-513-7831, e- mail anne_tazewell@ncsu.edu. From william_stott at unc.edu Fri Mar 10 12:37:23 2006 From: william_stott at unc.edu (William Stott) Date: Fri Mar 10 12:37:38 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] thixotropic properties of things Message-ID: <4411B953.2070002@unc.edu> *thixotropy: *the property of certain gels of becoming liquid when agitated and turning into a gel again when allowed to stand. From a German word with the same meaning, from Greek roots meaning 'touching' and 'turning.' ___________ I thought of the biofuels group when I came across this word today; and I wanted to share it as an occasion to ask a question. I thought I'd agitate the list, that is, and see what flowed. I hope you all don't mind a linguistic posting now and again, as I am always interested in the linguistic, literary, and philosophical dimension of social change and mindful living. I wonder, is there a handbook of terminology that exists, or any quasi-literary or linguistic organ through which the language, lexicon, and idiom of biofuels and alternative energy is being disseminated? Also, are any of you aware of literary texts that biofuels and/or alternative fuels play a role in, even a small one? I teach a sequence of courses in literature and environment at UNC Chapel Hill, and I am keen to gather literary sources that represent and engage this growing area of cultural activity. Past courses include, "The Literary Bog," which featured the literature of wetlands, swamps, and bogs; "Men's Lives: Commercial Fishing in Literature"; and, I've begun research on "Literary Wastelands: Readings in the Literature and Philosophy of Garbage." (This course will include A.R. Ammons' fine long poem, /Garbage/.) Anyhow, I would like to develop a course in the Literature of (Alternative) Energy. I'm not only interested in canonical texts; though permaculturally speaking, it's quite enjoyable to scrounge through classics for insights. I have enjoyed using Zines, "graphic novels" (comics) and magazine pieces, as well as more recognizable genre like sci-fi novels, short stories, poems, and plays. Any suggestions? I hope you like "thixotropy" and look forward to your recommendations. Will -- Dr. William R. Stott, III Director, Albemarle Ecological Field Site 401 Devon Street Manteo, NC 27954 (252) 473-2925 Research Professor, Carolina Environmental Program CB#1105 Miller Hall University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Chapel Hill, NC 27599-1105 (919) 966-9926 william_stott@unc.edu http://www.cep.unc.edu/outreach/manteo.html From wrenchwench at blast.com Fri Mar 10 13:33:39 2006 From: wrenchwench at blast.com (Rachel Burton) Date: Fri Mar 10 13:33:16 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] Washington State Senate Passes Biofuels Legislation Message-ID: <7F5D1016-ED5D-4083-9BF1-8FEADBF865D9@blast.com> Bellingham, WA-based Chemical Consortium Holdings, Inc. (ChemCon) recently announced that the Washington State Senate has passed Engrossed Senate Bill 6508, which sets a mandate for two percent biodiesel use as a percent of diesel sold at the retail pump and 20 percent biodiesel use by state-operated vehicle fleets. The bill also mandates two percent ethanol use as a percent of gasoline sold at the retail pump. ChemCon noted that the bill, the companion measure to House Bill 2738, now heads to the governor's office for signing. The company expects the legislation will require up to 21.2 million gallons of biodiesel annually for in-state use. Contact: ChemCon, website http://www.chemconcorp.com. From wrenchwench at blast.com Fri Mar 10 16:57:03 2006 From: wrenchwench at blast.com (Rachel Burton) Date: Fri Mar 10 16:56:44 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] Triangle Conference on Peak Oil and Community Solutions References: Message-ID: > > Anyone living near the Triangle area is encouraged to attend the > Confernece on Peak Oil and Community Solutions at Duke University, > especially farmers and those who work in other aspects of agriculture. > Food and the development of local food systems will be addressed in > one > of the break-out sessions. For more details read the announcement > below > and or visit the confernece website at > www.duke.edu/greening/peakoil.html > > > > Announcing the Triangle Conference on Peak Oil and Community Solutions > > When: March 25, 2006 > Where: Love Auditorium at Duke University > > Conference Website: > > www.duke.edu/greening/peakoil.html > > There has been increasing attention recently on the problems > associated > with dependency on oil due to factors such as greenhouse gas > emissions, > hurricanes and geopolitical tensions. A sometimes overlooked factor > is > geological depletion. 'Peak Oil' is the point at which world > conventional oil supplies enter permanent decline. A number of > geologists cite evidence that this point will be reached within the > next > 10 years. A report sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy found > that whenever peak oil does in fact occur, it will cause significant > economic and social problems without aggressive planning and action > well > in advance of the date of peak. Environmental activists have an > opportunity to steer solutions away from less sustainable options such > as making synthetic gasoline from coal and towards more sustainable > options such as conservation, efficiency, and localized economics. > > Thus, Duke University Greening Initiative (grad students at Duke > promoting sustainability at Duke and the greater Triangle) and NC > Powerdown (area citizens promoting education about peak oil and > sustainable solutions) are hosting a conference to facilitate > education > on peak oil and proactive planning for a sustainable transition away > from the age of cheap oil and gas. The conference will feature an > overview of peak oil, breakout sessions on energy, food, > transportation > and intentional communities, and thought-provoking movies. > > For more details on peak oil, the speakers and schedule of the > conference and directions, see: > > www.duke.edu/greening/peakoil.html > > Admission is free, but seating is limited. Bring your friends, and > see > you there!! > > Best regards, > > Peter Taylor, Stephen Hren and Rebecca Hren > > Duke University Greening Initiative > NC Powerdown > From wrenchwench at blast.com Mon Mar 13 10:12:24 2006 From: wrenchwench at blast.com (Rachel Burton) Date: Mon Mar 13 10:11:53 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] Imperial Western Products Earns BQ-9000 Accreditation Message-ID: The National Biodiesel Board (NBB) recently announced that Coachella, CA-based Biotane biodiesel producer Imperial Western Products, Inc. has achieved BQ-9000 Accredited Producer status under the National Biodiesel Accreditation Program, a cooperative and voluntary fuel quality initiative adopted by both NBB and the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association. NBB noted that BQ-9000 is a quality assurance program that includes procedures for fuel storage, handling and management aimed at ensuring fuel quality throughout the distribution system. "Even though we had our own quality program in place, we decided it was the right choice to become accredited," said Imperial Western biodiesel operations manager Curtis Wright. "We are proud to be a BQ-9000 accredited producer and I believe we're the first of such that uses yellow grease and animal fats as feedstock." Contact: Amber Thurlo Pearson, NBB, phone 800-841-5849. From wrenchwench at blast.com Fri Mar 10 18:53:16 2006 From: wrenchwench at blast.com (Rachel Burton) Date: Mon Mar 13 10:13:01 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] Fwd: Energy Conference March 29 Register NOW References: <000701c64496$5af3fb40$1b0ce00a@adseo.energy.doa> Message-ID: <7709B8EF-3AE7-474C-A23B-C089FA648D2A@blast.com> Begin forwarded message: > From: "Larry Shirley" > Date: March 10, 2006 5:59:50 PM EST > To: <"Undisclosed-Recipient:;"@mail.emji.net> > Subject: Energy Conference March 29 Register NOW > > IT ISN?T TOO LATE TO ATTEND > THE 3RD ANNUAL > > NC SUSTAINABLE ENERGY CONFERENCE!!!! > > March 29, 2006; 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m > McKimmon Center, NCSU, Raleigh, NC > > Register NOW to take advantage of the Early Registration Discounts > > It?s still a bargain after the March 15 early registration deadline. > > Visit the State Energy Office Website (www.energync.net) > for a conference overview, agenda, and to register as a > participant, exhibitor or sponsor. > ****brochure is attached**** > > Join other energy, engineering, building and environmental > professionals to?. > > Hear Nationally Ranked Speakers: > James Woolsey, former Director CIA > Dr. William Schlesinger, Duke University Nickolas School of > the Environment and Earth Sciences > Ray Anderson, Interface, Inc. > > Share solutions and strategies to ?Manage High Energy Costs.? > > Exhibit your displays and information, join other sponsors in > reaching potential customers, support energy issues! > > > For more information, visit www.energync.net, or > contact the State Energy Office at 919-733-2230, 1-800-662-7131 > We?ll see you in Raleigh on March 29!-------------- next part -------------- From forrest at truffula.net Tue Mar 14 09:20:44 2006 From: forrest at truffula.net (Forrest English) Date: Tue Mar 14 16:46:18 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] worse than fossil fuel Message-ID: <3C403F59-B24E-4F0F-B994-58C0A19BD4AD@truffula.net> Howdy, Just a friendly reminder, our fuel is ONLY as responsible as our feedstock source. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/12/06/worse-than-fossil-fuel 6/12/2005 Worse Than Fossil Fuel Filed under: climate change oil Biodiesel enthusiasts have accidentally invented the most carbon- intensive fuel on earth By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 6th December 2005 Over the past two years I have made an uncomfortable discovery. Like most environmentalists, I have been as blind to the constraints affecting our energy supply as my opponents have been to climate change. I now realise that I have entertained a belief in magic. In 2003, the biologist Jeffrey Dukes calculated that the fossil fuels we burn in one year were made from organic matter "containing 44?10 to the 18 grams of carbon, which is more than 400 times the net primary productivity of the planet's current biota."(1) In plain English, this means that every year we use four centuries' worth of plants and animals. The idea that we can simply replace this fossil legacy ? and the extraordinary power densities it gives us ? with ambient energy is the stuff of science fiction. There is simply no substitute for cutting back. But substitutes are being sought everywhere. They are being promoted today at the climate talks in Montreal, by states ? such as ours ? which seek to avoid the hard decisions climate change demands. And at least one of them is worse than the fossil fuel burning it replaces. The last time I drew attention to the hazards of making diesel fuel from vegetable oils, I received as much abuse as I have ever been sent by the supporters of the Iraq war. The biodiesel missionaries, I discovered, are as vociferous in their denial as the executives of Exxon. I am now prepared to admit that my previous column was wrong. But they're not going to like it. I was wrong because I underestimated the fuel's destructive impact. Before I go any further, I should make it clear that turning used chip fat into motor fuel is a good thing. The people slithering around all day in vats of filth are perfoming a service to society. But there is enough waste cooking oil in the UK to meet one 380th of our demand for road transport fuel(2). Beyond that, the trouble begins. When I wrote about it last year, I thought that the biggest problem caused by biodiesel was that it set up a competition for land(3). Arable land that would otherwise have been used to grow food would instead be used to grow fuel. But now I find that something even worse is happening. The biodiesel industry has accidentally invented the world's most carbon-intensive fuel. In promoting biodiesel ? as the European Union, the British and US governments and thousands of environmental campaigners do ? you might imagine that you are creating a market for old chip fat, or rapeseed oil, or oil from algae grown in desert ponds. In reality you are creating a market for the most destructive crop on earth. Last week, the chairman of Malaysia's Federal Land Development Authority announced that he was about to build a new biodiesel plant (4). His was the ninth such decision in four months. Four new refineries are being built in Peninsula Malaysia, one in Sarawak and two in Rotterdam(5). Two foreign consortia ? one German, one American ? are setting up rival plants in Singapore(6). All of them will be making biodiesel from the same source: oil from palm trees. "The demand for biodiesel," the Malaysian Star reports, "will come from the European Community ? This fresh demand ? would, at the very least, take up most of Malaysia's crude palm oil inventories"(7). Why? Because it's cheaper than biodiesel made from any other crop. In September, Friends of the Earth published a report about the impacts of palm oil production. "Between 1985 and 2000," it found, "the development of oil-palm plantations was responsible for an estimated 87 per cent of deforestation in Malaysia"(8). In Sumatra and Borneo, some 4 million hectares of forest has been converted to palm farms. Now a further 6 million hectares is scheduled for clearance in Malaysia, and 16.5m in Indonesia. Almost all the remaining forest is at risk. Even the famous Tanjung Puting National Park in Kalimantan is being ripped apart by oil planters. The orang-utan is likely to become extinct in the wild. Sumatran rhinos, tigers, gibbons, tapirs, proboscis monkeys and thousands of other species could go the same way. Thousands of indigenous people have been evicted from their lands, and some 500 Indonesians have been tortured when they tried to resist(9). The forest fires which every so often smother the region in smog are mostly started by the palm growers. The entire region is being turned into a gigantic vegetable oil field. Before oil palms, which are small and scrubby, are planted, vast forest trees, containing a much greater store of carbon, must be felled and burnt. Having used up the drier lands, the plantations are now moving into the swamp forests, which grow on peat. When they've cut the trees, the planters drain the ground. As the peat dries it oxidises, releasing even more carbon dioxide than the trees. In terms of its impact on both the local and global environments, palm biodiesel is more destructive than crude oil from Nigeria. The British government understands this. In the report it published last month, when it announced that it will obey the European Union and ensure that 5.75% of our transport fuel comes from plants by 2010, it admitted that "the main environmental risks are likely to be those concerning any large expansion in biofuel feedstock production, and particularly in Brazil (for sugar cane) and South East Asia (for palm oil plantations)."(10) It suggested that the best means of dealing with the problem was to prevent environmentally destructive fuels from being imported. The government asked its consultants whether a ban would infringe world trade rules. The answer was yes: "mandatory environmental criteria ? would greatly increase the risk of international legal challenge to the policy as a whole"(11). So it dropped the idea of banning imports, and called for "some form of voluntary scheme" instead(12). Knowing that the creation of this market will lead to a massive surge in imports of palm oil, knowing that there is nothing meaningful it can do to prevent them, and knowing that they will accelarate rather than ameliorate climate change, the government has decided to go ahead anyway. At other times it happily defies the European Union. But what the EU wants and what the government wants are the same. "It is essential that we balance the increasing demand for travel," the government's report says, "with our goals for protecting the environment"(13). Until recently, we had a policy of reducing the demand for travel. Now, though no announcement has been made, that policy has gone. Like the Tories in the early 1990s, the Labour administration seeks to accommodate demand, however high it rises. Figures obtained last week by the campaigning group Road Block show that for the widening of the M1 alone the government will pay ?3.6 billion ? more than it is spending on its entire climate change programme(14). Instead of attempting to reduce demand, it is trying to alter supply. It is prepared to sacrifice the South East Asian rainforests in order to be seen to do something, and to allow motorists to feel better about themselves. All this illustrates the futility of the technofixes now being pursued in Montreal. Trying to meet a rising demand for fuel is madness, wherever the fuel might come from. The hard decisions have been avoided, and another portion of the biosphere is going up in smoke. References: 1. Jeffrey S. Dukes, 2003. Burning Buried Sunshine: Human Consumption Of Ancient Solar Energy. Climatic Change 61: 31-44. 2. The British Association for Biofuels and Oils estimates the volume at 100,000 tonnes a year. BABFO, no date. Memorandum to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. http://www.biodiesel.co.uk/ press_release/royal_commission_on_environmenta.htm 3. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/11/23/feeding-cars-not-people/ 4. Tamimi Omar, 1st December 2005. Felda to set up largest biodiesel plant. The Edge Daily. http://www.theedgedaily.com/cms/content.jsp? id=com.tms.cms.article.Article_e5d7c0d9-cb73c03a-df4bfc00-d453633e 5. See e.g. Zaidi Isham Ismail, 7th November 2005. IOI to go it alone on first biodiesel plant. http://www.btimes.com.my/Current_News/BT/Monday/Frontpage/ 20051107000223/Article/; No author, 25th November 2005. GHope nine- month profit hits RM841mil. http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp? file=/2005/11/25/business/12693859&sec=business; No author, 26th November 2005. GHope to invest RM40mil for biodiesel plant in Netherlands. http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/ 2005/11/26/business/12704187&sec=business; No author, 23rd November 2005. Malaysia IOI Eyes Green Energy Expansion in Europe. http:// www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/33622/story.htm 6. Loh Kim Chin, 26th October 2005. Singapore to host two biodiesel plants, investments total over S$80m. Channel NewsAsia. 7. C.S. Tan, 6th October 2005. All Plantation Stocks Rally. http:// biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2005/10/6/business/ 12243819&sec=business 8. Friends of the Earth et al, September 2005. The Oil for Ape Scandal: how palm oil is threatening orang-utan survival. Research report. www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/oil_for_ape_full.pdf 9. ibid. 10. Department for Transport, November 2005. Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO) feasibility report. http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/page/ dft_roads_610329-01.hcsp#P18_263 11. E4Tech, ECCM and Imperial College, London, June 2005. Feasibility Study on Certification for a Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation. Final Report. 12. Department for Transport, ibid. 13. ibid. -- Forrest English From marc at theforestfoundation.org Tue Mar 14 18:46:55 2006 From: marc at theforestfoundation.org (Marc Dreyfors-President) Date: Tue Mar 14 18:51:34 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] worse than fossil fuel In-Reply-To: <3C403F59-B24E-4F0F-B994-58C0A19BD4AD@truffula.net> Message-ID: That's why a third party certification system is critical! Similar to Fair Trade Coffee (Transfair), Sustainable Forest Products (FSC) and ISO 15001. -----Original Message----- From: biofuels_interest_group-bounces@lists.emji.net [mailto:biofuels_interest_group-bounces@lists.emji.net]On Behalf Of Forrest English Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 12:21 PM To: biofuels_interest_group@lists.emji.net Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] worse than fossil fuel Howdy, Just a friendly reminder, our fuel is ONLY as responsible as our feedstock source. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/12/06/worse-than-fossil-fuel 6/12/2005 Worse Than Fossil Fuel Filed under: climate change oil Biodiesel enthusiasts have accidentally invented the most carbon- intensive fuel on earth By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 6th December 2005 Over the past two years I have made an uncomfortable discovery. Like most environmentalists, I have been as blind to the constraints affecting our energy supply as my opponents have been to climate change. I now realise that I have entertained a belief in magic. In 2003, the biologist Jeffrey Dukes calculated that the fossil fuels we burn in one year were made from organic matter "containing 44?10 to the 18 grams of carbon, which is more than 400 times the net primary productivity of the planet's current biota."(1) In plain English, this means that every year we use four centuries' worth of plants and animals. The idea that we can simply replace this fossil legacy ? and the extraordinary power densities it gives us ? with ambient energy is the stuff of science fiction. There is simply no substitute for cutting back. But substitutes are being sought everywhere. They are being promoted today at the climate talks in Montreal, by states ? such as ours ? which seek to avoid the hard decisions climate change demands. And at least one of them is worse than the fossil fuel burning it replaces. The last time I drew attention to the hazards of making diesel fuel from vegetable oils, I received as much abuse as I have ever been sent by the supporters of the Iraq war. The biodiesel missionaries, I discovered, are as vociferous in their denial as the executives of Exxon. I am now prepared to admit that my previous column was wrong. But they're not going to like it. I was wrong because I underestimated the fuel's destructive impact. Before I go any further, I should make it clear that turning used chip fat into motor fuel is a good thing. The people slithering around all day in vats of filth are perfoming a service to society. But there is enough waste cooking oil in the UK to meet one 380th of our demand for road transport fuel(2). Beyond that, the trouble begins. When I wrote about it last year, I thought that the biggest problem caused by biodiesel was that it set up a competition for land(3). Arable land that would otherwise have been used to grow food would instead be used to grow fuel. But now I find that something even worse is happening. The biodiesel industry has accidentally invented the world's most carbon-intensive fuel. In promoting biodiesel ? as the European Union, the British and US governments and thousands of environmental campaigners do ? you might imagine that you are creating a market for old chip fat, or rapeseed oil, or oil from algae grown in desert ponds. In reality you are creating a market for the most destructive crop on earth. Last week, the chairman of Malaysia's Federal Land Development Authority announced that he was about to build a new biodiesel plant (4). His was the ninth such decision in four months. Four new refineries are being built in Peninsula Malaysia, one in Sarawak and two in Rotterdam(5). Two foreign consortia ? one German, one American ? are setting up rival plants in Singapore(6). All of them will be making biodiesel from the same source: oil from palm trees. "The demand for biodiesel," the Malaysian Star reports, "will come from the European Community ? This fresh demand ? would, at the very least, take up most of Malaysia's crude palm oil inventories"(7). Why? Because it's cheaper than biodiesel made from any other crop. In September, Friends of the Earth published a report about the impacts of palm oil production. "Between 1985 and 2000," it found, "the development of oil-palm plantations was responsible for an estimated 87 per cent of deforestation in Malaysia"(8). In Sumatra and Borneo, some 4 million hectares of forest has been converted to palm farms. Now a further 6 million hectares is scheduled for clearance in Malaysia, and 16.5m in Indonesia. Almost all the remaining forest is at risk. Even the famous Tanjung Puting National Park in Kalimantan is being ripped apart by oil planters. The orang-utan is likely to become extinct in the wild. Sumatran rhinos, tigers, gibbons, tapirs, proboscis monkeys and thousands of other species could go the same way. Thousands of indigenous people have been evicted from their lands, and some 500 Indonesians have been tortured when they tried to resist(9). The forest fires which every so often smother the region in smog are mostly started by the palm growers. The entire region is being turned into a gigantic vegetable oil field. Before oil palms, which are small and scrubby, are planted, vast forest trees, containing a much greater store of carbon, must be felled and burnt. Having used up the drier lands, the plantations are now moving into the swamp forests, which grow on peat. When they've cut the trees, the planters drain the ground. As the peat dries it oxidises, releasing even more carbon dioxide than the trees. In terms of its impact on both the local and global environments, palm biodiesel is more destructive than crude oil from Nigeria. The British government understands this. In the report it published last month, when it announced that it will obey the European Union and ensure that 5.75% of our transport fuel comes from plants by 2010, it admitted that "the main environmental risks are likely to be those concerning any large expansion in biofuel feedstock production, and particularly in Brazil (for sugar cane) and South East Asia (for palm oil plantations)."(10) It suggested that the best means of dealing with the problem was to prevent environmentally destructive fuels from being imported. The government asked its consultants whether a ban would infringe world trade rules. The answer was yes: "mandatory environmental criteria ? would greatly increase the risk of international legal challenge to the policy as a whole"(11). So it dropped the idea of banning imports, and called for "some form of voluntary scheme" instead(12). Knowing that the creation of this market will lead to a massive surge in imports of palm oil, knowing that there is nothing meaningful it can do to prevent them, and knowing that they will accelarate rather than ameliorate climate change, the government has decided to go ahead anyway. At other times it happily defies the European Union. But what the EU wants and what the government wants are the same. "It is essential that we balance the increasing demand for travel," the government's report says, "with our goals for protecting the environment"(13). Until recently, we had a policy of reducing the demand for travel. Now, though no announcement has been made, that policy has gone. Like the Tories in the early 1990s, the Labour administration seeks to accommodate demand, however high it rises. Figures obtained last week by the campaigning group Road Block show that for the widening of the M1 alone the government will pay ?3.6 billion ? more than it is spending on its entire climate change programme(14). Instead of attempting to reduce demand, it is trying to alter supply. It is prepared to sacrifice the South East Asian rainforests in order to be seen to do something, and to allow motorists to feel better about themselves. All this illustrates the futility of the technofixes now being pursued in Montreal. Trying to meet a rising demand for fuel is madness, wherever the fuel might come from. The hard decisions have been avoided, and another portion of the biosphere is going up in smoke. References: 1. Jeffrey S. Dukes, 2003. Burning Buried Sunshine: Human Consumption Of Ancient Solar Energy. Climatic Change 61: 31-44. 2. The British Association for Biofuels and Oils estimates the volume at 100,000 tonnes a year. BABFO, no date. Memorandum to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. http://www.biodiesel.co.uk/ press_release/royal_commission_on_environmenta.htm 3. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/11/23/feeding-cars-not-people/ 4. Tamimi Omar, 1st December 2005. Felda to set up largest biodiesel plant. The Edge Daily. http://www.theedgedaily.com/cms/content.jsp? id=com.tms.cms.article.Article_e5d7c0d9-cb73c03a-df4bfc00-d453633e 5. See e.g. Zaidi Isham Ismail, 7th November 2005. IOI to go it alone on first biodiesel plant. http://www.btimes.com.my/Current_News/BT/Monday/Frontpage/ 20051107000223/Article/; No author, 25th November 2005. GHope nine- month profit hits RM841mil. http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp? file=/2005/11/25/business/12693859&sec=business; No author, 26th November 2005. GHope to invest RM40mil for biodiesel plant in Netherlands. http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/ 2005/11/26/business/12704187&sec=business; No author, 23rd November 2005. Malaysia IOI Eyes Green Energy Expansion in Europe. http:// www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/33622/story.htm 6. Loh Kim Chin, 26th October 2005. Singapore to host two biodiesel plants, investments total over S$80m. Channel NewsAsia. 7. C.S. Tan, 6th October 2005. All Plantation Stocks Rally. http:// biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2005/10/6/business/ 12243819&sec=business 8. Friends of the Earth et al, September 2005. The Oil for Ape Scandal: how palm oil is threatening orang-utan survival. Research report. www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/oil_for_ape_full.pdf 9. ibid. 10. Department for Transport, November 2005. Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO) feasibility report. http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/page/ dft_roads_610329-01.hcsp#P18_263 11. E4Tech, ECCM and Imperial College, London, June 2005. Feasibility Study on Certification for a Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation. Final Report. 12. Department for Transport, ibid. 13. ibid. -- Forrest English _______________________________________________ Biofuels_Interest_Group mailing list Biofuels_Interest_Group@lists.emji.net http://lists.emji.net/mailman/listinfo/biofuels_interest_group From john.bonitz at gmail.com Tue Mar 14 20:30:59 2006 From: john.bonitz at gmail.com (John Bonitz) Date: Tue Mar 14 23:30:25 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] Re: thixotropy Message-ID: <84a57a420603142030x5b14ede3q27f11771a5cdfaab@mail.gmail.com> This is an interesting thread. I'm not aware of any literary treatments of biofuels (other than Lyle's book and some other non-fiction works), but Ernest Callenbach's "Ecotopia" portrays a future in which bio-based materials are the norm. This novel of an ecological utopia describes "the scientific and technical deployment of a new plastics industry based upon natural-source, biodegradable plastics." As for your search for a "handbook of terminology" a couple things come to mind. NREL put out a fine document called "Biodiesel Handling and Use Guidelines." I highly recommend it to those looking to study the subject. http://www.nrel.gov/vehiclesandfuels/npbf/feature_guidelines.html Second, and related, many publications put out by DOE (and the energy laboratories) contain really good glossaries. The reason is that so many of the readers of these publications are policy wonks who are coming to the subject raw. They literally need to learn the vocabulary. I'm not aware of any in particular, but try some keyword searches at OSTI's Info Bridge. http://www.osti.gov/bridge/ That's an index system built by DOE's Office of Science and Technology Information. If you have trouble finding good glossaries on biofuels, there are actual human reference librarians at both DOE-HQ (DC) and NREL (Golden, CO). I've found them very helpful in the past. A few phone calls should get you through to one of them. Whatever you find, I hope you'll share with the list. -- John Bonitz Silk Hope, NC From mambrose at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Mar 15 19:43:31 2006 From: mambrose at alumni.princeton.edu (Mark J Ambrose) Date: Wed Mar 15 14:43:38 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] New Biomass --> Energy Course at NCSU Message-ID: <20060315194332.13567.fh029.wm@smtp.sc0.cp.net> Folks -- I just got a notice about this new class this fall at NCSU. It looks like a pretty heavy duty graduate level course, but if you have the chemistry background, it may be of interest. If you aren't already in a grad program at NCSU, you will probably need to consult with the instructor before you can enroll. -- Mark Ambrose BAE 590B ST: Biomass-to-Renewable Energy Processes Fall 2006 Instructor: Dr. Jay J. Cheng Office: Room 275 Weaver Labs Phone: 919-515-6733 E-mail: jay_cheng@ncsu.edu Credit: 3 hours Class Time: Monday/Wednesday/Friday, 1:30-2:20pm Classroom: 158 Weaver Labs Prerequisites: Introductory organic chemistry or biochemistry and microbiology, graduate standing in BAE, CHE, CE, MEA, Food Science, Textile, or Wood and Paper. Course Description: This course will introduce fundamental principles and practical applications of biomass-to-renewable energy processes, including anaerobic digestion for biogas and hydrogen production, bioethanol production from starch and cellulose, and biodiesel production from plant oils. The topics that will be covered in this course include: Sustainable development: Renewable energy vs. fossil fuel energy Anaerobic digestion of agricultural and industrial wastes: CH4 and H2 production Processes; microbiology; kinetics; inhibition Fermentation for ethanol production Fundamental principles of fermentation: Microbiology; metabolism; pathways; kinetics Starch-to-ethanol processes: Starch source; saccharification; fermentation Cellulose-to-ethanol processes: Lignocellulosic materials; pre-treatment; hydrolysis; fermentation Biodiesel production Biomethanol production Biodiesel production from plant oils Reference Books: El-Mansi E.M.T and Bryce C.F.A. (1999) Fermentation Microbiology and Biotechnology. Taylor & Francis Inc., Philadelphia, PA. Briggs D.E., Boulton C.A., Brookes P.A. and Stevens R. Brewing Science and Practice. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, FL. Clarke A.J. (1997) Biodegradation of Cellulose: Enzymology and Biotechnology. Technomic Publishing Company, Inc., Lancaster, PA. Speece, R. (1996) Anaerobic Biotechnology for Industrial Wastewaters. Archae Press, Nashville, TN. Hiler E.A. and Stout B.A. (1985) Biomass Energy. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, TX. From keverett at biolex.com Wed Mar 15 15:52:28 2006 From: keverett at biolex.com (Keith Everett) Date: Wed Mar 15 15:52:39 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] worse than fossil fuel Message-ID: <101415EDB4094F468395EC51B72F70E1C02961@mail.biolex.com> I thought that part of our tenet as anti-fossil fuel people was use what's already being thrown out before you start making product from new materials. What about all the yearly unused biomass from agriculture and forestry, hog waste, cow shit, etc., etc.? Just because the business men of the world are doing the worst thing for the environment doesn't mean each of us using renewable waste aren't doing our part in some small way to decrease environmental impact. I see the need for awareness on this subject and, as distasteful as it was to hear, am glad I heard it. I don't agree completely with the contention that meeting demand is bound to fail-- Currently, not meeting demand would be worse now than moving forward as we are. However, there's millions upon millions of tons of garbage waste and refuse that can be converted to biofuel with no loss of the rainforest. Has the potential here been calculated? It has to be huge give how wasteful the average American is. Also, what about technology for scrubbing exhaust of carbon compounds through the use of new technologies? This is not a failure of the biofuel concept it's, again, a failure of leadership and of awareness on the part of the people as to what the business men do and how it truly affects us. This won't change until we demand it to. However, getting the entire voting body to move in a single direction usually only happens after it's too late and the ones ringing the alarm bells have long given up and gone home. It's seems now the mantra needs to be not "use more biofuel" but "convert your waste to low cost fuel". Keith Everett Director, Automation Research and Development Biolex, Inc. 158 Credle St. Pittsboro, NC 27312 919 542 9901 ext 2032 keverett@biolex.com This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. -----Original Message----- From: biofuels_interest_group-bounces@lists.emji.net [mailto:biofuels_interest_group-bounces@lists.emji.net] On Behalf Of Marc Dreyfors-President Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 6:47 PM To: Forrest English; biofuels_interest_group@lists.emji.net Subject: RE: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] worse than fossil fuel That's why a third party certification system is critical! Similar to Fair Trade Coffee (Transfair), Sustainable Forest Products (FSC) and ISO 15001. -----Original Message----- From: biofuels_interest_group-bounces@lists.emji.net [mailto:biofuels_interest_group-bounces@lists.emji.net]On Behalf Of Forrest English Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 12:21 PM To: biofuels_interest_group@lists.emji.net Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] worse than fossil fuel Howdy, Just a friendly reminder, our fuel is ONLY as responsible as our feedstock source. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/12/06/worse-than-fossil-fuel 6/12/2005 Worse Than Fossil Fuel Filed under: climate change oil Biodiesel enthusiasts have accidentally invented the most carbon- intensive fuel on earth By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 6th December 2005 Over the past two years I have made an uncomfortable discovery. Like most environmentalists, I have been as blind to the constraints affecting our energy supply as my opponents have been to climate change. I now realise that I have entertained a belief in magic. In 2003, the biologist Jeffrey Dukes calculated that the fossil fuels we burn in one year were made from organic matter "containing 44?10 to the 18 grams of carbon, which is more than 400 times the net primary productivity of the planet's current biota."(1) In plain English, this means that every year we use four centuries' worth of plants and animals. The idea that we can simply replace this fossil legacy - and the extraordinary power densities it gives us - with ambient energy is the stuff of science fiction. There is simply no substitute for cutting back. But substitutes are being sought everywhere. They are being promoted today at the climate talks in Montreal, by states - such as ours - which seek to avoid the hard decisions climate change demands. And at least one of them is worse than the fossil fuel burning it replaces. The last time I drew attention to the hazards of making diesel fuel from vegetable oils, I received as much abuse as I have ever been sent by the supporters of the Iraq war. The biodiesel missionaries, I discovered, are as vociferous in their denial as the executives of Exxon. I am now prepared to admit that my previous column was wrong. But they're not going to like it. I was wrong because I underestimated the fuel's destructive impact. Before I go any further, I should make it clear that turning used chip fat into motor fuel is a good thing. The people slithering around all day in vats of filth are perfoming a service to society. But there is enough waste cooking oil in the UK to meet one 380th of our demand for road transport fuel(2). Beyond that, the trouble begins. When I wrote about it last year, I thought that the biggest problem caused by biodiesel was that it set up a competition for land(3). Arable land that would otherwise have been used to grow food would instead be used to grow fuel. But now I find that something even worse is happening. The biodiesel industry has accidentally invented the world's most carbon-intensive fuel. In promoting biodiesel - as the European Union, the British and US governments and thousands of environmental campaigners do - you might imagine that you are creating a market for old chip fat, or rapeseed oil, or oil from algae grown in desert ponds. In reality you are creating a market for the most destructive crop on earth. Last week, the chairman of Malaysia's Federal Land Development Authority announced that he was about to build a new biodiesel plant (4). His was the ninth such decision in four months. Four new refineries are being built in Peninsula Malaysia, one in Sarawak and two in Rotterdam(5). Two foreign consortia - one German, one American - are setting up rival plants in Singapore(6). All of them will be making biodiesel from the same source: oil from palm trees. "The demand for biodiesel," the Malaysian Star reports, "will come from the European Community ... This fresh demand ... would, at the very least, take up most of Malaysia's crude palm oil inventories"(7). Why? Because it's cheaper than biodiesel made from any other crop. In September, Friends of the Earth published a report about the impacts of palm oil production. "Between 1985 and 2000," it found, "the development of oil-palm plantations was responsible for an estimated 87 per cent of deforestation in Malaysia"(8). In Sumatra and Borneo, some 4 million hectares of forest has been converted to palm farms. Now a further 6 million hectares is scheduled for clearance in Malaysia, and 16.5m in Indonesia. Almost all the remaining forest is at risk. Even the famous Tanjung Puting National Park in Kalimantan is being ripped apart by oil planters. The orang-utan is likely to become extinct in the wild. Sumatran rhinos, tigers, gibbons, tapirs, proboscis monkeys and thousands of other species could go the same way. Thousands of indigenous people have been evicted from their lands, and some 500 Indonesians have been tortured when they tried to resist(9). The forest fires which every so often smother the region in smog are mostly started by the palm growers. The entire region is being turned into a gigantic vegetable oil field. Before oil palms, which are small and scrubby, are planted, vast forest trees, containing a much greater store of carbon, must be felled and burnt. Having used up the drier lands, the plantations are now moving into the swamp forests, which grow on peat. When they've cut the trees, the planters drain the ground. As the peat dries it oxidises, releasing even more carbon dioxide than the trees. In terms of its impact on both the local and global environments, palm biodiesel is more destructive than crude oil from Nigeria. The British government understands this. In the report it published last month, when it announced that it will obey the European Union and ensure that 5.75% of our transport fuel comes from plants by 2010, it admitted that "the main environmental risks are likely to be those concerning any large expansion in biofuel feedstock production, and particularly in Brazil (for sugar cane) and South East Asia (for palm oil plantations)."(10) It suggested that the best means of dealing with the problem was to prevent environmentally destructive fuels from being imported. The government asked its consultants whether a ban would infringe world trade rules. The answer was yes: "mandatory environmental criteria ... would greatly increase the risk of international legal challenge to the policy as a whole"(11). So it dropped the idea of banning imports, and called for "some form of voluntary scheme" instead(12). Knowing that the creation of this market will lead to a massive surge in imports of palm oil, knowing that there is nothing meaningful it can do to prevent them, and knowing that they will accelarate rather than ameliorate climate change, the government has decided to go ahead anyway. At other times it happily defies the European Union. But what the EU wants and what the government wants are the same. "It is essential that we balance the increasing demand for travel," the government's report says, "with our goals for protecting the environment"(13). Until recently, we had a policy of reducing the demand for travel. Now, though no announcement has been made, that policy has gone. Like the Tories in the early 1990s, the Labour administration seeks to accommodate demand, however high it rises. Figures obtained last week by the campaigning group Road Block show that for the widening of the M1 alone the government will pay ?3.6 billion - more than it is spending on its entire climate change programme(14). Instead of attempting to reduce demand, it is trying to alter supply. It is prepared to sacrifice the South East Asian rainforests in order to be seen to do something, and to allow motorists to feel better about themselves. All this illustrates the futility of the technofixes now being pursued in Montreal. Trying to meet a rising demand for fuel is madness, wherever the fuel might come from. The hard decisions have been avoided, and another portion of the biosphere is going up in smoke. References: 1. Jeffrey S. Dukes, 2003. Burning Buried Sunshine: Human Consumption Of Ancient Solar Energy. Climatic Change 61: 31-44. 2. The British Association for Biofuels and Oils estimates the volume at 100,000 tonnes a year. BABFO, no date. Memorandum to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. http://www.biodiesel.co.uk/ press_release/royal_commission_on_environmenta.htm 3. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/11/23/feeding-cars-not-people/ 4. Tamimi Omar, 1st December 2005. Felda to set up largest biodiesel plant. The Edge Daily. http://www.theedgedaily.com/cms/content.jsp? id=com.tms.cms.article.Article_e5d7c0d9-cb73c03a-df4bfc00-d453633e 5. See e.g. Zaidi Isham Ismail, 7th November 2005. IOI to go it alone on first biodiesel plant. http://www.btimes.com.my/Current_News/BT/Monday/Frontpage/ 20051107000223/Article/; No author, 25th November 2005. GHope nine- month profit hits RM841mil. http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp? file=/2005/11/25/business/12693859&sec=business; No author, 26th November 2005. GHope to invest RM40mil for biodiesel plant in Netherlands. http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/ 2005/11/26/business/12704187&sec=business; No author, 23rd November 2005. Malaysia IOI Eyes Green Energy Expansion in Europe. http:// www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/33622/story.htm 6. Loh Kim Chin, 26th October 2005. Singapore to host two biodiesel plants, investments total over S$80m. Channel NewsAsia. 7. C.S. Tan, 6th October 2005. All Plantation Stocks Rally. http:// biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2005/10/6/business/ 12243819&sec=business 8. Friends of the Earth et al, September 2005. The Oil for Ape Scandal: how palm oil is threatening orang-utan survival. Research report. www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/oil_for_ape_full.pdf 9. ibid. 10. Department for Transport, November 2005. Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO) feasibility report. http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/page/ dft_roads_610329-01.hcsp#P18_263 11. E4Tech, ECCM and Imperial College, London, June 2005. Feasibility Study on Certification for a Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation. Final Report. 12. Department for Transport, ibid. 13. ibid. -- Forrest English _______________________________________________ Biofuels_Interest_Group mailing list Biofuels_Interest_Group@lists.emji.net http://lists.emji.net/mailman/listinfo/biofuels_interest_group _______________________________________________ Biofuels_Interest_Group mailing list Biofuels_Interest_Group@lists.emji.net http://lists.emji.net/mailman/listinfo/biofuels_interest_group From john.bonitz at gmail.com Wed Mar 15 16:11:56 2006 From: john.bonitz at gmail.com (John Bonitz) Date: Wed Mar 15 16:11:58 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] Re: thixotropy In-Reply-To: <44186FE5.4060600@unc.edu> References: <84a57a420603142030x5b14ede3q27f11771a5cdfaab@mail.gmail.com> <44186FE5.4060600@unc.edu> Message-ID: <84a57a420603151311l12f318echb65243fdd98d0188@mail.gmail.com> Oh, here's another: Mosquito Coast centered around a man who built a biomass-fired ice factory in the tropical jungle. A rather sad tale. On 3/15/06, William Stott wrote: > >_______________________________________________ > >Biofuels_Interest_Group mailing list > >Biofuels_Interest_Group@lists.emji.net > >http://lists.emji.net/mailman/listinfo/biofuels_interest_group > > > > > John- > Thanks for your response. Good ideas, really good. I look forward to > checking out the Handling and Use Guidelines, especially. I've heard of > Callenbach's book, but I haven't read it. Thanks. I'll certainly keep > you and the list posted as I discover things. It's likely I'll spend > more time on this project during the coming summer and fall, as I won't > teach either the Garbage or Energy course until Fall '07, at the > earliest. So, lots of time to read and learn! > Regards > Will > > -- > William R. Stott, III > Director, Albemarle Ecological Field Site > 401 Devon Street > Manteo, NC 27954 > (252) 473-2925 > > Research Professor, Carolina Environmental Program > CB#1105 Miller Hall > University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill > Chapel Hill, NC 27599-1105 > (919) 966-9926 > > william_stott@unc.edu > http://www.cep.unc.edu/outreach/manteo.html > > > -- John Bonitz Silk Hope, NC From nesmithp at bellsouth.net Wed Mar 15 16:21:06 2006 From: nesmithp at bellsouth.net (nesmithp@bellsouth.net) Date: Wed Mar 15 16:21:07 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] Getting Serious about Biofuels - Science Magazine Message-ID: <20060315212106.JSIU16729.ibm70aec.bellsouth.net@mail.bellsouth.net> Some new and interesting articles. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/311/5760/435 Science Magazine Articles Review Biofuel Technologies Science Magazine's 27 Jan 2006 issue includes two articles about the state of biofuel technology. The report entitled Ethanol Can Contribute to Energy and Environmental Goals by Farrell, et al., evaluates six representative analyses of ethanol as a biofuel. Acknowledging the difficulty in comparing the results of the six studies, the authors call for the development of more intuitive and meaningful performance metrics as a replacement for net energy ratios. All six studies reviewed had concluded that current corn ethanol technologies are much less petroleum intensive but still emit significant levels of greenhouse gases themselves. The authors surmise that large-scale use of ethanol will almost certainly require cellulosic technology. In a technology review in the same issue, Ragauskas et al. summarize recent advances in genetics, biotechnology, process chemistry and engineering that are leading the way towards the conversion of renewable biomass into valuable fuels, a proces s referred to as biorefinery. In their review, The Path Forward for Biofuels and Biomaterials, the authors discuss the potentials of agroenergy crops and supporting technologies that may lead to new fuel manufacturing paradigms. From hogarth at gmail.com Wed Mar 15 17:12:00 2006 From: hogarth at gmail.com (Susan Hogarth) Date: Wed Mar 15 17:12:02 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] worse than fossil fuel In-Reply-To: <101415EDB4094F468395EC51B72F70E1C02961@mail.biolex.com> References: <101415EDB4094F468395EC51B72F70E1C02961@mail.biolex.com> Message-ID: <3889aa560603151412o6f24161uc3ac8fe6fa3e7cf2@mail.gmail.com> On 3/15/06, Keith Everett wrote: > ... I don't agree completely with the contention that meeting demand is bound to fail-- Currently, not meeting demand would be worse now than moving forward as we are. ... Thanks you. I am glad to hear someone acknowledge the importance of human welfare. "Not meeting current demand" would mean that real people suffer real harm. Reducing energy demand calls for either a reduced standard of living or greater effiency. Let us strive for the second alternative together, rather than the first! -- Susan Hogarth | colliething.com NC Ballot Access Coalition http://www.ncballotaccess.org From vidrinmr at wfu.edu Wed Mar 15 17:39:18 2006 From: vidrinmr at wfu.edu (Robert Vidrine) Date: Wed Mar 15 17:39:17 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] worse than fossil fuel In-Reply-To: <3889aa560603151412o6f24161uc3ac8fe6fa3e7cf2@mail.gmail.com> References: <101415EDB4094F468395EC51B72F70E1C02961@mail.biolex.com> <3889aa560603151412o6f24161uc3ac8fe6fa3e7cf2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <44189796.8070402@wfu.edu> > Thanks you. I am glad to hear someone acknowledge the importance of > human welfare. "Not meeting current demand" would mean that real > people suffer real harm. Reducing energy demand calls for either a > reduced standard of living or greater effiency. Let us strive for the > second alternative together, rather than the first! "Lower standard of living" sounds a bit loaded to me. If I ride the bus instead of driving to work, I'm reducing demand for energy, but my standard of living is not greatly affected. I would have to sacrifice some comfort and flexibility, but I would argue that the benefits warrant this. I wouldn't say that this would make me "suffer". (BTW, I don't want to sound high-and-mighty here; I don't actually ride the bus to work, but I'm trying to work out a way to get to the nearest bus stop safely and easily, and *do* try to reduce the amount that I drive to that which is necessary.) Robert From hogarth at gmail.com Wed Mar 15 17:57:52 2006 From: hogarth at gmail.com (Susan Hogarth) Date: Wed Mar 15 17:57:52 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] worse than fossil fuel In-Reply-To: <44189796.8070402@wfu.edu> References: <101415EDB4094F468395EC51B72F70E1C02961@mail.biolex.com> <3889aa560603151412o6f24161uc3ac8fe6fa3e7cf2@mail.gmail.com> <44189796.8070402@wfu.edu> Message-ID: <3889aa560603151457l55ad233au7cdc3b9b6632e4c9@mail.gmail.com> On 3/15/06, Robert Vidrine wrote: > > Thanks you. I am glad to hear someone acknowledge the importance of > > human welfare. "Not meeting current demand" would mean that real > > people suffer real harm. Reducing energy demand calls for either a > > reduced standard of living or greater effiency. Let us strive for the > > second alternative together, rather than the first! > > "Lower standard of living" sounds a bit loaded to me. Yes; I did consider it carefully, though. For any given person, the more power he has at his disposal, the better off he is, *all other things being equal*. > If I ride the bus > instead of driving to work, I'm reducing demand for energy, but my > standard of living is not greatly affected. I would have to sacrifice > some comfort and flexibility, but I would argue that the benefits > warrant this. I wouldn't say that this would make me "suffer". I do use 'suffer' in the sense of 'being less well off than formerly'. For some people that 'suffering' is only a mild inconvenience, as you say, easily balanced by a sense of virtue. For others it is stronger, the difference in being able to walk the dogs with the extra half-hour of sunlight gained by driving rather than bus transport or having to take an abbreviated walk in the cold and dark. For still others it may be acute, such as the father who misses reading his child the bedtime story because of his long train commute. A man may *choose* to take a bus rather than drive because he hates driving or doesn't like the extra hour at home with a scolding wife or he likes the warm fuzzies he gets from living a spartan lifestyle and consuming less, but for those who prefer to be with their families, or materially comfortable, or enjoy driving, having more resources always makes things better. EVEN IF a person takes a bus, he is going to prefer a comfortable, well-equipped bus over a rough, ill-appointed one (again: aside from the person who prefers the sensation of roughness for itself), and that is also a relatively larger expenditure of resources. > (BTW, I don't want to sound high-and-mighty here; I don't actually ride > the bus to work, but I'm trying to work out a way to get to the nearest > bus stop safely and easily, and *do* try to reduce the amount that I > drive to that which is necessary.) I see our best use of present resources not being to horde them up in miserly fashion to be doled out to our grandchildren so that they may have the same or only slightly less comfortable lives, but to be spent both bringing comfort and pleasure to ourselves presently AND in developing newer resources so that those who follow us live in comfort and ease as unimaginable to us as our lives were to those in the 1600s. While caution and investment make a good match, fear and investment make a terrible match; I hope that we can embrace caution and discard fear and move ahead to much greater days. -- Susan Hogarth | colliething.com NC Ballot Access Coalition http://www.ncballotaccess.org From keverett at biolex.com Thu Mar 16 09:17:08 2006 From: keverett at biolex.com (Keith Everett) Date: Thu Mar 16 10:05:27 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] worse than fossil fuel Message-ID: <101415EDB4094F468395EC51B72F70E1C02A29@mail.biolex.com> Admittedly there are things that all of us can do to reduce energy usage and CO2 generation but we have to work from the context of human behavior here. This is the limiter to all of this after all. If the population isn't educated as to the options and the need for change-- paint the picture of what's going to happen and show the signs that indicate the truth of the matter and.... You'll have the same lukewarm response we've gotten over the greenhouse effect over the last 20 some years. My point is that the razing of the rain forests isn't about biofuel, it's about anything the corporations want it to be. Face it, the Rain forests are a gold mine. If they don't plant palm trees they'll find some other reason to cut the forests and use the land. Biofuel is still a fantastic idea and employed with the original philosophy in mind is an overall benefit to our society and the biosphere. Corporate greed is the problem. We need oversight of these by the people because capitalism is a massively destructive force in it's purest form. Keith -----Original Message----- From: biofuels_interest_group-bounces@lists.emji.net [mailto:biofuels_interest_group-bounces@lists.emji.net] On Behalf Of Susan Hogarth Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 5:58 PM To: Biofuels_Interest_Group@lists.emji.net Subject: Re: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] worse than fossil fuel On 3/15/06, Robert Vidrine wrote: > > Thanks you. I am glad to hear someone acknowledge the importance of > > human welfare. "Not meeting current demand" would mean that real > > people suffer real harm. Reducing energy demand calls for either a > > reduced standard of living or greater effiency. Let us strive for > > the second alternative together, rather than the first! > > "Lower standard of living" sounds a bit loaded to me. Yes; I did consider it carefully, though. For any given person, the more power he has at his disposal, the better off he is, *all other things being equal*. > If I ride the bus > instead of driving to work, I'm reducing demand for energy, but my > standard of living is not greatly affected. I would have to sacrifice > some comfort and flexibility, but I would argue that the benefits > warrant this. I wouldn't say that this would make me "suffer". I do use 'suffer' in the sense of 'being less well off than formerly'. For some people that 'suffering' is only a mild inconvenience, as you say, easily balanced by a sense of virtue. For others it is stronger, the difference in being able to walk the dogs with the extra half-hour of sunlight gained by driving rather than bus transport or having to take an abbreviated walk in the cold and dark. For still others it may be acute, such as the father who misses reading his child the bedtime story because of his long train commute. A man may *choose* to take a bus rather than drive because he hates driving or doesn't like the extra hour at home with a scolding wife or he likes the warm fuzzies he gets from living a spartan lifestyle and consuming less, but for those who prefer to be with their families, or materially comfortable, or enjoy driving, having more resources always makes things better. EVEN IF a person takes a bus, he is going to prefer a comfortable, well-equipped bus over a rough, ill-appointed one (again: aside from the person who prefers the sensation of roughness for itself), and that is also a relatively larger expenditure of resources. > (BTW, I don't want to sound high-and-mighty here; I don't actually > ride the bus to work, but I'm trying to work out a way to get to the > nearest bus stop safely and easily, and *do* try to reduce the amount > that I drive to that which is necessary.) I see our best use of present resources not being to horde them up in miserly fashion to be doled out to our grandchildren so that they may have the same or only slightly less comfortable lives, but to be spent both bringing comfort and pleasure to ourselves presently AND in developing newer resources so that those who follow us live in comfort and ease as unimaginable to us as our lives were to those in the 1600s. While caution and investment make a good match, fear and investment make a terrible match; I hope that we can embrace caution and discard fear and move ahead to much greater days. -- Susan Hogarth | colliething.com NC Ballot Access Coalition http://www.ncballotaccess.org _______________________________________________ Biofuels_Interest_Group mailing list Biofuels_Interest_Group@lists.emji.net http://lists.emji.net/mailman/listinfo/biofuels_interest_group From nesmithp at bellsouth.net Thu Mar 16 09:40:53 2006 From: nesmithp at bellsouth.net (nesmithp@bellsouth.net) Date: Thu Mar 16 10:06:40 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] worse than fossil fuel Message-ID: <20060316144053.EBHP16189.ibm64aec.bellsouth.net@mail.bellsouth.net> Americans in general, are pigs and we could use a reduction in our "standard of living". Our "standard of living" causes problems not just in the energy realm. We are basically an unsustainable. We destroy our environment with sprawl, pollution, etc. and to measure growth and porgress with housing starts is bolderdash. In reality, our self serving nature, perpetrated by the right wing christian lifestyle will be our downfall. We are a spoiled, ignorant, greedy society. > > From: "Susan Hogarth" > Date: 2006/03/15 Wed PM 05:12:00 EST > To: biofuels_interest_group@lists.emji.net > Subject: Re: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] worse than fossil fuel > > On 3/15/06, Keith Everett wrote: > > ... I don't agree completely with the contention that meeting demand is bound to fail-- Currently, not meeting demand would be worse now than moving forward as we are. ... > > Thanks you. I am glad to hear someone acknowledge the importance of > human welfare. "Not meeting current demand" would mean that real > people suffer real harm. Reducing energy demand calls for either a > reduced standard of living or greater effiency. Let us strive for the > second alternative together, rather than the first! > > -- > Susan Hogarth | colliething.com > NC Ballot Access Coalition > http://www.ncballotaccess.org > _______________________________________________ > Biofuels_Interest_Group mailing list > Biofuels_Interest_Group@lists.emji.net > http://lists.emji.net/mailman/listinfo/biofuels_interest_group > From hogarth at gmail.com Thu Mar 16 10:27:24 2006 From: hogarth at gmail.com (Susan Hogarth) Date: Thu Mar 16 10:27:25 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] worse than fossil fuel In-Reply-To: <20060316144053.EBHP16189.ibm64aec.bellsouth.net@mail.bellsouth.net> References: <20060316144053.EBHP16189.ibm64aec.bellsouth.net@mail.bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <3889aa560603160727q61579c53xf5a826787349bdb6@mail.gmail.com> On 3/16/06, nesmithp@bellsouth.net wrote: > Americans in general, are pigs and we could use a reduction in our "standard of living". ... We are a spoiled, ignorant, greedy society. ... I'm sorry you have such a negative self-image, and I am sorry that you beleive that your fellow man needs to be impoverished for some greater good. However, I would never presume to stand in the way of you reducing your standard of living as much as you like. For myself, though, I would prefer to concentrate on raising the standard of living of *everyone* over worrying about the fact that some people have more than others. -- Susan Hogarth | colliething.com NC Ballot Access Coalition http://www.ncballotaccess.org From hogarth at gmail.com Thu Mar 16 10:38:58 2006 From: hogarth at gmail.com (Susan Hogarth) Date: Thu Mar 16 10:38:59 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] worse than fossil fuel In-Reply-To: <101415EDB4094F468395EC51B72F70E1C02A29@mail.biolex.com> References: <101415EDB4094F468395EC51B72F70E1C02A29@mail.biolex.com> Message-ID: <3889aa560603160738i3443285av969d5d2181ca843@mail.gmail.com> On 3/16/06, Keith Everett wrote: > > .... Corporate greed is > the problem. We need oversight of these by the people because > capitalism is a massively destructive force in it's purest form. I agree that we need oversight of corporations - not because corporations are 'capitalism ... in its purest form', but because corporations as presently configured are the bastardized offspring of government and business. Capitalism in its *purest* form is enormously productive; it is capitalism in its corrupt partnership with the state - fascism, in other words - that is dangerously destructive. -- Susan Hogarth | colliething.com NC Ballot Access Coalition http://www.ncballotaccess.org From cbutler at alltel.net Thu Mar 16 10:58:34 2006 From: cbutler at alltel.net (c butler) Date: Thu Mar 16 10:58:36 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] Message-ID: <000801c64912$7ab02140$6401a8c0@youro0kwkw9jwc> Remove me Connie M. Butler From cbutler at alltel.net Thu Mar 16 10:58:49 2006 From: cbutler at alltel.net (c butler) Date: Thu Mar 16 10:58:53 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] Message-ID: <000c01c64912$841d0090$6401a8c0@youro0kwkw9jwc> remove me Connie M. Butler From pcantrell at gmail.com Thu Mar 16 10:58:54 2006 From: pcantrell at gmail.com (Paul S Cantrell) Date: Thu Mar 16 10:59:01 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] worse than fossil fuel Message-ID: Susan, I appreciate your positive attitude, but I think it is a naive. America needs to find an energy balance or we are doomed to economic depression and social upheaval, thereby destroying our collective living standard. I believe that innovation and technology will go a long way and helping us being truly energy efficient and sustainable, but we have to take responsibility for ourselves, too. Maintaining a standard of living and living in a thoughless, wasteful manner are not the same thing. There are simply not enough resources for everyone in the world to attempt to live at the American standard of waste. I tend to believe that Americans are very, very, very, very, very wasteful. I see it every day. As an example, I put our half-full trash can out once a month or so...my neighbors' cans are overflowing weekly. Do people really need SUV's that get 8 MPG to drive alone to work? No one needs to be impoverished to increse efficiency and reduce waste. I realize that the current American way of life is unsustainable for very long into the future and I'm trying to do something about it. On 3/16/06, Susan Hogarth wrote: > > Americans in general, are pigs and we could use a reduction in our "standard of living". ... We are a spoiled, ignorant, greedy society. ... > > I'm sorry you have such a negative self-image, and I am sorry that you > beleive that your fellow man needs to be impoverished for some greater > good. However, I would never presume to stand in the way of you > reducing your standard of living as much as you like. For myself, > though, I would prefer to concentrate on raising the standard of > living of *everyone* over worrying about the fact that some people > have more than others. > > -- > Susan Hogarth | colliething.com > NC Ballot Access Coalition > http://www.ncballotaccess.org > -- Thanks, PC He's the kind of a guy who lights up a room just by flicking a switch You can't have everything. Where would you put it? - Steven Wright From cbutler at alltel.net Thu Mar 16 11:00:25 2006 From: cbutler at alltel.net (c butler) Date: Thu Mar 16 11:00:32 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] Message-ID: <001501c64912$bd2f4af0$6401a8c0@youro0kwkw9jwc> remove me Connie M. Butler From nesmithp at bellsouth.net Thu Mar 16 11:20:39 2006 From: nesmithp at bellsouth.net (nesmithp@bellsouth.net) Date: Thu Mar 16 11:20:41 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] worse than fossil fuel Message-ID: <20060316162039.HCBW16189.ibm64aec.bellsouth.net@mail.bellsouth.net> I think that you are caught up in the "American dream". No need to apologize for me, you do not know me. I don?t know you either, so please forgive me if I interpret your reply differently than you meant it to be. Do really believe that our society is not generally a self serving, greedy, predominantly ignorant society? Our literacy rates are low for a non third world country and the richest nation in the world and our energy use and energy footprint per capita is VERY HIGH (if not the highest in the world) resulting in the depletion of the WORLDS resources and not just our own. In this country, you can destroy the environment, screw your neighbor, poison your neighbor?s water and ruin their quality of life in the guise of private property rights. Ignorance and "perceived" personal freedoms can trump facts when it comes to the environment and land use. Greed is a major factor when it comes to the decisions that affect the welfare of our communities. Business interests and $$$ trump human health and welfare (mercury in our water, smog, etc.) when it comes to cheap energy and job creation. This is the realm of reality that speaks to the "typical" American. This all is made especially clear in this bush era. Kinda reminds me of the British newspaper headline "Duh, How could 59 million people be so dumb". I have utter respect for my fellow man, not so much for my gas guzzling pollution pig fellow Americans. I have good reason. Do you read much and are you aware of the difference between "feelings" and facts? You seem to be caught up with this ?standard of living? thing. How would you define it? Your take on it likely has something to do with your upbringing and your community? You sound very much like a libertarian, the only group that is worse than the right winger republicans. If so, it would explain your reasoning. Standard of living is a moving target and a highly personal matter. Ignorance about world conditions (is there global warming?) and the effects of ones actions on ones neighbors say a lot about ones philosophy when it comes to these matters. Imagine a world with our current energy woes with the "standard of living" of America. Could you breathe in this world or eat the food it produces? America cannot export its ignorance in such matters to third world countries (this is the future for American corporation is it not?) and expect anyone?s quality of life to remain the same. The crux of the matter IMO is the difference between "standard of living" and quality of life. Does greed, energy abuse, self serving greed and ignorance in understanding how one action affect ones fellow man indicate ones "standard of living"? Is one trained or brainwashed to think that way by our ever desired and compulsively emulated society? More importantly, does one?s ?standard of living? have any bearing on one?s quality of life and happiness throughout the journey we call living? > > From: "Susan Hogarth" > Date: 2006/03/16 Thu AM 10:27:24 EST > To: biofuels_interest_group@lists.emji.net > Subject: Re: Re: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] worse than fossil fuel > > On 3/16/06, nesmithp@bellsouth.net wrote: > > Americans in general, are pigs and we could use a reduction in our "standard of living". ... We are a spoiled, ignorant, greedy society. ... > > I'm sorry you have such a negative self-image, and I am sorry that you > beleive that your fellow man needs to be impoverished for some greater > good. However, I would never presume to stand in the way of you > reducing your standard of living as much as you like. For myself, > though, I would prefer to concentrate on raising the standard of > living of *everyone* over worrying about the fact that some people > have more than others. > > -- > Susan Hogarth | colliething.com > NC Ballot Access Coalition > http://www.ncballotaccess.org > _______________________________________________ > Biofuels_Interest_Group mailing list > Biofuels_Interest_Group@lists.emji.net > http://lists.emji.net/mailman/listinfo/biofuels_interest_group > From mambrose at alumni.princeton.edu Thu Mar 16 08:42:46 2006 From: mambrose at alumni.princeton.edu (Mark J Ambrose) Date: Thu Mar 16 11:42:48 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] worse than fossil fuel Message-ID: <20060316164247.18837.fh050.wm@smtp.sc0.cp.net> Bringing the discussion back to the original article, here are a few comments. First, Monbiot states in his 2nd paragraph: In 2003, the biologist Jeffrey Dukes calculated that the fossil fuels we burn in one year were made from organic matter "containing 44?10 to the 18 grams of carbon, which is more than 400 times the net primary productivity of the planet's current biota."(1) In plain English, this means that every year we use four centuries' worth of plants and animals. That number seemed shocking to me, implying that there was no way that biofuels could ever replace fossil fuels. How could they if we burn 400 times what the earth can produce every year? So I checked the citation: Jeffrey S. Dukes, 2003. Burning Buried Sunshine: Human Consumption Of Ancient Solar Energy. Climatic Change 61: 31-44. It turns out that the citation was correct but misleading. Dukes calculated how much energy went into producing the coal and oil that we burn, but that is NOT the same as the amount of energy contained in those fuels. In each transition (e.g. plant material to peat, peat to lignite, lignite to coal) some of the energy was lost. In a seperate analysis, Dukes calculatesthat to replace all fossil fuels with biofuels would require using about 22% of the earth's net primary productivity (which is about 50% more than we currently use). This result implies that WITHOUT conservation and improved efficiencies we CAN replace all our fossil fuels with biofuels but that the environmental costs in terms of the land devoted to fuel production will be high. The moral of the story: If you see something in an article that doesn't look quite right to you, check the citations. And finally a comment on oil palm. It is not a bad crop per se. It has near the highest oil production per unit of land area of all oil crops. It all depends on where we plant it. I have seen oil palm plantations on former banana plantation lands (after the banana co. pulled out). While oil palm is NOT a rainforest, it is arguably much better ecologically than bananas. And remember that there will be environmental trade-offs even here at home. I want to see the forest land base increase in the eastern US. I want to see restoration of some of the prairie ecosystems of the central US. It is clear that higher corn and soybean prices because of demand for biofuels will make it more difficult for those things to happen. -- Mark From hogarth at gmail.com Thu Mar 16 11:49:45 2006 From: hogarth at gmail.com (Susan Hogarth) Date: Thu Mar 16 11:49:47 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] worse than fossil fuel In-Reply-To: <20060316162039.HCBW16189.ibm64aec.bellsouth.net@mail.bellsouth.net> References: <20060316162039.HCBW16189.ibm64aec.bellsouth.net@mail.bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <3889aa560603160849k5a91c4f4k2988fe3071ac1c31@mail.gmail.com> On 3/16/06, nesmithp@bellsouth.net wrote: > ... I have utter respect for my fellow man, not so much for my gas guzzling pollution pig fellow Americans. I have good reason. Do you read much and are you aware of the difference between "feelings" and facts? Yes to both. I read quite extensively and I do understand the difference between feelings and facts. As to feelings, I am really appalled that you seem to walk around hating most of the people you are in daily contact with. It must be unpleasant to live that way. > You seem to be caught up with this "standard of living" thing. Well, sure - I like people (including myself), and I want them to live well (including myself). Doesn't everyone have that same desire? > How would you define it? "Standard of living" is rather like 'happiness' for definition - only the person directly involved can define for himself what the desired standard of living is. For me personally, it means living as energy-independently as possible within the constraints imposed by my desires to have lots of toys, books, friends, mobility, and other comforts and pleasures. Thanks to my dearest husband Bill, I am working toward that independence - we live completely off the commercial (or pseudo-commercial) power grid, and produce our own power through solar and vegetable oil (plus some diesel). We live comfortably but modestly. > Your take on it likely has something to do with your upbringing and your community? Probably, but do give me the credit for having thought things out for myself and reached conclusions through my own mind rather than being 'programmed'. I give you that credit; you could return the courtesy and treat my thoughts as if they came form my own mind, which indeed I assure you they did. > You sound very much like a libertarian, I should hope so :) > the only group that is worse than the right winger republicans. Well, that's a big shutdown on useful and pleasant idea exchange, I guess. > If so, it would explain your reasoning. Standard of living is a moving target and a highly personal matter. Of course. > Ignorance about world conditions (is there global warming?) and the effects of ones actions on ones neighbors say a lot about ones philosophy when it comes to these matters. I don't understand what you mean here. I have not displayed 'ignorance about world conditions and the effects of ones actions on ones neighbors' simply because I have come to different conclusions than you have. It's insulting for you to suggest that. > Imagine a world with our current energy woes with the "standard of living" of America. ... All right, I will. Now, to reciprocate, perhaps you could imagine a world where new sources of energy are tapped and everyone has a higher standard of living than we have currently. That is the goal; going forward and not fearfully retrenching. Caution is good, but fear can paralyse us from ever acting or from growing. > More importantly, does one's "standard of living" have any bearing on one's quality of life and happiness throughout the journey we call living? What a strange question. All other things being equal, I certainly think that people who are healthy, living in clean and safe quarters, and well-fed with plenty of diversions for their mind and body (books, games, TV, radio, internet) are able to access a better quality of life and happiness. They may choose to renounce these things, of course, but having that choice is very important to people who are NOT well-fed or living in clean and safe housing. -- Susan Hogarth | colliething.com NC Ballot Access Coalition http://www.ncballotaccess.org From CAdams at CuraGen.com Thu Mar 16 11:51:07 2006 From: CAdams at CuraGen.com (Adams, Christopher) Date: Thu Mar 16 11:51:10 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] worse than fossil fuel Message-ID: Could you people take your rants off of this board? Chris. -----Original Message----- From: biofuels_interest_group-bounces@lists.emji.net [mailto:biofuels_interest_group-bounces@lists.emji.net] On Behalf Of Susan Hogarth Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 11:50 AM To: biofuels_interest_group@lists.emji.net Subject: Re: Re: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] worse than fossil fuel On 3/16/06, nesmithp@bellsouth.net wrote: > ... I have utter respect for my fellow man, not so much for my gas guzzling pollution pig fellow Americans. I have good reason. Do you read much and are you aware of the difference between "feelings" and facts? Yes to both. I read quite extensively and I do understand the difference between feelings and facts. As to feelings, I am really appalled that you seem to walk around hating most of the people you are in daily contact with. It must be unpleasant to live that way. > You seem to be caught up with this "standard of living" thing. Well, sure - I like people (including myself), and I want them to live well (including myself). Doesn't everyone have that same desire? > How would you define it? "Standard of living" is rather like 'happiness' for definition - only the person directly involved can define for himself what the desired standard of living is. For me personally, it means living as energy-independently as possible within the constraints imposed by my desires to have lots of toys, books, friends, mobility, and other comforts and pleasures. Thanks to my dearest husband Bill, I am working toward that independence - we live completely off the commercial (or pseudo-commercial) power grid, and produce our own power through solar and vegetable oil (plus some diesel). We live comfortably but modestly. > Your take on it likely has something to do with your upbringing and your community? Probably, but do give me the credit for having thought things out for myself and reached conclusions through my own mind rather than being 'programmed'. I give you that credit; you could return the courtesy and treat my thoughts as if they came form my own mind, which indeed I assure you they did. > You sound very much like a libertarian, I should hope so :) > the only group that is worse than the right winger republicans. Well, that's a big shutdown on useful and pleasant idea exchange, I guess. > If so, it would explain your reasoning. Standard of living is a moving target and a highly personal matter. Of course. > Ignorance about world conditions (is there global warming?) and the effects of ones actions on ones neighbors say a lot about ones philosophy when it comes to these matters. I don't understand what you mean here. I have not displayed 'ignorance about world conditions and the effects of ones actions on ones neighbors' simply because I have come to different conclusions than you have. It's insulting for you to suggest that. > Imagine a world with our current energy woes with the "standard of living" of America. ... All right, I will. Now, to reciprocate, perhaps you could imagine a world where new sources of energy are tapped and everyone has a higher standard of living than we have currently. That is the goal; going forward and not fearfully retrenching. Caution is good, but fear can paralyse us from ever acting or from growing. > More importantly, does one's "standard of living" have any bearing on one's quality of life and happiness throughout the journey we call living? What a strange question. All other things being equal, I certainly think that people who are healthy, living in clean and safe quarters, and well-fed with plenty of diversions for their mind and body (books, games, TV, radio, internet) are able to access a better quality of life and happiness. They may choose to renounce these things, of course, but having that choice is very important to people who are NOT well-fed or living in clean and safe housing. -- Susan Hogarth | colliething.com NC Ballot Access Coalition http://www.ncballotaccess.org _______________________________________________ Biofuels_Interest_Group mailing list Biofuels_Interest_Group@lists.emji.net http://lists.emji.net/mailman/listinfo/biofuels_interest_group LEGAL NOTICE: Unless expressly stated otherwise, this message is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not an addressee, any disclosure or copying of the contents or any action taken (or not taken) in reliance on it is unauthorized and may be unlawful. If you are not an addressee, please inform the sender immediately. From philip_fairhurst at agilent.com Thu Mar 16 16:53:40 2006 From: philip_fairhurst at agilent.com (philip_fairhurst@agilent.com) Date: Thu Mar 16 11:53:43 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] worse than fossil fuel Message-ID: <188EE061641EE54680596A639A2E5C66494ADA@wsqfmb01.britain.agilent.com> Absolutely - this is getting out of hand. I joined this to learn more about the advances in this sector not an argument interesting it may be at first. It has gone to far - kiss and make up! Get back to Biofuels discussion please. -----Original Message----- From: biofuels_interest_group-bounces@lists.emji.net [mailto:biofuels_interest_group-bounces@lists.emji.net] On Behalf Of Adams, Christopher Sent: 16 March 2006 16:51 To: Susan Hogarth; biofuels_interest_group@lists.emji.net Subject: RE: Re: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] worse than fossil fuel Could you people take your rants off of this board? Chris. -----Original Message----- From: biofuels_interest_group-bounces@lists.emji.net [mailto:biofuels_interest_group-bounces@lists.emji.net] On Behalf Of Susan Hogarth Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 11:50 AM To: biofuels_interest_group@lists.emji.net Subject: Re: Re: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] worse than fossil fuel On 3/16/06, nesmithp@bellsouth.net wrote: > ... I have utter respect for my fellow man, not so much for my gas guzzling pollution pig fellow Americans. I have good reason. Do you read much and are you aware of the difference between "feelings" and facts? Yes to both. I read quite extensively and I do understand the difference between feelings and facts. As to feelings, I am really appalled that you seem to walk around hating most of the people you are in daily contact with. It must be unpleasant to live that way. > You seem to be caught up with this "standard of living" thing. Well, sure - I like people (including myself), and I want them to live well (including myself). Doesn't everyone have that same desire? > How would you define it? "Standard of living" is rather like 'happiness' for definition - only the person directly involved can define for himself what the desired standard of living is. For me personally, it means living as energy-independently as possible within the constraints imposed by my desires to have lots of toys, books, friends, mobility, and other comforts and pleasures. Thanks to my dearest husband Bill, I am working toward that independence - we live completely off the commercial (or pseudo-commercial) power grid, and produce our own power through solar and vegetable oil (plus some diesel). We live comfortably but modestly. > Your take on it likely has something to do with your upbringing and your community? Probably, but do give me the credit for having thought things out for myself and reached conclusions through my own mind rather than being 'programmed'. I give you that credit; you could return the courtesy and treat my thoughts as if they came form my own mind, which indeed I assure you they did. > You sound very much like a libertarian, I should hope so :) > the only group that is worse than the right winger republicans. Well, that's a big shutdown on useful and pleasant idea exchange, I guess. > If so, it would explain your reasoning. Standard of living is a moving target and a highly personal matter. Of course. > Ignorance about world conditions (is there global warming?) and the effects of ones actions on ones neighbors say a lot about ones philosophy when it comes to these matters. I don't understand what you mean here. I have not displayed 'ignorance about world conditions and the effects of ones actions on ones neighbors' simply because I have come to different conclusions than you have. It's insulting for you to suggest that. > Imagine a world with our current energy woes with the "standard of living" of America. ... All right, I will. Now, to reciprocate, perhaps you could imagine a world where new sources of energy are tapped and everyone has a higher standard of living than we have currently. That is the goal; going forward and not fearfully retrenching. Caution is good, but fear can paralyse us from ever acting or from growing. > More importantly, does one's "standard of living" have any bearing on one's quality of life and happiness throughout the journey we call living? What a strange question. All other things being equal, I certainly think that people who are healthy, living in clean and safe quarters, and well-fed with plenty of diversions for their mind and body (books, games, TV, radio, internet) are able to access a better quality of life and happiness. They may choose to renounce these things, of course, but having that choice is very important to people who are NOT well-fed or living in clean and safe housing. -- Susan Hogarth | colliething.com NC Ballot Access Coalition http://www.ncballotaccess.org _______________________________________________ Biofuels_Interest_Group mailing list Biofuels_Interest_Group@lists.emji.net http://lists.emji.net/mailman/listinfo/biofuels_interest_group LEGAL NOTICE: Unless expressly stated otherwise, this message is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not an addressee, any disclosure or copying of the contents or any action taken (or not taken) in reliance on it is unauthorized and may be unlawful. If you are not an addressee, please inform the sender immediately. _______________________________________________ Biofuels_Interest_Group mailing list Biofuels_Interest_Group@lists.emji.net http://lists.emji.net/mailman/listinfo/biofuels_interest_group From keverett at biolex.com Thu Mar 16 12:04:54 2006 From: keverett at biolex.com (Keith Everett) Date: Thu Mar 16 12:05:05 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] worse than fossil fuel Message-ID: <101415EDB4094F468395EC51B72F70E1C02ACD@mail.biolex.com> We didn't say give us Biofuel but make it from waste only or we won't buy it-- we said, give us Biofuel!! They aren't changing their choice of Carbon based fuel to palms for our benefit, they're doing it because for the time being they can make money at it. Sum it up: I agree with the earlier poster that we must be more discriminating in what our sources of raw materials are. If you don't give capitalism a tightly controlled framework in which to run-- it will run amok. Feeling under attack because some hack misquotes details from a study that indicates Biofuels are a mistake is a waste of time. Most of us know CO2 excess from any source isn't good. But Biofuels are a step in the right direction, despite what the governments are doing. That issue is a subject for a separate newsgroup. Keith -----Original Message----- From: biofuels_interest_group-bounces@lists.emji.net [mailto:biofuels_interest_group-bounces@lists.emji.net] On Behalf Of Susan Hogarth Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 10:39 AM To: Biofuels_Interest_Group@lists.emji.net Subject: Re: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] worse than fossil fuel On 3/16/06, Keith Everett wrote: > > .... Corporate greed is > the problem. We need oversight of these by the people because > capitalism is a massively destructive force in it's purest form. I agree that we need oversight of corporations - not because corporations are 'capitalism ... in its purest form', but because corporations as presently configured are the bastardized offspring of government and business. Capitalism in its *purest* form is enormously productive; it is capitalism in its corrupt partnership with the state - fascism, in other words - that is dangerously destructive. -- Susan Hogarth | colliething.com NC Ballot Access Coalition http://www.ncballotaccess.org _______________________________________________ Biofuels_Interest_Group mailing list Biofuels_Interest_Group@lists.emji.net http://lists.emji.net/mailman/listinfo/biofuels_interest_group From mambrose at alumni.princeton.edu Thu Mar 16 09:05:29 2006 From: mambrose at alumni.princeton.edu (Mark J Ambrose) Date: Thu Mar 16 12:05:33 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] Standard of Living and Energy Use Message-ID: <20060316170530.18687.fh050.wm@smtp.sc0.cp.net> There is an interesting figure that many of you may have seen that plots standard of living vs. energy consumption for various countries (sorry that I don't have the reference handy). Standard of living might be measured in a number of ways (e.g. GDP per capita, some index of health/welfare) but the graph always has the same shape. The curve starts off very steep, meaning relatively small increases in energy consumption are associated with quite large increases in standard of living. Then the curve has a sharp bend and flattens out. On that part of the curve, rather large increases in energy use are associated with quite small increases in standard of living. The US is way out on the flat part of the curve. Most developing nations are on the steep part of the curve. Most European nations are on the flat part of the curve but close to the bend (using much less energy than the US). Now this graph does not represent a cause-effect relationship, but it does suggest that the US could significantly reduce its energy use and have only a minimal impact on the standard of living. Of course the trick is to find an acceptable way to get there within our political and economic system. I don't see an easy way to achieve it. I leave it to those of you with strong political ideologies to hash it out (but PLEASE do the hashing via private email). -- Mark From kkrebs at mindspring.com Thu Mar 16 12:21:00 2006 From: kkrebs at mindspring.com (Ken) Date: Thu Mar 16 13:10:48 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] Standard of Living and Energy Use Message-ID: <31463360.1142529661486.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> -----Original Message----- >From: Mark J Ambrose >Sent: Mar 16, 2006 12:05 PM >To: Biofuels_Interest_Group@lists.emji.net >Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] Standard of Living and Energy Use > >There is an interesting figure that many of you may >have seen that plots standard of living vs. energy >consumption for various countries (sorry that I don't >have the reference handy)................. e.g. http://www.fi.edu/guide/hughes/topic5.html ,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*" "We must become the change we seek in the World." Gandhi "*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-., From andym at med.unc.edu Thu Mar 16 13:11:45 2006 From: andym at med.unc.edu (Andy) Date: Thu Mar 16 16:30:46 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] worse than fossil fuel In-Reply-To: <188EE061641EE54680596A639A2E5C66494ADA@wsqfmb01.britain.agilent.com> References: <188EE061641EE54680596A639A2E5C66494ADA@wsqfmb01.britain.agilent.com> Message-ID: <4419AA61.1000000@med.unc.edu> Good point and thanks Philip and Chris. There are at times, some good info on this site..... I hate to get off this listserv just because some people just like to chat and debate thinking everyone else is interested in their personal opinions. philip_fairhurst@agilent.com wrote: >Absolutely - this is getting out of hand. I joined this to learn more about the advances in this sector not an argument interesting it may be at first. It has gone to far - kiss and make up! Get back to Biofuels discussion please. > >-----Original Message----- >From: biofuels_interest_group-bounces@lists.emji.net [mailto:biofuels_interest_group-bounces@lists.emji.net] On Behalf Of Adams, Christopher >Sent: 16 March 2006 16:51 >To: Susan Hogarth; biofuels_interest_group@lists.emji.net >Subject: RE: Re: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] worse than fossil fuel > >Could you people take your rants off of this board? > >Chris. > >-----Original Message----- >From: biofuels_interest_group-bounces@lists.emji.net >[mailto:biofuels_interest_group-bounces@lists.emji.net] On Behalf Of >Susan Hogarth >Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 11:50 AM >To: biofuels_interest_group@lists.emji.net >Subject: Re: Re: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] worse than fossil fuel > >On 3/16/06, nesmithp@bellsouth.net wrote: > > > >>... I have utter respect for my fellow man, not so much for my gas >> >> >guzzling pollution pig fellow Americans. I have good reason. Do you read >much and are you aware of the difference between "feelings" and facts? > >Yes to both. I read quite extensively and I do understand the >difference between feelings and facts. As to feelings, I am really >appalled that you seem to walk around hating most of the people you >are in daily contact with. It must be unpleasant to live that way. > > > >>You seem to be caught up with this "standard of living" thing. >> >> > >Well, sure - I like people (including myself), and I want them to live >well (including myself). Doesn't everyone have that same desire? > > > >>How would you define it? >> >> > >"Standard of living" is rather like 'happiness' for definition - only >the person directly involved can define for himself what the desired >standard of living is. For me personally, it means living as >energy-independently as possible within the constraints imposed by my >desires to have lots of toys, books, friends, mobility, and other >comforts and pleasures. Thanks to my dearest husband Bill, I am >working toward that independence - we live completely off the >commercial (or pseudo-commercial) power grid, and produce our own >power through solar and vegetable oil (plus some diesel). We live >comfortably but modestly. > > > >>Your take on it likely has something to do with your upbringing and >> >> >your community? > >Probably, but do give me the credit for having thought things out for >myself and reached conclusions through my own mind rather than being >'programmed'. I give you that credit; you could return the courtesy >and treat my thoughts as if they came form my own mind, which indeed I >assure you they did. > > > >>You sound very much like a libertarian, >> >> > >I should hope so :) > > > >>the only group that is worse than the right winger republicans. >> >> > >Well, that's a big shutdown on useful and pleasant idea exchange, I >guess. > > > >>If so, it would explain your reasoning. Standard of living is a moving >> >> >target and a highly personal matter. > >Of course. > > > >>Ignorance about world conditions (is there global warming?) and the >> >> >effects of ones actions on ones neighbors say a lot about ones >philosophy when it comes to these matters. > >I don't understand what you mean here. I have not displayed 'ignorance >about world conditions and the effects of ones actions on ones >neighbors' simply because I have come to different conclusions than >you have. It's insulting for you to suggest that. > > > >>Imagine a world with our current energy woes with the "standard of >> >> >living" of America. ... > >All right, I will. Now, to reciprocate, perhaps you could imagine a >world where new sources of energy are tapped and everyone has a higher >standard of living than we have currently. That is the goal; going >forward and not fearfully retrenching. Caution is good, but fear can >paralyse us from ever acting or from growing. > > > >>More importantly, does one's "standard of living" have any bearing on >> >> >one's quality of life and happiness throughout the journey we call >living? > >What a strange question. All other things being equal, I certainly >think that people who are healthy, living in clean and safe quarters, >and well-fed with plenty of diversions for their mind and body (books, >games, TV, radio, internet) are able to access a better quality of >life and happiness. They may choose to renounce these things, of >course, but having that choice is very important to people who are NOT >well-fed or living in clean and safe housing. > >-- >Susan Hogarth | colliething.com >NC Ballot Access Coalition >http://www.ncballotaccess.org >_______________________________________________ >Biofuels_Interest_Group mailing list >Biofuels_Interest_Group@lists.emji.net >http://lists.emji.net/mailman/listinfo/biofuels_interest_group > > >LEGAL NOTICE: >Unless expressly stated otherwise, this message is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not an addressee, any disclosure or copying of the contents or any action taken (or not taken) in reliance on it is unauthorized and may be unlawful. If you are not an addressee, please inform the sender immediately. >_______________________________________________ >Biofuels_Interest_Group mailing list >Biofuels_Interest_Group@lists.emji.net >http://lists.emji.net/mailman/listinfo/biofuels_interest_group >_______________________________________________ >Biofuels_Interest_Group mailing list >Biofuels_Interest_Group@lists.emji.net >http://lists.emji.net/mailman/listinfo/biofuels_interest_group > > -- Andrew Maglione University of North Carolina School of Medicine From aibodkin at gmail.com Thu Mar 16 13:49:51 2006 From: aibodkin at gmail.com (A Bodkin) Date: Thu Mar 16 19:01:06 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] worse than fossil fuel In-Reply-To: <101415EDB4094F468395EC51B72F70E1C02ACD@mail.biolex.com> References: <101415EDB4094F468395EC51B72F70E1C02ACD@mail.biolex.com> Message-ID: "..My point is that the razing of the rain forests isn't about biofuel, it's about anything the corporations want it to be.." I agree. when I first read this article I had intended on shredding Monbiot assertions. His article contains no precision - trying to hit the bullseye not with a slug from a rifle but a shot gun blast. He may have gotten a pellet or two on the mark. I agree that competition for agricultural acreage will be torn between food and fuel but that is, from my view, the only thing he may have accurately depicted. He had not taken into consideration new hybrid crops currently being researched or already currently on the market. Crops that would grow in areas previously deemed unsuitable because of lack of the soils water retention capabilities, imagine desert corn or soybean. Biodiesel is not the cause of Malaysia's' deforestation, not the cause of the orangutans possible addition to the endangered species list, NOT the cause of the torture of hundreds of Indonesians. Monbiot tries to sell a 6th degree of biodiesel implication, from global warming to what color underwear Margret Thatcher might have worn on any given Sunday. it seems to me the environmental protectionism falls to Malaysian government to assure regulation and zoning of crop bearing regions... I had read a similar attempt to discredit alternative energies from David Pimentel out of the University of California-Berkeley last year. Pimental also tried to implicate the use of fertilizer and other non necessary utilities and processes to show how inefficient these fuels were...of course the same utilities and processes used in growing food for consumption are NOT used in growing fuel stock. I won't even get into the mysteriously missing "farm subsidies" paid to farmers to not grow anything...both Pimental and Monbiot are disingenuous in their attempts to discredit...I wondered the pronunciation of the last name - Monbiot perhaps Monb-wa? maybe Monbwa is an Idwa...then again maybe he is just trying to manufacture controversy... On 3/16/06, Keith Everett wrote: > We didn't say give us Biofuel but make it from waste only or we won't > buy it-- we said, give us Biofuel!! They aren't changing their choice > of Carbon based fuel to palms for our benefit, they're doing it because > for the time being they can make money at it. Sum it up: I agree with > the earlier poster that we must be more discriminating in what our > sources of raw materials are. If you don't give capitalism a tightly > controlled framework in which to run-- it will run amok. > > Feeling under attack because some hack misquotes details from a study > that indicates Biofuels are a mistake is a waste of time. Most of us > know CO2 excess from any source isn't good. But Biofuels are a step in > the right direction, despite what the governments are doing. That issue > is a subject for a separate newsgroup. > > > Keith > -----Original Message----- > From: biofuels_interest_group-bounces@lists.emji.net > [mailto:biofuels_interest_group-bounces@lists.emji.net] On Behalf Of > Susan Hogarth > Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 10:39 AM > To: Biofuels_Interest_Group@lists.emji.net > Subject: Re: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] worse than fossil fuel > > On 3/16/06, Keith Everett wrote: > > > > .... Corporate greed is > > the problem. We need oversight of these by the people because > > capitalism is a massively destructive force in it's purest form. > > I agree that we need oversight of corporations - not because > corporations are 'capitalism ... in its purest form', but because > corporations as presently configured are the bastardized offspring of > government and business. Capitalism in its *purest* form is enormously > productive; it is capitalism in its corrupt partnership with the state > - fascism, in other words - that is dangerously destructive. > > -- > > Susan Hogarth | colliething.com > NC Ballot Access Coalition > http://www.ncballotaccess.org > _______________________________________________ > Biofuels_Interest_Group mailing list > Biofuels_Interest_Group@lists.emji.net > http://lists.emji.net/mailman/listinfo/biofuels_interest_group > _______________________________________________ > Biofuels_Interest_Group mailing list > Biofuels_Interest_Group@lists.emji.net > http://lists.emji.net/mailman/listinfo/biofuels_interest_group > From info at seeexpo.com Thu Mar 16 11:05:24 2006 From: info at seeexpo.com (Ned Ryan Doyle) Date: Thu Mar 16 20:26:55 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] worse than fossil fuel References: <101415EDB4094F468395EC51B72F70E1C02A29@mail.biolex.com> <3889aa560603160738i3443285av969d5d2181ca843@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <006401c64913$7422c5c0$b398d446@acer2e68c49b20> Following this string with great interest! With adjustments to semantics, I'll admit I'm in Keith's camp. Capitalism's problem isn't in it's "purest' form, it's in the fact that it's unchecked, unregulated, uncontrolled, with no limits to it's greed. American's, at least corporate/government, believe that profits trump everything, morals, social responsibility, human welfare, you name it. Profits first, people whenever. Capitalism in and of itself (with limits) has shown to be the best social model today (clearly long story here), but rampant, unchecked capitalism (profit over rainforest, biodiversity, all life on earth) is at the root of this corporate/fascist situation we're in today, which Susan notes. It's also manifested itself in the widespread fantasy we can 'raise the standard of living' for the rest of the world's population... a total fantasy since the planet can't even sustain USA's 'standard of living', let alone the other 95% of humans. It's a parallel track to unlimited/unchecked population growth (check the medical definition of cancer cell growth and then reflect on humans on earth). But, hey, what's wrong with destroying life as we know it on Earth (climate change, species extinction, pollution, etc.) when you can make a few bucks?? Those that disagree with unchecked capitalism must be commie -terrorist - America haters, eh? The biofuels movement is part of a sustainable movement/effort that does realize there are limits, that 'standard of living' is a variable, depending on who's talking. The original article here that started this ASSUMES we will 'need' to produce XX amount of fuel (biofuels, fossil, whatever) as it's starting point. Can't be done, for his reasoning - which I agree with, with any biofuels. Only taking steps towards energy efficiency, improved technology, mass transit (and more, this could go on) in conjunction with realizing there are limits to everything on Earth, can we sustain America and provide a decent standard of living, which may or may not be the Mercedes SUV one believes they deserve... Peace, Ned Ryan Doyle, Coordinator, 6th Annual Southern Energy & Environment Expo ----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan Hogarth" To: Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 10:38 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] worse than fossil fuel On 3/16/06, Keith Everett wrote: > > .... Corporate greed is > the problem. We need oversight of these by the people because > capitalism is a massively destructive force in it's purest form. I agree that we need oversight of corporations - not because corporations are 'capitalism ... in its purest form', but because corporations as presently configured are the bastardized offspring of government and business. Capitalism in its *purest* form is enormously productive; it is capitalism in its corrupt partnership with the state - fascism, in other words - that is dangerously destructive. -- Susan Hogarth | colliething.com NC Ballot Access Coalition http://www.ncballotaccess.org _______________________________________________ Biofuels_Interest_Group mailing list Biofuels_Interest_Group@lists.emji.net http://lists.emji.net/mailman/listinfo/biofuels_interest_group From morris_rl at yahoo.com Thu Mar 16 23:59:54 2006 From: morris_rl at yahoo.com (Rodger Morris) Date: Fri Mar 17 02:59:51 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] "Caesar: This Is Not Proper" Message-ID: <20060317075954.18631.qmail@web50614.mail.yahoo.com> Perhaps an introduction is in order. Mt name is Rodger Morris. I have been reading this biodiesel list for roughly two years. I live on the west coast, and I have an electric vehicle. Over four years ago, I took my bedroom off-grid and my consumption of electricity from Southern California Edison is on th order of 35 KWH per month. I hope to acquire a diesel vehicle, but I would prefer to drive a zero emission vehicle that has a biodiesel burning diesel motor for backup propulsion when needed, of which more later in this posting. This list normally has an exceedingly high information to noise ratio. This has recently changed owing to one person flaming another. Let me briefly digress from the call to observe the following: With no disrespect intended, "nesmithp@bellsouth.net"'s whole rant towards Susan Hogarth reminds me of the protestations of Britannus, with "nesmith" playing that role and Ms. Hogarth in the role of Caesar: http://www.web-books.com/classics/Nonfiction/Drama/Shaw/Caesar/Shaw_CaesarC2P2.htm ------ BRITANNUS (shocked). Caesar: this is not proper. THEODOTUS (outraged). How! CAESAR (recovering his self-possession). Pardon him. Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature. BRITANNUS. On the contrary, Caesar, it is these Egyptians who are barbarians; and you do wrong to encourage them. I say it is a scandal. CAESAR. Scandal or not, my friend, it opens the gate of peace. ------ As a "modest suggestion" per Jonathan Swift, perhaps "nesmithp@bellsouth.net" should consider seeing his psychiatrist about adjusting his psychotropic medications. Absent that, perhaps we could all agree to return to discussion that adheres to the charter of this group. Now, back on topic: I would like to be able to buy a plug-in serial hydrid (PHEV) battery electric vehicle with about a 45 horsepower diesel motor coupled to an efficient electrical charging system, and about a 50 mile range of autonomy on battery power before the diesel motor kicks in to maintain the battery state. This would allow me to power my car by using electricity for my daily commute and biodiesel when I go on a longer drive. As I live in California, it would also allow me to charge the battery pack late at night using hydropower and replace that electricity to the electric grid during the day via net metering and a photovoltaic solar array on the south-facing roof of my house. My commute to work is 15 miles each way. Owning a PHEV would allow me to drive a zero emission vehicle about 90%-95% of the time and to own one vehicle for both short range commutes and long range trips. As a nation, I believe we could use such a hybrid system to substantially reduce our use of fossil hydrocarbons. It would also smooth out the electical energy use curve. In California, we currently have hydropower sufficient to power more than a million vehicles go to waste each night. Perhaps it is just me, but it seems prudent to me for us to use our resources more efficiently, and to use renewable energy sources to the maximum practicable extent in preference to shivering in the cold and the dark. "As always, your mileage may vary." I welcome your constructive comments about this PHEV with biodiesel concept. Wishing you and yours the very best, I remain... Rodger Rodger Morris morris_rl@yahoo.com MCSE+I, MCSE(NT4,W2K), CCAI, CCNP, CCDP, CTT, Security+, and so on Adjunct Professor, Oxnard College, Department of Engineering Technology Scouter, AE6JC, LASFS Life Member, and Sidewalk Astronomer Unitarian Jihad Name: "Brother Rail Gun of Quiet Reflection" __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From nagy.anita1 at chello.hu Fri Mar 17 09:11:09 2006 From: nagy.anita1 at chello.hu (nagy.anita1@chello.hu) Date: Fri Mar 17 03:11:09 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] Message-ID: <20060317081109.KVZG23920.viefep14-int.chello.at@localhost> From forrest at truffula.net Fri Mar 17 00:31:30 2006 From: forrest at truffula.net (Forrest English) Date: Fri Mar 17 03:31:43 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] "Caesar: This Is Not Proper" In-Reply-To: <20060317075954.18631.qmail@web50614.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060317075954.18631.qmail@web50614.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mar 16, 2006, at 11:59 PM, Rodger Morris wrote: > I hope to acquire a diesel > vehicle, but I would prefer to drive a zero emission > vehicle that has a biodiesel burning diesel motor for > backup propulsion when needed, of which more later in > this posting. Zero emission vehicle? You mean NIMBY (Not In My BackYard) vehicle don't you? All Zero emission vehicles are is zero emissions from tailpipe, the emissions are simply moved to where the electricity is created. > As I live in California, it would also allow > me to charge the battery pack late at night using > hydropower and replace that electricity to the > electric grid during the day via net metering and a > photovoltaic solar array on the south-facing roof of > my house. California gets only 20-23% (depending on who you ask) of it's grid mix from hydro, well below the Pacific NW (82%). The largest chunk of California power production comes from natural gas piped in from Canada and the intermountain west, only 14% of the natural gas used in California is harvested in California. While I think it's interesting that you seem to think that hydro is the answer, I disagree. As a commercial salmon fisherman I can tell you that dams are decimating previously huge salmon runs, depriving the world of a useful food source, and destroying the coastal fishing economies. Even with fish ladders (which many dams don't have), the heating of water in reservoirs and nutrient additions from irrigation diversion, makes many rivers unsuitable habitat. For examples of this happening, check the news about total shut down of salmon fishing in California and Oregon due to the failing Klamath salmon runs caused by dams. > I welcome your constructive comments about this PHEV > with biodiesel concept. I think you need to analyze your emissions and grid electric composition a little closer. -- Forrest English From membender at hotmail.com Fri Mar 17 01:19:33 2006 From: membender at hotmail.com (Michael Bender) Date: Fri Mar 17 04:19:37 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] "Caesar: This Is Not Proper" References: <20060317075954.18631.qmail@web50614.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Diesel PHEVs are already being made (most notably the DaimlerChrysler Sprinter van, available in Europe only at this point), and will hopefully become very popular in the years to come. If one has to drive at all (as many do), these are about as clean and "green" as can be expected probably for decades. The NIMBY argument is a red herring that nay-sayers and purists love to throw out there. The fact is that the grid can be continuously improved (made cleaner and greener), and second, what is harder, improving the effeciency and "cleanliness" of one powerplant, or a hundred thousand tailpipes? Additionally, "out-sourcing" the pollutants away from urban centers is probably an added >bonus<. And as for dams are concerned (since I'm at it), while yes, they do have their negatives for some species and parts of the natural world, their benefits to >people< far outweigh the negatives. Think drinking water, irrigation water (and the resulting crops), clean electricity, flood control, recreation, etc. This is not to say that the negatives can't be minimized or eliminated (or that we needn't attempt to do so), but anyone with a knee-jerk "dams bad, fish/nature good" attitude needs to analyze >this< issue a little closer. IMHO, of course! [/flame] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Forrest English" To: Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 12:31 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] "Caesar: This Is Not Proper" > On Mar 16, 2006, at 11:59 PM, Rodger Morris wrote: > >> I hope to acquire a diesel >> vehicle, but I would prefer to drive a zero emission >> vehicle that has a biodiesel burning diesel motor for >> backup propulsion when needed, of which more later in >> this posting. > > Zero emission vehicle? You mean NIMBY (Not In My BackYard) vehicle don't > you? All Zero emission vehicles are is zero emissions from tailpipe, the > emissions are simply moved to where the electricity is created. > >> As I live in California, it would also allow >> me to charge the battery pack late at night using >> hydropower and replace that electricity to the >> electric grid during the day via net metering and a >> photovoltaic solar array on the south-facing roof of >> my house. > > California gets only 20-23% (depending on who you ask) of it's grid mix > from hydro, well below the Pacific NW (82%). The largest chunk of > California power production comes from natural gas piped in from Canada > and the intermountain west, only 14% of the natural gas used in > California is harvested in California. > > While I think it's interesting that you seem to think that hydro is the > answer, I disagree. As a commercial salmon fisherman I can tell you that > dams are decimating previously huge salmon runs, depriving the world of a > useful food source, and destroying the coastal fishing economies. Even > with fish ladders (which many dams don't have), the heating of water in > reservoirs and nutrient additions from irrigation diversion, makes many > rivers unsuitable habitat. For examples of this happening, check the > news about total shut down of salmon fishing in California and Oregon due > to the failing Klamath salmon runs caused by dams. > >> I welcome your constructive comments about this PHEV >> with biodiesel concept. > > I think you need to analyze your emissions and grid electric composition > a little closer. > > -- > Forrest English > > > _______________________________________________ > Biofuels_Interest_Group mailing list > Biofuels_Interest_Group@lists.emji.net > http://lists.emji.net/mailman/listinfo/biofuels_interest_group > From wrenchwench at blast.com Fri Mar 17 06:56:26 2006 From: wrenchwench at blast.com (Rachel Burton) Date: Fri Mar 17 06:56:26 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] moderation Message-ID: Hey Folks, I am swamped with emails and other work. I have not been online much and cannot fully moderate this list. Please keep things in the biofuels realm. If you are not interested in the discussion and want to unsubscribe, please do so through the list site: http://lists.emji.net/mailman/listinfo/biofuels_interest_group Thanks, Rachel From agiles at cape.com Fri Mar 17 07:56:57 2006 From: agiles at cape.com (Allen Giles) Date: Fri Mar 17 07:57:47 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] "Caesar: This Is Not Proper" In-Reply-To: <20060317075954.18631.qmail@web50614.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000901c649c2$46cc3930$6401a8c0@YOUR1FEA1ED08B> LOL -----Original Message----- From: biofuels_interest_group-bounces@lists.emji.net [mailto:biofuels_interest_group-bounces@lists.emji.net] On Behalf Of Rodger Morris Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 3:00 AM To: biofuels_interest_group@lists.emji.net Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] "Caesar: This Is Not Proper" Perhaps an introduction is in order. Mt name is Rodger Morris. I have been reading this biodiesel list for roughly two years. I live on the west coast, and I have an electric vehicle. Over four years ago, I took my bedroom off-grid and my consumption of electricity from Southern California Edison is on th order of 35 KWH per month. I hope to acquire a diesel vehicle, but I would prefer to drive a zero emission vehicle that has a biodiesel burning diesel motor for backup propulsion when needed, of which more later in this posting. This list normally has an exceedingly high information to noise ratio. This has recently changed owing to one person flaming another. Let me briefly digress from the call to observe the following: With no disrespect intended, "nesmithp@bellsouth.net"'s whole rant towards Susan Hogarth reminds me of the protestations of Britannus, with "nesmith" playing that role and Ms. Hogarth in the role of Caesar: http://www.web-books.com/classics/Nonfiction/Drama/Shaw/Caesar/Shaw_CaesarC2 P2.htm ------ BRITANNUS (shocked). Caesar: this is not proper. THEODOTUS (outraged). How! CAESAR (recovering his self-possession). Pardon him. Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature. BRITANNUS. On the contrary, Caesar, it is these Egyptians who are barbarians; and you do wrong to encourage them. I say it is a scandal. CAESAR. Scandal or not, my friend, it opens the gate of peace. ------ As a "modest suggestion" per Jonathan Swift, perhaps "nesmithp@bellsouth.net" should consider seeing his psychiatrist about adjusting his psychotropic medications. Absent that, perhaps we could all agree to return to discussion that adheres to the charter of this group. Now, back on topic: I would like to be able to buy a plug-in serial hydrid (PHEV) battery electric vehicle with about a 45 horsepower diesel motor coupled to an efficient electrical charging system, and about a 50 mile range of autonomy on battery power before the diesel motor kicks in to maintain the battery state. This would allow me to power my car by using electricity for my daily commute and biodiesel when I go on a longer drive. As I live in California, it would also allow me to charge the battery pack late at night using hydropower and replace that electricity to the electric grid during the day via net metering and a photovoltaic solar array on the south-facing roof of my house. My commute to work is 15 miles each way. Owning a PHEV would allow me to drive a zero emission vehicle about 90%-95% of the time and to own one vehicle for both short range commutes and long range trips. As a nation, I believe we could use such a hybrid system to substantially reduce our use of fossil hydrocarbons. It would also smooth out the electical energy use curve. In California, we currently have hydropower sufficient to power more than a million vehicles go to waste each night. Perhaps it is just me, but it seems prudent to me for us to use our resources more efficiently, and to use renewable energy sources to the maximum practicable extent in preference to shivering in the cold and the dark. "As always, your mileage may vary." I welcome your constructive comments about this PHEV with biodiesel concept. Wishing you and yours the very best, I remain... Rodger Rodger Morris morris_rl@yahoo.com MCSE+I, MCSE(NT4,W2K), CCAI, CCNP, CCDP, CTT, Security+, and so on Adjunct Professor, Oxnard College, Department of Engineering Technology Scouter, AE6JC, LASFS Life Member, and Sidewalk Astronomer Unitarian Jihad Name: "Brother Rail Gun of Quiet Reflection" __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Biofuels_Interest_Group mailing list Biofuels_Interest_Group@lists.emji.net http://lists.emji.net/mailman/listinfo/biofuels_interest_group From nesmithp at bellsouth.net Fri Mar 17 11:56:41 2006 From: nesmithp at bellsouth.net (nesmithp@bellsouth.net) Date: Fri Mar 17 11:56:43 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] perpetuating the problems Message-ID: <20060317165641.YUFN7964.ibm61aec.bellsouth.net@mail.bellsouth.net> My post regarding America's greed for a high standard of living outlines issues that are excruciatingly important to biofuels and their development as a viable energy source. Sorry that folks had to attack me (in personal emails and on the forum) for pointing out that unless we couple biofuels with a new way of forward non-self serving thinking that we will continue to harm the environment and the world?s resources. I responded likewise and I apologize. The key word is sustainable. Is it sustainable for ADM, Cargill, or Monsanto to replace our foreign fossil fuels with foreign veggie oil? Is ANY energy going to be sustainable without conservation and the realization that America is setting a bad example for the rest of the world to emulate? Face it, we are pigs when it comes to energy and unless we understand that is the absolute truth we are just on the road to creating a huge passel of new problems. Sure we can ignore these issues and sure we can ignore our role in perpetuating the problems but that does not do this movement any good. Along with the technical advancements behind the biofuels movement we need to look at the social aspects that our culture plays in perpetuating our unsustainable lifestyle, even if it means admitting to yourself that your are part of the problem. Initially I though I was "preaching to the choir" but it has become painfully and depressingly obvious that is not the case and that a lot of education is required. A whole lot. Help us all out and seek that education. I do appreciate the personal attacks and the deletion of posts that ARE relevant to the entire biofuels movement. Thank you for affirming my thoughts and opinions of the backward mindset that we have to change in order for progress to happen. > > From: Rachel Burton > Date: 2006/03/17 Fri AM 06:56:26 EST > To: BIG > Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] moderation > > Hey Folks, > > I am swamped with emails and other work. > I have not been online much and cannot fully moderate this list. > Please keep things in the biofuels realm. > If you are not interested in the discussion and want to unsubscribe, > please do so through the list site: > > http://lists.emji.net/mailman/listinfo/biofuels_interest_group > > Thanks, > > Rachel > > _______________________________________________ > Biofuels_Interest_Group mailing list > Biofuels_Interest_Group@lists.emji.net > http://lists.emji.net/mailman/listinfo/biofuels_interest_group > From ttsinc624 at juno.com Sat Mar 18 01:15:09 2006 From: ttsinc624 at juno.com (Mr. Turner) Date: Fri Mar 17 20:15:51 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] moderation Message-ID: <20060317.171511.24667.514565@webmail12.nyc.untd.com> "If you are not interested in the discussion and want to unsubscribe," What and miss all the enlightening information???????? = ________________________________________________________________________= Try Juno Platinum for Free! Then, only $9.95/month! Unlimited Internet Access with 1GB of Email Storage. Visit http://www.juno.com/value to sign up today! From wrenchwench at blast.com Sat Mar 18 11:12:05 2006 From: wrenchwench at blast.com (Rachel Burton) Date: Sat Mar 18 11:11:58 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] InnovaTek, Seattle BioFuels Produce Hydrogen From B100 Message-ID: InnovaTek, Inc. recently announced it has successfully demonstrated the ability to generate hydrogen from 100-percent biodiesel (B-100) produced at Seattle BioFuels, Inc.'s commercial-scale, ASTM-certified Seattle Biodiesel refinery. According to InnovaTek, the conversion was achieved via a microchannel steam reformer developed by the company to produce hydrogen from such fossil fuels as gasoline and diesel. InnovaTek noted that the system is also capable of producing hydrogen from both glycerol, a byproduct of biodiesel production, and the raw soybean oil used to manufacture the alternative fuel. InnovaTek said the microchannel reformer achieved a 100-percent conversion rate from Seattle BioFuels' B-100. Contact: Patricia Irving, InnovaTek, phone 509-375-1093, e-mail irving@tekkie.com. From forrest at truffula.net Sat Mar 18 09:46:50 2006 From: forrest at truffula.net (Forrest English) Date: Sat Mar 18 12:47:22 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] green or gray? Message-ID: <83BF5409-FED1-460E-86AD-3F99758E7EAF@truffula.net> http://www.earthscan.co.uk/news/article/mps/uan/638/v/3/sp/ Some more discussion on land use and sustainability of biofuels. Again, waste product fuels are not viewed as a significant problem, and conservation is seen as being integral to the use of biofuels as a solution. "Bringing forest, bog or grassland into cultivation releases vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere". I'd like to add to this, that replacing it with a monoculture palm plantation is not a forest, and would not mitigate in any meaningful way the loss of the original carbon sink. -- Forrest English From john.bonitz at gmail.com Sat Mar 18 17:40:44 2006 From: john.bonitz at gmail.com (John Bonitz) Date: Sat Mar 18 17:40:38 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] perpetuating the problems Message-ID: <84a57a420603181440vb8f8155w8eac67010612cc0f@mail.gmail.com> I'll ask the readers and the moderator to go with me here for a moment: This post will be relevant to biofuels, I promise. I'm sympathetic to 's concerns. A revolution in popular consciousness is indeed necessary for the betterment of the planet and all people. But I also think it may be premature to expect it happening right now. Such shifts do not occur un-prompted. I had great hope for a sea-change in our national consciousness after the tragedy of Sept 11th, when the French proclaimed loudly "We are all Americans." Sadly, introspection took a backseat to fear-mongering in this country. So I take heart in subtle changes: At an all day meeting yesterday with a diverse group of agricultural professionals, I was positively shocked that the most reactionary conservatives found no fault with a keynote speaker who proclaimed that Peak Oil, climate change, and soil depletion require that we END business-as-usual agriculture. These conservatives, who only a few years ago were denying the existence of climate change, had only one complaint with the speaker (Simon Rich, an amazing guy, by the way): He offered too much gloom and not enough solutions. But the solutions are out there. For example, we're all here, eagerly reading about biofuels, and many of us make our own fuel, or proudly pay a price-premium for store-bought biodiesel. The question of where our biodiesel comes from, and from what it is made, is a relevant and important concern. But clever people will help us through that challenge too. As Marc Dreyfors pointed out, in a globalized market for plant-oil-biodiesel, we North American consumers will need to embrace a third-party certification system, like Fair Trade coffee, or Green Seal consumer products. I personally am not concerned about Brazilian made biodiesel: I'd like to support their economic growth, if I can be assured of environmental precautions. If it is made from Palm Oil grown in denuded rainforests, I may choose to buy from elsewhere. (Can jatropha grow in Mexico?) But just because Brazil is 5,000 miles away does not mean we should not buy our fuel from there. This is my point: Once fossil fuel prices seriously shift, we'll all become much more sensitive to an important fact: Different modes of transportation have different costs, different energy efficiencies. In fact, it costs about 10 times less to ship something across water than to haul it in a truck. And rail is only 3 times more efficient than trucking. So if the majority of North American oilseed crops and biodiesel production is to come from Canada or the midwest (let's say 2,000 miles), then it may be more sensible for us Carolinians to buy Brazillian biodiesel. The Chinese may decide to invest in East Indian Jatropha plantations, rather than throwing money at Dubai. I'm not overlooking the virtues of the super-local: Given the option, I would of course greatly prefer to buy biodiesel made in my own community, and ideally made from recycled feedstocks rather than virgin plant oil. But let's not reject global solutions just because they seem far-flung. Thanks for reading. -- John Bonitz Silk Hope, NC www.biofuels.coop From richmason at mindspring.com Sun Mar 19 15:51:46 2006 From: richmason at mindspring.com (Rich Mason) Date: Sun Mar 19 07:51:44 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] We are beyond baby steps... In-Reply-To: <84a57a420603181440vb8f8155w8eac67010612cc0f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <008001c64b53$e501b160$f008a8c0@RTIBCL3YGTL9> Well said John and others, As someone who is fairly new to environmentalism in general and biodiesel specifically, I have to agree that this will be an incremental but not hopeless process. In the past two years we have moved to about 75% biodiesel use for out family by converting our two gas cars to TDs in addition to owning a TDI Golf and we consciously choose the TDI for any long trips. If there were a pump between Hillsborough and Mebane where my wife works we could get that above 90% (I have a hard time making a special trip to Carrboro for fuel and the hours of the depot are a little limited). We are making a difference and we are proud of it. Is it the most we could so? Absolutely not but it is an important beginning. As each of us here has become informed about the benefits of diesel for fuel economy and biodiesel for sustainability and some environmental concerns, we have served as inspiration for others. This is a growing movement and we have reached an important step in that now the question is not if biodiesel but from where and through what processes. This will never obviate the need for conservation but let me tell you that $3.50 a gallon makes me think twice about driving to the record store and it has no doubt diminished our consumption, controlling for other factors. I will rely on the voices on this board and elsewhere to point those of us who are pure consumers and not on the manufacturing end to the best and most sustainable sources of fuel. That is the most valuable contribution the coop and the forum can make for me. I really wish we had some biodiesel out here in Baghdad...you should see the environmental disaster being generated by the leaking generators and the exhaust is horrible! All the best, Rich Mason -----Original Message----- From: biofuels_interest_group-bounces@lists.emji.net [mailto:biofuels_interest_group-bounces@lists.emji.net] On Behalf Of John Bonitz Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 1:41 AM To: nesmithp@bellsouth.net; BIG Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] perpetuating the problems I'll ask the readers and the moderator to go with me here for a moment: This post will be relevant to biofuels, I promise. I'm sympathetic to 's concerns. A revolution in popular consciousness is indeed necessary for the betterment of the planet and all people. But I also think it may be premature to expect it happening right now. Such shifts do not occur un-prompted. I had great hope for a sea-change in our national consciousness after the tragedy of Sept 11th, when the French proclaimed loudly "We are all Americans." Sadly, introspection took a backseat to fear-mongering in this country. So I take heart in subtle changes: At an all day meeting yesterday with a diverse group of agricultural professionals, I was positively shocked that the most reactionary conservatives found no fault with a keynote speaker who proclaimed that Peak Oil, climate change, and soil depletion require that we END business-as-usual agriculture. These conservatives, who only a few years ago were denying the existence of climate change, had only one complaint with the speaker (Simon Rich, an amazing guy, by the way): He offered too much gloom and not enough solutions. But the solutions are out there. For example, we're all here, eagerly reading about biofuels, and many of us make our own fuel, or proudly pay a price-premium for store-bought biodiesel. The question of where our biodiesel comes from, and from what it is made, is a relevant and important concern. But clever people will help us through that challenge too. As Marc Dreyfors pointed out, in a globalized market for plant-oil-biodiesel, we North American consumers will need to embrace a third-party certification system, like Fair Trade coffee, or Green Seal consumer products. I personally am not concerned about Brazilian made biodiesel: I'd like to support their economic growth, if I can be assured of environmental precautions. If it is made from Palm Oil grown in denuded rainforests, I may choose to buy from elsewhere. (Can jatropha grow in Mexico?) But just because Brazil is 5,000 miles away does not mean we should not buy our fuel from there. This is my point: Once fossil fuel prices seriously shift, we'll all become much more sensitive to an important fact: Different modes of transportation have different costs, different energy efficiencies. In fact, it costs about 10 times less to ship something across water than to haul it in a truck. And rail is only 3 times more efficient than trucking. So if the majority of North American oilseed crops and biodiesel production is to come from Canada or the midwest (let's say 2,000 miles), then it may be more sensible for us Carolinians to buy Brazillian biodiesel. The Chinese may decide to invest in East Indian Jatropha plantations, rather than throwing money at Dubai. I'm not overlooking the virtues of the super-local: Given the option, I would of course greatly prefer to buy biodiesel made in my own community, and ideally made from recycled feedstocks rather than virgin plant oil. But let's not reject global solutions just because they seem far-flung. Thanks for reading. -- John Bonitz Silk Hope, NC www.biofuels.coop _______________________________________________ Biofuels_Interest_Group mailing list Biofuels_Interest_Group@lists.emji.net http://lists.emji.net/mailman/listinfo/biofuels_interest_group From jsymon at safenet-inc.com Fri Mar 17 08:15:34 2006 From: jsymon at safenet-inc.com (Jim Symon) Date: Sun Mar 19 21:24:11 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] diesel hybrid w/ electric range Message-ID: <06EC80D6ECEB204997F3B7A799D3485C0685FF07@bel1mail002.sfnt.local> I would like to be able to buy a plug-in serial hydrid (PHEV) battery electric vehicle with about a 45 horsepower diesel motor coupled to an efficient electrical charging system, and about a 50 mile range of autonomy on battery power before the diesel motor kicks in to maintain the battery state. My dream car as well although I think we could get by with slightly less horsepower. It's too bad none of the current industry hybrid designs provide for extended battery-only travel and external charging. Did you build your electric? In the past I subscribed to the electric vehicle list. Those people build their own. They are primarily pure electric but there are many different designs discussed including some hybrids. It's been several years. I would expect someone on that list would have done a diesel hybrid by now. If you are at all mechanically inclined you could get on that list for help and build your own. Also good pro/con discussions there about powering vehicles from the grid. Jim Symon symon@safenet-inc.com The information contained in this electronic mail transmission may be privileged and confidential, and therefore, protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this message and deleting it from your computer without copying or disclosing it. From hogarth at gmail.com Mon Mar 20 09:43:27 2006 From: hogarth at gmail.com (Susan Hogarth) Date: Mon Mar 20 09:43:28 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] If the pump won't come to Mohammed,... (was: We are beyond baby steps...) Message-ID: <3889aa560603200643x4b903790k8d7f6d2d2755ad16@mail.gmail.com> On 3/19/06, Rich Mason wrote: > ... In the past two years we have moved to about 75% > biodiesel use for out family by converting our two gas cars to TDs in > addition to owning a TDI Golf and we consciously choose the TDI for any long > trips. If there were a pump between Hillsborough and Mebane where my wife > works we could get that above 90% (I have a hard time making a special trip > to Carrboro for fuel and the hours of the depot are a little limited).... One option is to have a tank and pump in your yard, which besides being more convenient, could possibly also allow you to get a better deal on fuel and might encourage some of your neighbors to switch to BD. This assumes, of course, no HOA (or a complacent one) and a willingness to live near your fuel supply. -- Susan Hogarth | colliething.com NC Ballot Access Coalition http://www.ncballotaccess.org From aibodkin at gmail.com Mon Mar 20 10:01:16 2006 From: aibodkin at gmail.com (A Bodkin) Date: Mon Mar 20 10:01:16 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] InnovaTek, Seattle BioFuels Produce Hydrogen From B100 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "..InnovaTek noted that the system is also capable of producing hydrogen from both glycerol, a byproduct of biodiesel production, and the raw soybean oil used to manufacture the alternative fuel.. Excellent Post! Bio is showing itself to be more and more a perfect bridge to Hydrogen...even the leftovers (glycerol) might be used to support the transition... ~A On 3/18/06, Rachel Burton wrote: > > InnovaTek, Inc. recently announced it has successfully > demonstrated > the ability to generate hydrogen from 100-percent biodiesel > (B-100) > produced at Seattle BioFuels, Inc.'s commercial-scale, > ASTM-certified Seattle Biodiesel refinery. > > According to InnovaTek, the conversion was achieved via a > microchannel steam reformer developed by the company to produce > hydrogen from such fossil fuels as gasoline and diesel. InnovaTek > noted that the system is also capable of producing hydrogen from > both glycerol, a byproduct of biodiesel production, and the raw > soybean oil used to manufacture the alternative fuel. > > InnovaTek said the microchannel reformer achieved a 100-percent > conversion rate from Seattle BioFuels' B-100. > > Contact: Patricia Irving, InnovaTek, phone 509-375-1093, e-mail > irving@tekkie.com. > > > _______________________________________________ > Biofuels_Interest_Group mailing list > Biofuels_Interest_Group@lists.emji.net > http://lists.emji.net/mailman/listinfo/biofuels_interest_group > From wrenchwench at blast.com Mon Mar 20 10:21:28 2006 From: wrenchwench at blast.com (Rachel Burton) Date: Mon Mar 20 10:23:05 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] Senators Introduce Bill Extending Biodiesel Tax Incentive Message-ID: U.S. Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Max Baucus (D-MT), the chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Senate Finance Committee, recently introduced S. 2401 -- new legislation that would extend through 2010 such alternative energy incentives as the excise and income tax incentive for biodiesel and biodiesel blends. The bill would also extend for one year a 30-percent tax credit for the cost of installing fueling pumps that offer B20, a blend of 20 percent biodiesel and 80 percent standard diesel. Contact: Jenna Higgins, NBB phone 800-841-5849, website http://www.biodiesel.org. From marc at theforestfoundation.org Mon Mar 20 11:55:02 2006 From: marc at theforestfoundation.org (Marc Dreyfors-President) Date: Mon Mar 20 11:59:49 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] Audi Diesel wins Endurnace Race, First Ever! Message-ID: Hey Everyone, This is pretty cool event, which was designed to make Americans more aware of diesels. I hope that this will be beneficial to getting the NASCAR crowd excited about the potential of more sustainable energy systems, that are here and now, ready to go, and not be just a publicity stunt. Form a publicity standpoint, this is huge and it would be fun to have the car roll out across America at major events along with Piedmonts' tanker truck! "The new Audi R10 TDI has immediately written motorsport history in its first outing: Dindo Capello (Italy), Tom Kristensen (Denmark) and Allan McNish (Scotland) won the 12-hour race at Sebring (USA) achieving the first ever victory of a Diesel powered sportscar. Tom Kristensen became the first driver to win America's most famous endurance race for a fourth time, achieving another record after his record seventh Le Mans victory from last year. 30 degrees Celsius in the shade, high humidity and asphalt temperatures reaching up to 43 degrees, caused especially difficult circumstances on the Florida track which is one of the most demanding in the world. Allan McNish had already shown the potential of the 650-hp V12 TDI engine with a record-breaking pole position time in qualifying. Because the heat exchanger had to be replaced after the morning warm-up, Dindo Capello was forced to start the number two R10 TDI from the pit-lane starting his chase from the back of the field. It took Capello only half an hour before he had moved from 35th and last position to second just behind the sister car of Frank Biela. Shortly before the end of the second hour, the Italian took the lead, which the number two R10 TDI kept until the finish. Only changing the fuel filter and two loose wheel nuts caused unscheduled pit-stops. The number one Audi R10 TDI that had clearly led the race for the first two hours did not reach the finish. The car driven by Frank Biela (Germany), Emanuele Pirro (Italy) and Marco Werner (Germany) was withdrawn just before one-third distance due to an overheated engine. The reason: Shortly after the start of the race, the telemetry system of car number one, that transmits the data from the car to the pits, had stopped working. As a consequence, Audi Sport's engine technicians had no data at all for the whole distance. When Marco Werner reported high water temperatures via radio during the fourth hour of the race, the second placed R10 TDI was called into the pits. The team discovered radiators completely blocked by tyre rubber. After cleaning the radiators, the temperatures sank immediately. However, Team Audi Sport North America decided to precautionary withdraw the second placed R10 TDI from the race because the engine had been running with significantly high temperatures for an extended period." www.audifans.net http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/14/Autos/funonwheels/audi_diesel_racer/index.ht m From rob at encodia.biz Mon Mar 20 21:48:59 2006 From: rob at encodia.biz (Rob Nikander) Date: Mon Mar 20 21:49:00 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] emissions vs normal gasoline Message-ID: <59A1AC71-1EA5-47B1-A7DB-0068F5ABD29D@encodia.biz> Hi all, I'm curious how emissions compare between modern unleaded gas economy cars (like a Honda Civic) and diesel burners like the Jetta TDI, when it is burning biodiesel or vegetable oil. I'm under the impression that the new "ultra low emissions" cars like a Civic will actually have cleaner exhaust, at least until we get some more technology like catalytic converters to help the biodiesel. Is that right? Is the only difference the N02 found in biodiesel exhaust, or are there others? Any studies or hard numbers out there? Rob From tfwhalen at gmail.com Tue Mar 21 09:33:02 2006 From: tfwhalen at gmail.com (Tom Whalen) Date: Tue Mar 21 09:33:04 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] Fire Trucks Message-ID: <829c16880603210633s47ebab1x3dc5c75607d828e5@mail.gmail.com> Does anyone know of a fire department using biodiesel? I am interested in speaking to a fire chief and learning if there are any concern particular to fire trucks, such as fire pump performance. I am new to the list as well as biodiesel and would like to persuade the department to switch to a better fuel. Thanks in advance for any assistance Tom Whalen Parkwood VFD Durham, NC From nesmithp at bellsouth.net Tue Mar 21 10:12:40 2006 From: nesmithp at bellsouth.net (nesmithp@bellsouth.net) Date: Tue Mar 21 10:12:42 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] emissions vs normal gasoline Message-ID: <20060321151240.XOMR9538.ibm65aec.bellsouth.net@mail.bellsouth.net> Folks are having problems deciding between a hybrid or a TDI. My two cents, go with diesel. I have run 2 cars (VW TDI's) on B100 100% of the time since 2003 and of and on several years before that. Now I have a 1991 Dodge Cummings running on 100% B100. After the initial filter changing no problems. Two gelling issues during the entire time (running vehicle with several gallons of fuel in tank - in the red- is NOT recommended in cooler temps). As far as ease goes it has been very convenient for my wife and I. Approximately six 55 gallon barrels are used per year at an average cost of about $3.50/gal and an average mileage of 2000 miles per barrel (12,000 miles/year and $1,155). The 55 gallon drums are picked up 105 miles away in Tampa when I am there on business. I usually get three at a time. There is now a distributor in town so that part is easier. We use a 150$ hand pump and use Goldenrod water block filters. Filter Filter Filter! The problems I see with gas hybrids are toxic batteries (new hybrids may use hydraulic pressure instead of batteries), toxic foreign fuel with tremendous political, social and pollution/contamination issues (no one has died for my Biofuel), over estimated mileage claims, no towing capacity, and complication (diesels have no plugs, no distributor, no complex battery and charging system, simple). There is a ton of information out there but it is really hard to find definitive answers. I have attached a few links that are interesting. http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051218/AUTO01/512180348/1148 http://www.soultek.com/clean_energy/hybrid_cars/hybrid_cars_versus_bio_diesel_which_is_better.htm http://tdiclub.com/TDIFAQ/TDiFAQ-5.html http://www.hybridcars.com/discussion/discussthread.php?thread_id=190&replies=35 GOOD LUCK IN YOU QUESTS FOR ENERGY SUSTAINABILITY. > > From: Rob Nikander > Date: 2006/03/20 Mon PM 09:48:59 EST> To: "Biofuels_Interest_Group@Lists. Emji. Net" > Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] emissions vs normal gasoline > > Hi all, > > I'm curious how emissions compare between modern unleaded gas economy > cars (like a Honda Civic) and diesel burners like the Jetta TDI, when > it is burning biodiesel or vegetable oil. I'm under the impression > that the new "ultra low emissions" cars like a Civic will actually > have cleaner exhaust, at least until we get some more technology like > catalytic converters to help the biodiesel. Is that right? Is the > only difference the N02 found in biodiesel exhaust, or are there > others? Any studies or hard numbers out there? > > Rob > > _______________________________________________ > Biofuels_Interest_Group mailing list > Biofuels_Interest_Group@lists.emji.net > http://lists.emji.net/mailman/listinfo/biofuels_interest_group > From irenerash at yahoo.com Tue Mar 21 17:28:06 2006 From: irenerash at yahoo.com (irene rash) Date: Tue Mar 21 20:28:03 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] Need info about buying a diesel car Message-ID: <20060322012806.11460.qmail@web54603.mail.yahoo.com> I am interested in buying a used diesel vehicle so I can use biodiesel. My questions are what vehicles have you found that are reliable in other parts in addition to the diesel engine. My experience with diesel engines was on a boat so I am comfortable with that, it's the rest of the machine I'm thinking about. And what local (Chapel Hill, NC) dealers and sources any of you have found reliable? Irene __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From tes at unc.edu Tue Mar 21 21:41:37 2006 From: tes at unc.edu (tes thraves) Date: Tue Mar 21 21:41:39 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] Need info about buying a diesel car In-Reply-To: <20060322012806.11460.qmail@web54603.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Irene, There is a great resource list that Rachel and Leif put together on the FAQ page of the piedmont biofuels web site, and there's tons of other information related to your questions below too. Congrats on making the move! Tes http://www.biofuels.coop/faq.shtml On 3/21/06 8:28 PM, "irene rash" wrote: > I am interested in buying a used diesel vehicle so I > can use biodiesel. My questions are what vehicles > have you found that are reliable in other parts in > addition to the diesel engine. My experience with > diesel engines was on a boat so I am comfortable with > that, it's the rest of the machine I'm thinking > about. And what local (Chapel Hill, NC) dealers and > sources any of you have found reliable? > Irene From dentonconrad at netzero.net Wed Mar 22 07:24:59 2006 From: dentonconrad at netzero.net (Denton Conrad) Date: Wed Mar 22 07:25:40 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] Discover magazine April 2006 Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20060322071505.00c35348@pop.netzero.net> Discover magazine April 2006 - "Anything into oil" article starts on page 46. This is a follow-up article by one of the same name that appeared in the May 2003 issue of Discover. The plant is and has been operating for a while. The claim of the article states that turkey guts, old car parts (presumably containing plastic) and even raw sewage can be a source. The result is a low sulfur oil worthy of biodiesel production. Aside from the cost and time to build new processing plants, it would appear that we no longer need to landfill anything, since the byproduct from the process has a built in market. Denton From wrenchwench at blast.com Wed Mar 22 10:11:53 2006 From: wrenchwench at blast.com (Rachel Burton) Date: Wed Mar 22 10:11:55 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] Bio-Solutions Continues Their Quest With Biodiesel Message-ID: HATTIESBURG, MS -- (MARKET WIRE) -- 03/21/2006 -- Bio-Solutions Manufacturing, Inc. (OTC BB: BSLM), in conjunction with Bio-Solutions Franchise Corporation and its subsidiary, BioExtraction Services, produced their first batch of biodiesel from extracted oils and grease from wastewater using the BioExtractor?. BioExtractors?, which will be installed primarily in restaurants and municipal collection systems, will extract the oils and grease generated by commercial cooking establishments. This breakthrough will bring customers into compliance with municipal discharge ordinances and provide Bio Solutions with what will now be a valuable feedstock to make biodiesel. The extracted oil and grease from each serviced establishment will be brought to a central location where it will be converted into biodiesel. Biodiesel is a cleaner burning fuel than petroleum diesel; it is non- toxic, bio-degradable, and practically free of sulfur and aromatics. Biodiesel is chemically a mono-alkyl ester of long chain fatty acids derived from vegetable oil and animal fats and can be considered as a renewable energy source. Provided that the biodiesel meets ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) specifications, it can be blended with petroleum diesel and used safely as fuel in diesel engines without any modifications. According to Wayne Wade, President of BSFC, "We are definitely excited on the headway we are making in this new market. We look forward to being able to manufacture a stable price, environmentally friendly, renewable, domestic source of diesel fuel using a feedstock that was formally considered a waste product." About Bio-Solutions Manufacturing, Inc.: Bio-Solutions has developed superior microbiological products for waste bioremediation. Bio-Solutions currently services many municipal collection systems and a growing number of food service facilities in the United States. The company's products have been approved by an ever-growing number of municipalities for use in food service facilities that produce waste products introduced into the municipal collection systems. Bio-Solutions' products treat waste in an environmentally friendly and safe manner in compliance with Federal and State government standards. Bio-Solutions has developed a line of environmentally friendly cleaning products that include all purpose cleaner, carpet cleaner, concrete and asphalt cleaner, and floor soap. With this line of products, it is enabling Bio-Solutions to broaden its customer base to the residential areas as well as the businesses and municipalities. Bio-Solutions has acquired a unique patented grease extractor to be used in conjunction with bioremediation solutions to extract desired oil and grease to be converted into value-added products. From mambrose at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Mar 22 08:31:18 2006 From: mambrose at alumni.princeton.edu (Mark J Ambrose) Date: Wed Mar 22 11:31:19 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] Biofuels on the Radio Message-ID: <20060322163119.22876.fh050.wm@smtp.sc0.cp.net> Folks -- Today's show on "The State of Things" on WUNC will be dealing with biofuels in NC. Tune in to the show at noon if you want to be able to phone in and participate in the discussion or listen to the re-broadcast at 9:00 tonight: N.C.?s Energy Revolution Air Date: 3/22/2006 New and renewable forms of energy are hardly, well, new. For decades, some Americans have tried to kick its addiction to oil. But with new reasons at home and abroad to develop and market energy sources other than oil, is the time for an energy revolution at hand? According to some, that revolution is already happening at the state and local level. Host Frank Stasio looks at the changing energy landscape in North Carolina with: Thomas Meyer, professor of chemistry at UNC-Chapel Hill and former associate director of strategic research at the Los Alamos National Laboratory; Pete Andrews, professor of public policy at UNC-Chapel Hill; Dennis Scanlin, professor of technology at Appalachian State University; Michael Sykes, owner of Enertia Building Systems; and Lyle Estill, vice president of Piedmont Biofuels Industrial. Listener Call-In. Also, all of the letters and emails to Car Talk over the past couple of weeks paid off (sort of). Click and Clack corrected the info they gave about biodiesel. They also referred to us as the lunatic fringe, but it is an improvement. You can hear what they had to say at: http://www.cartalk.com/Radio/Show/online.html It is about halfway through segment 9 of the show. They also posted their correction on the website: http://www.cartalk.com/board/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=326799&an=0&page=0#326799 -- Mark From wrenchwench at blast.com Wed Mar 22 14:43:07 2006 From: wrenchwench at blast.com (Rachel Burton) Date: Wed Mar 22 14:43:51 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] Fwd: Sustainable Energy Conference transportation References: <016a01c64dd9$7840ea40$1d00a8c0@tjcog.org> Message-ID: <48914E4D-63EF-4F2E-86A6-CA287F8EEED4@blast.com> Begin forwarded message: > > There's still time to register for the Sustainable Energy > Conference on March 29. See below for details. > > Bill Terry from the Town of Chapel Hill is organizing a compressed > natural gas (CNG) van to take people to the conference from the > Chapel Hill/Carrboro/Hillsborough area. He plans on leaving from > the Chapel Hill Public Works compound at 7:00 and leaving the > conference around 4:30pm, or as soon as the closing session is > over. He should have everyone back to Chapel Hill by 5:30. > > Space is limited. If you are interested, please contact Bill at > bterry@townofchapelhill.org or 919-968-2800 x148. > THE 3RD ANNUAL NORTH CAROLINA SUSTAINABLE ENERGY CONFERENCE > March 29, 2006 ~ 7:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. > McKimmon Conference & Training Center, NC State University, > Raleigh, NC > > > > ALL ARE INVITED to attend a "kick-off" reception > March 28, 2006 ~ 5:00 - 7:00 p.m. > Wildlife Resources Commission Building, Centennial Campus, NC State > University, Raleigh, NC > > Reception attendees must RSVP using the registration form. > > For more information or to register, click here > > > Contents > Benefits of Attending (go) > Network with Professionals (go) > Invaluable Exhibiting Opportunities (go) > Conference Agenda (go) > Benefits of Attending > > Hear nationally recognized and respected speakers > Share solutions and strategies to manage high energy costs > Network with other energy, engineering, building and environmental > professionals > Meet the winners of the 2006 Sustainable Energy Leadership Awards > Join us throughout the day for special "RIDE & DRIVE" > demonstrations of alternative fuel vehicles and tours of the > adjacent SOLAR CENTER! > > > > > Network with Professionals > > Energy professionals > Engineers > Business managers > Builders > Architects > Housing/building specialists > Environmental professionals > Facilities managers > Policy makers > > > Invaluable Exhibiting Opportunities > Who should exhibit? Organizations representing: > > Building Commissioning > Performance Contracting > Biofuels > Air Quality > Renewable Energy > Energy Efficiency > Energy Economics > Petroleum Reduction Goals > Net Metering/Interconnection > Tax and Financial Incentives > Affordable Housing > Each exhibitor receives: > > 8' x 10' display space in the Exhibit Hall > 1 6-foot draped table > 1 power strip and electricity, if needed > For more information, contact the State Energy Office at > 919.733.2230 or 1.800.662.7131 > > > For an exhibitor registration form, click here > Conference Agenda > > 8:00 - 8:30 a.m. Registration > > 8:30 - 8: 45 a.m. Welcome and Introduction > > 8:45 - 9:15 a.m. KEYNOTE ADDRESS: James Woolsey, former director > of the Central Intelligence Agency > > 9:15 - 10:45 a.m. GENERAL SESSION: "North Carolina's Current > Energy Situation: Economy, Energy and Environment" > > Larry Shirley, Director, State Energy Office > Jimmy Ervin, North Carolina Utilities Commission > Jeff Tiller, Associate Professor, Appalachian State University > Bill Bailey, Principal Consultant, DuPont > 10: 45 - 11:15 a.m. EXHIBITS, DEMONSTRATIONS AND "RIDE & DRIVE" > > 11:15 a.m. - 12:15 p.m. BREAKOUT SESSIONS: "Resources and Tools > for Energy Savings" > > Residential Sector > Industrial Sector > Transportation/Biofuels Sector > Public Sector > 12:15 - 2:00 p.m. AWARDS BANQUET > > 12:15 - 1:00 p.m. Luncheon > > 1:00 - 1:10 p.m. Welcoming Remarks and Introductions > > 1:10 - 1:30 p.m. LUNCHEON KEYNOTE: William Schlesinger, Dean, > Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, Duke University > > 1:30 - 2:00 p.m. AWARDS CEREMONY > > 2:00 - 2:30 p.m. EXHIBITS, DEMONSTRATIONS AND "RIDE & DRIVE" > > 2:30 - 3:30 p.m. BREAKOUT SESSIONS: "Implementation Strategies for > Energy Management" > > Residential Sector > Industrial Sector > Transportation/Biofuels Sector > Public Sector > 3:45 - 4:30 p.m. CLOSING SESSION: "A New Vision: Our Energy > Future," Ray Anderson, Chairman of the Board, Interface, Inc. > > > To register, or for more information, click here > > or call 919.515.2261 > > > > Visit the State Energy Office > > From john.bonitz at gmail.com Wed Mar 22 20:15:59 2006 From: john.bonitz at gmail.com (John Bonitz) Date: Wed Mar 22 20:15:56 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] Grassley-Baucus - Alternative Energy Extender Act Message-ID: <84a57a420603221715r2061cf17w9bc507d6b0e06588@mail.gmail.com> From: American Corn Growers Association [mailto:acganewsletter@agnet.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 10:55 AM To: John Bonitz Subject: ACGA Endorses Grassley-Baucus - Alternative Energy Extender Act NEWS FROM THE AMERICAN CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION For Immediate Release Contact: Larry Mitchell (202) 835-0330 www.acga.org ________________________________ ACGA Endorses Grassley/Baucus "Alternative Energy Extender Act" Extension of Energy Incentive Essential to Nation's Energy Independence WASHINGTON - March 21, 2006 -The American Corn Growers Association (ACGA) has endorsed the "Alternative Energy Extender Act" (S 2401) introduced recently by Senators Charles Grassley, R-Iowa and Max Baucus, D-Mont . ACGA President Keith Bolin, a corn and swine farmer from Manlius, Ill., commended the Senators for their initiative and leadership in introducing the legislation. "This Grassley-Baucus proposal will provide the certainty required within the financial sector for its continued support of the expansion of critical renewable energy infrastructure," said Bolin. "Passage and enactment of this legislation will help farmers move America towards energy independence. The Alternative Energy Extender Act includes provisions to: * Extend the Production Tax Credit (PTC) for renewable electricity production for three years for wind generated electricity and other renewable electric generation. * Extend the excise and income tax credit for biodiesel, biodiesel mixtures, and renewable diesel until 2010. * Authorize additional funding for issuance of Clean Renewable Energy Bondsas enacted in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to support renewable investment by municipal power authorities, rural cooperatives and tribes. * Extend for one-year the 30 percent tax credit, enacted in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, for the cost of installing clean-fuel vehicle refueling equipment. "The bottom line is that our nation needs a national energy policy which ensures affordability and reliability through diverse, decentralized, domestic and renewable energy sources," concluded Bolin. From wrenchwench at blast.com Mon Mar 20 15:12:52 2006 From: wrenchwench at blast.com (Rachel Burton) Date: Thu Mar 23 21:42:08 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] Fwd: Triangle Conference on Peak Oil and Community Solutions next Sat. March 25th References: <20060319202311.25085.qmail@web33102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2B76B07D-7000-4054-AF75-B1528F4FF3B8@blast.com> > > NC Powerdown and the Duke University Greening > Iniative (DUGI) are partnering to host this free > conference to raise awareness of and discuss solutions > to the coming peak in worldwide oil production. The > conference will be held at Duke's Love Auditorium from > 1-6pm on Saturday, March 25th. Parking is free at the > circuit lot and there will be a social hour with > goodies immediately following. Attached is a flyer > with details of the event. Please consider printing > out some flyers and posting them at work, school, or > just hand them out to friends and family. Also, > details of the event as well as directions can be > found at both: > > www.duke.edu/greening/peakoil.htm or > www.ncpowerdown.org > > Please come! And please pass on the word about this > event. > > Look forward to seeing you there. > > Stephen Hren > 336-504-4452 > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- From wrenchwench at blast.com Thu Mar 23 22:50:24 2006 From: wrenchwench at blast.com (Rachel Burton) Date: Thu Mar 23 22:50:20 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] The Holland to Convert Used Cooking Oil Into Biodiesel Message-ID: <97729F3A-41DE-4ED9-81EB-F921D8E60DCF@blast.com> Northwest restaurant company The Holland, Inc. recently announced the implementation of a program through which it will recycle the cooking oil from its Burgerville restaurants into biodiesel. According to The Holland, all 39 Burgerville locations throughout the Pacific Northwest will have their used cooking oil picked up by Portland, OR-based MRP Services and delivered to a processing plant for transformation into methyl esters and glycerin. The Holland noted that MRP will collect the used cooking oil on a monthly basis, depending upon the amount of oil that each Burgerville location uses. "The Holland has a long-standing commitment of initiating programs that sustain the environment in which our restaurants are located," said The Holland chief cultural officer Jack Graves. "By turning our used cooking oil into a fuel source that is less toxic to the environment, we are helping maintain the communities in which we live and work." Contact: The Holland, website http://www.hollandinc.com. From wrenchwench at blast.com Fri Mar 24 09:36:35 2006 From: wrenchwench at blast.com (Rachel Burton) Date: Fri Mar 24 09:36:33 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] Diesel Jeep Liberty Sales Set to Surpass 10,000 Mark Message-ID: <69788DCC-B062-4CA4-9D3C-8F8C4386ED31@blast.com> The National Biodiesel Board (NBB) recently announced that sales of the Jeep Liberty CRD diesel, which comes pre-filled with five-percent biodiesel (B5), are set to surpass the 10,000 mark, or double the number expected when the Chrysler Group first launched the diesel model early last year. The company made the announcement last week at the Peter Cremer North America biodiesel refinery in Cincinnati, OH, which supplies biodiesel for a factory fill of the Liberty. The event was held in conjunction with National Agriculture Week. "DaimlerChrysler?s sales of the Liberty show the success that can result when American agriculture is matched with the ingenuity of a private company," said NBB chief executive officer Joe Jobe. Contact: Jenna Higgins, NBB, phone 800-841-5849, website http://www.biodiesel.org. From wrenchwench at blast.com Fri Mar 24 09:37:06 2006 From: wrenchwench at blast.com (Rachel Burton) Date: Fri Mar 24 09:37:18 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] CTA Urges Further Study Before Biodiesel Mandate Message-ID: <2054209D-E6C0-48B2-8333-91850E5927B6@blast.com> The Ottawa, Ontario-based Canadian Trucking Alliance (CTA) recently urged Canadian officials to consider the impact of biodiesel on post-2002 truck engines, the fuel's widespread availability and its benefits versus the gains already made by the trucking industry in reducing engine emissions and utilizing cleaner-burning fuels before implementing a national mandate requiring the use of biodiesel in all Canadian trucks. CTA noted that its vice president of economic and environmental affairs Stephen Laskowski recently testified before a Council of Energy Ministers working group on renewable fuels. In presenting CTA's recommendations and comments regarding the government's National Strategy for Renewable Fuels, Laskowski said a "series of question...must be answered before any mandatory biodiesel blend is brought into Canada." "The trucking industry has recently undergone a series of dramatic expenses to virtually eliminate smog-causing emissions from truck engines and fuels," said Laskowski. "What does biodiesel provide the industry that the current regulatory path does not already achieve?" Laskowski said CTA believes the Canadian government "must first develop a firm understanding of the impacts of biodiesel on post-2002 engines and work with the industry to understand the impacts for the 2007-2010 engines before venturing down the regulatory path of mandating a biodiesel blend." Contact: Ingrid Phaneuf, CTA, phone 416-249-7401, e-mail phaneuf@cantruck.com. From leif at biofuels.coop Fri Mar 24 13:48:04 2006 From: leif at biofuels.coop (Leif Forer) Date: Fri Mar 24 13:48:53 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] New Biofuel technology Message-ID: New Bio-Refiner with Advanced Gasification Technology Coming to the U.S. By Richard Peterson for Choren Industries What would you say about a biofuel that was indifferent to the feedstock used to make it? What would you say about a biofuels manufacturer that could operate its bio-refinery on forest products, forest waste, agriculture crops, agriculture waste, municipal solid waste (MSW), treated sewage sludge, animal waste, construction debris and old tires without having to stop and reset the refinery operation? What would you say about a biofuel that is 100% compatible with existing engines, existing fuels storage and the transportation fuels infrastructure, burns as clean as CNG and can be used at any level of blending all the way to 100%? It doesn?t exist! Well it does exist, according to Choren Industries, and it?s coming to the United States from Germany. The technology belongs to CHOREN Industries, a privately owned, 140 person technology company based in Freiberg , Germany , Choren is a world leader in the field of bio- gasification and to date the only company with a proprietary gasification system able to directly convert biomass into a tar-free synthetic gas. Their roots go back to the East German DBI, Deutscher Brennstoff Institute (German Combustion Institute), at which their founder, Bodo Wolf, was the technical director. In that capacity he designed and developed a number of gasification projects. After German unification, joined by a select group of technologists and former DBI colleagues, he founded CHOREN. Encouraged and supported by DaimlerChrysler and later Volkswagen, they began to develop a process that was elegantly simple to describe yet intricately complex to realize ? to replicate nature?s crude oil evolution. Most of you are aware that the energy contained in fossil fuels begins as energy from the sun. Sunshine allows plants to photo- synthesize and grow. As plants die and decay they may become deposited in the earth. Time, temperature and pressure do the rest until companies such as Shell drill for the oil that goes on to fuel our vehicles. The overall process takes about 400 million years. On the other hand, CHOREN?S Carbo-V? process takes only about 400 minutes, and if we include the time for the plants or biomass to grow then perhaps a year. Now you can see why CHOREN calls it SunFuel. Let me describe how the process works. It begins of course with introduction of the biomass. A feature of the Carbo-V? process is that it uses any kind of biomass from farm residue to waste or recycled wood. In the first of three steps the biomass is heated to 400?C. This smoldering separates the volatile tar rich gases from the bio-coke, also known as char. In the second step these gases are combusted with oxygen at about 1,400?C. In the final step the ground char is blown in below the combustion chamber to bind in the carbon, technically known as chemical quenching. Through these three steps the process converts the long chain carbohydrate molecules in the biomass into syngas composed of short chain CO, CO2 and H2 molecules. The syngas can then be further cleaned before the Fischer-Tropsch catalysts binds together the carbon and hydrogen molecules to yield the hydrocarbons that make up SunFuel. Because the Carbo-V? process uses the whole plant and not just the seeds, CHOREN is able to attain more than, three times the amount of fuel per unit area than, for example, rape-seed biodiesel. Ethanol comes closer, but because of its lower energy density a tank full of ethanol will yield less mileage. SunDiesel, a major component of CHOREN?s SunFuel, is not only a cleaner environmentally friendly fuel; it is the prime ingredient in making a significant sustainable impression on our future transport fuel requirements. In August of 2005, CHOREN entered into an agreement with Shell to bring its world scale Fischer-Tropsch technology to their BTL program, not just as an investor but as a technology partner in making the first commercial scale SunFuel facility possible. Choren has been producing SunFuel at its Alpha plant (lower right hand corner of the picture) since 2003 and has over 20,000 hours testing different feedstocks. Its Beta plant, pictured in the foreground (red stripe) has operated over 3,000 hours on various feed stocks. Both serve as the basis for five 1 million ton/yr Sigma plants under design, with the first plant scheduled to begin operation in 2009. Shell?s Fischer-Tropsch and hydro-cracking technology will be incorporated into the Beta plant by the end of 2006 and on stream in early 2007. For both Choren and its partner Shell this is not just another fuel facility but rather the beginning of a new industry creating jobs, helping the environment and reducing our dependency on imported oil. After joining forces with Shell in Europe to develop the Sigma BTL plants and introducing its advanced coal gasification program at several sites in China , CHOREN began evaluating the prospects of bringing its proven Carbo-V? advanced gasifier technology to the US . CHOREN is currently looking for potential BTL sites that can support a million tons (dry) per year of sustainable biomass, have good access to the transportation fuels market and infrastructure, have access to local utilities; plus have State laws that allow for offsite sales of electricity. In addition CHOREN will be looking for US partners, both financial and logistical to help develop and manage its US operation. Sigma plants like the ones under design in Europe will cost over $500 million as they are more like designer chemical plants capable of producing ultra clean environmentally friendly fuels that crude oil refineries can only dream of. A Sigma plant will produce approximately 70 million gallons per year of SunFuel and depending upon the local market supply from 3 to 10 MW of bio- renewable waste heat electricity to the local market. CHOREN?s Managing Director of Biomass, Michael Deutmeyer will be discussing CHOREN?s BTL program at the April 10-12 Power-Gen Renewable Energy Conference in Las Vegas for those people who want more information. He can also be reached via e-mail at michael.deutmeyer@choren.com. Of course you can also learn more about CHOREN, its BTL program and its environmentally friendly SunFuel and SunDiesel at www.choren.com. By the way CHOREN stands for C carbon - H hydrogen - O oxygen - REN renewable. More at: http://www.eesi.org/publications/Newsletters/BCO/bco_31/ bco_31.htm From membender at hotmail.com Fri Mar 24 21:08:27 2006 From: membender at hotmail.com (Michael Bender) Date: Sat Mar 25 00:08:28 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] The Holland to Convert Used Cooking Oil Into Biodiesel References: <97729F3A-41DE-4ED9-81EB-F921D8E60DCF@blast.com> Message-ID: How nice that a 39-unit restaurant chain that serves different combinations of meat, milk, and sugar should be environmentally-minded. Or is it taboo to even "go there" in this group? Heaven forbid people and companies should reconsider >human< biofuel and the environmental (both internal and external) effects of what we eat! Despite the irony though, I suppose it is still better than paying a rendering company to dispose of it in other ways... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rachel Burton" To: "BIG" Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 7:50 PM Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] The Holland to Convert Used Cooking Oil Into Biodiesel > > Northwest restaurant company The Holland, Inc. recently announced > the implementation of a program through which it will recycle the > cooking oil from its Burgerville restaurants into biodiesel. > > According to The Holland, all 39 Burgerville locations throughout > the Pacific Northwest will have their used cooking oil picked up by > Portland, OR-based MRP Services and delivered to a processing plant > for transformation into methyl esters and glycerin. The Holland > noted that MRP will collect the used cooking oil on a monthly basis, > depending upon the amount of oil that each Burgerville location > uses. > > "The Holland has a long-standing commitment of initiating programs > that sustain the environment in which our restaurants are located," > said The Holland chief cultural officer Jack Graves. "By turning our > used cooking oil into a fuel source that is less toxic to the > environment, we are helping maintain the communities in which we > live and work." > > Contact: The Holland, website http://www.hollandinc.com. > _______________________________________________ > Biofuels_Interest_Group mailing list > Biofuels_Interest_Group@lists.emji.net > http://lists.emji.net/mailman/listinfo/biofuels_interest_group > From john.bonitz at gmail.com Sat Mar 25 11:19:19 2006 From: john.bonitz at gmail.com (John Bonitz) Date: Sat Mar 25 11:19:10 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] off-grid house for sale in Chatham Co Message-ID: <84a57a420603250819h16113298v722426170459de1c@mail.gmail.com> While this is only somewhat related to biofuels, I'm posting this because a) it's an off-grid house, powered largely by renewable energy; and b) proximity of the house to our Coop Refinery in Moncure. I don't know the owner, and I'm just posting it here because I saw it on the Chatham County Chatlist. Please don't contact me: Contact the owner directly. -- John Bonitz Silk Hope, NC ******************************************** Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:01:56 -0500 From: "RC Keener" Subject: House for sale Off the Grid Home for Sale by Owner 2300 sq. ft. custom-built passive solar house with solar-generated power supply on 7.8 acres off Pittsboro-Moncure Road in Chatham Co. Plenty of light and privacy. 2-3 bedrooms, 2.5 bathrooms, spacious, oak floors, 300 sf screened porch, sunroom, balcony, sky windows, on-demand hot water, ceiling fans, storage, wood stove and gas heat. Large storage building and 400+ sf guest cabin. Nature trail, beautiful trees, and many flowering plants. $349,900. (919)545-0559 or liveoffthegrid@gmail.com. Serious inquiries only, please. From wrenchwench at blast.com Sun Mar 26 10:56:02 2006 From: wrenchwench at blast.com (Rachel Burton) Date: Sun Mar 26 10:55:55 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] Subject: Magnuson-Moss Act/Biodiesel Warranties/Test Case Message-ID: Hello BIG list folks, I would like to do a quick poll here. How many people on this list have had their auto dealer say biodiesel will void your warranty? Just interested, Rachel Message: 2 Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 14:15:30 -0800 (PST) From: jennifer The Magnuson-Moss Act allegedly says that use of biodiesel doesn't void your warranty. Or use of any fuel or fuel additve (that meets standards) doesn't void your warranty, because the engine manufacturer warranty the parts and workmanship. And they would have to prove that the fuel caused the damage. However, Ford and VW say using a blend above B5 voids your warranty. Can they do that and does that override the Magnuson-Moss Act? Do we need a test case to challenge the car manufacturers if the law is really on our side? We (at the BioFuel Oasis) have a customer that wants to talk to a lawyer about suing because the Ford dealer is refusing to honor the warranty because of biodiesel. Is anyone out there a lawyer that can really research this law and the case history of it? Or does anyone have real experience and knowledge with these warranty issues? Has anyone pursued something like this before? You can contact me directly or on list. Thanks for all your help! -Jennifer Jennifer Radtke Worker Owner BioFuel Oasis 2465 4th St Berkeley, CA 94710 510.665.5509 www.biofueloasis.com From leif at biofuels.coop Mon Mar 27 08:24:49 2006 From: leif at biofuels.coop (Leif Forer) Date: Mon Mar 27 08:25:02 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] Fuel filters References: <133A76F8933E204F8E3CDFB7729A074B055018@goi.GOIMD.local> Message-ID: <773B756F-E93A-43E2-B119-F85A689762B3@biofuels.coop> Bill Levitt, up in Maryland, wanted to let everyone know that he's got a few navy surplus filters that he's looking to sell. They are duplex in that they have two filter bodies connected by a valve assembly which isolates the one filter out of service. Bodies and filter baskets are 304 SS, 3" inlet and outlet connections, 30 mesh (~500 micron) baskets that are about six inch diameter, 14 inch high. He would like $250 per duplex assembly. If you are interested or want more information (he has a few digital pictures) please contact him off list. Bill Levitt Gardner, O'Connor Inc. "Solutions That Work" 4433 Mountain Road Suite 1 Pasadena, MD 21122 410/437-0800 FAX 410/437-7050 bill@gocinc.com Thanks. ~leif --------------------------- Leif Forer Piedmont Biofuels www.biofuels.coop (919) 321-8260 From wooster at coastalnet.com Mon Mar 27 08:39:00 2006 From: wooster at coastalnet.com (BENJAMIN F BARNES) Date: Mon Mar 27 08:38:58 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] Fuel filters Message-ID: <410-22006312713390515@coastalnet.com> I am in the process of collecting material to build my first biodiesel generator. In doing my research I thought I read that KOH is easier to use the NaOH for methoxide since it is much easier to mix. All information I have read so far refers to NaOH and the mixing process. Is their any disadvantage to using KOH? Ben Barnes > [Original Message] > From: Leif Forer > To: > Date: 3/27/2006 8:25:16 AM > Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] Fuel filters > > Bill Levitt, up in Maryland, wanted to let everyone know that he's > got a few navy surplus filters that he's looking to sell. > > They are duplex in that they have two filter bodies connected by a > valve assembly which isolates the one filter out of service. Bodies > and filter baskets are 304 SS, 3" inlet and outlet connections, 30 > mesh (~500 micron) baskets that are about six inch diameter, 14 inch > high. He would like $250 per duplex assembly. > > If you are interested or want more information (he has a few digital > pictures) please contact him off list. > > Bill Levitt > Gardner, O'Connor Inc. > "Solutions That Work" > 4433 Mountain Road > Suite 1 > Pasadena, MD 21122 > 410/437-0800 > FAX 410/437-7050 > bill@gocinc.com > > Thanks. > > ~leif > > --------------------------- > Leif Forer > Piedmont Biofuels > www.biofuels.coop > (919) 321-8260 > _______________________________________________ > Biofuels_Interest_Group mailing list > Biofuels_Interest_Group@lists.emji.net > http://lists.emji.net/mailman/listinfo/biofuels_interest_group From mattr at biofuels.coop Mon Mar 27 14:05:20 2006 From: mattr at biofuels.coop (Matthew Rudolf) Date: Mon Mar 27 14:05:13 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] Wanted: 2 Full Sized Bathtubs Message-ID: Greetings to everyone. As part of preparation for this spring's Piedmont Farm Tour the Piedmont Biofuels Cooperative would like to rehabilitate our waste water wetlands area to its former glory. Part of this work will entail doubling the capacity of the former site. As a part of this project we are looking for 2 full-size bathtubs to integrate into our treatment operation. If someone has an extra bathtub that they would be willing to donate to the project or knows where we might find one cheap, please drop me an email at mattr@biofuels.coop. Thanks! Matt From john.bonitz at gmail.com Mon Mar 27 14:36:10 2006 From: john.bonitz at gmail.com (John Bonitz) Date: Mon Mar 27 14:36:12 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] B100 warranty concerns / legal test case Message-ID: <84a57a420603271136m6a88d476ree54f9dba933ec95@mail.gmail.com> Jennifer and other biodieselers, I believe this is a crucial issue, and one that greatly needs a legal test case. A legal precedent favorable to ASTM spec biodiesel would be a huge leg-up to the fuel. It might also benefit the grassroots movement of fuelmakers because it would increase awareness and boost people's confidence. I would like to strongly encourage this person to consult an attorney. It may be best to spend time finding someone with really strong consumer-advocacy background (i.e., Ralph Nader of 20 years ago). The PIRG's might help, or refer the case. Further, if this person can manage to set up a simple website with credit-card capabilities, he or she could establish a legal defense fund, and would probably be pleasantly surprised by the response. I'd give some money. And I'll bet thousands of others like me would do the same, if it was easy. Eventually NBB might get on board, too. Best wishes to your customer. -- John Bonitz Silk Hope, NC www.biofuels.coop From wrenchwench at blast.com Tue Mar 28 09:03:39 2006 From: wrenchwench at blast.com (Rachel Burton) Date: Tue Mar 28 09:03:46 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] Chatham Alliance for Sustainable Energy Forum Message-ID: <6D1DEA1E-5E1B-45F0-B349-9FC909931016@blast.com> Subject: Public Forum to include information on High Performance Schools and Green Building I (and Chatham Alliance for Sustainable Energy) want to provide you all who read the list with a final reminder of the effort to move Chatham county and the municipalities along the path toward green building and renewable energy for homes, developments and high performance buildings for schools, and other institutional and commercial buildings. There will be a public forum this Thursday evening March 30th at Horton Middle School multipurpose room in Pittsboro from 7-9:30 PM. I hope you can attend. Thanks Paul Konove Chatham Alliance for Sustainable Energy Forum Organizer From wooster at coastalnet.com Wed Mar 29 09:39:58 2006 From: wooster at coastalnet.com (BENJAMIN F BARNES) Date: Wed Mar 29 09:40:00 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] Chatham Alliance for Sustainable EnergyForum Message-ID: <410-220063329143958859@coastalnet.com> I am going to shortly build a biodiesel processor, probably and appleseed. I would be interested in knowing if it is better to find the parts myself or buy a kit from B100 supply. Thanks Ben Barnes > [Original Message] > From: Rachel Burton > To: BIG > Date: 3/28/2006 9:04:00 AM > Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] Chatham Alliance for Sustainable EnergyForum > > Subject: Public Forum to include information on High Performance > Schools and > Green Building > > I (and Chatham Alliance for Sustainable Energy) want to provide you > all who read the list with a final reminder of the effort to move > Chatham county and the municipalities along the path toward green > building and renewable energy for homes, developments and high > performance buildings for schools, and other institutional and > commercial buildings. There will be a public forum this Thursday > evening March 30th at Horton Middle School multipurpose room in > Pittsboro from 7-9:30 PM. > I hope you can attend. > Thanks > Paul Konove > Chatham Alliance for Sustainable Energy Forum Organizer > > > > _______________________________________________ > Biofuels_Interest_Group mailing list > Biofuels_Interest_Group@lists.emji.net > http://lists.emji.net/mailman/listinfo/biofuels_interest_group From wrenchwench at blast.com Wed Mar 29 18:18:45 2006 From: wrenchwench at blast.com (Rachel Burton) Date: Wed Mar 29 18:18:46 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] Fwd: Biopowered plants References: Message-ID: <511B97AB-937A-4305-B715-F3E99D9C0707@blast.com> Begin forwarded message: > From: "Ganter, Cheryl" > Date: March 29, 2006 1:41:44 PM EST > > Why not use biodiesel? They can just as easily use biodiesel to run > their generators as natural gas, oil or coal? > What's wrong with these people?? > > > > By Kristi E. Swartz - Palm Beach Post > Published March 29, 2006 > A massive energy policy designed to make Florida less dependent on > pricey natural gas passed another Senate hurdle on Tuesday. > > The Senate Committee on Communications and Public Utilities voted > to streamline the process utilities must go through with local > governments and the Florida Public Service Commission when wanting > to build a new power plant. > > The panel also emphasized that the type of fuel for the plant must > be considered to make sure the utility isn't leaning too heavily on > one power source. > > Before a standing-room-only crowd of lobbyists and agency > representatives, the Senate panel heard testimony for more than two > hours on an omnibus bill (SB 888) that affects literally every > resident of the state. > > It's also a bill that Committee Chairman Lee Constantine, R- > Altamonte Springs, said is changing continually. > "This is being able to talk with a cross-section of the entire > government bureaucracy and make sure we have a comprehensive energy > plan," said Constantine, also a primary sponsor of the bill. > > Although the bill places the issue about how Florida gets, produces > and uses energy into the hands of a 17-member Florida Energy > Commission, Tuesday's meeting focused on the power plant siting > issue. That is a delicate balancing act when it comes to local > governments but a key growth issue for the state's big utilities. > > For example, many of Florida's utilities, including Florida Power & > Light Co., have turned to natural gas, a clean-burning fossil fuel, > for new power plants because they are less costly and can be built > more quickly than coal and nuclear power plants. > > But as it's getting harder to get oil and natural gas, the price > has soared. Utilities are allowed to pass those costs onto consumers. > > For example, FPL's customers saw an average 19 percent increase in > their bills starting in January. What's more, FPL executives said > they were literally counting the barrels of oil at one point after > Hurricane Katrina damaged rigs off the Gulf Coast. > > In an earlier interview with The Palm Beach Post, FPL President > Armando Olivera said he didn't want to have to build another > natural gas plant. However, the utility is planning one for western > Palm Beach County just to keep pace with the state's growing energy > demand. > > FPL, which gets 38 percent of its power from natural gas, wanted to > build a clean-coal plant with souped-up technology in St. Lucie > County, but commissioners, backed by hundreds of residents who > didn't want anything to do with it, voted it down. > > "I am concerned that some of the actions of this bill's power plant > siting component move us in the wrong direction because these > changes make it fundamentally easier to build power plants," Susan > Glickman, Florida's policy director for the Natural Resources > Defense Council, told the Senate panel Tuesday. > > The bill also removes proposed nuclear power plants from the > process requiring utilities to see whether a less-expensive plant > can be built. > > Nuclear plants cost billions in up-front costs, making other types > of plants a better economic choice in the short term. > > "If you gravitate to the least-cost alternative, then where are you > going to end up? Likely, fossil fuels and natural gas," said Kevin > Bloom, a spokesman for the PSC. "Nuclear power is always trumped by > fossil fuel because it's the least-cost alternative." > > Although all those who addressed the Senate committee Tuesday had > concerns and suggestions, they also praised the bill for taking a > look at ways to reduce carbon emissions and promoting things such > as solar energy and other alternative fuels. > > "The intensity and frequency of hurricanes in this state and in the > world are because of the warming of our oceans," said Pam McVety, > an environmentalist who is retired from the state's Department of > Environmental Protection. > > "The bottom line is, it's all about energy," she added. "It's > energy practices that are causing these problems, and energy > practices that can solve these problems." > > The bill now heads to the Senate Committee on Environmental > Preservation. > > ### > > > Cheryl Ganter > Technology Services - Carolinas Metro > Progress Energy Service Co. > cheryl.ganter@pgnmail.com > > From wrenchwench at blast.com Wed Mar 29 20:01:16 2006 From: wrenchwench at blast.com (Rachel Burton) Date: Wed Mar 29 20:01:26 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] NC Biodiesel in Buses Initiative References: <20060329223812.97332.qmail@web38310.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0ED9B181-076A-4D19-83E7-AEA85CE2C0AE@blast.com> > > > Dear Friends, > > The NC Biodiesel in Buses Initiative is working to > convince our state legislators that all NC school > buses should run on B20, a 20% biodiesel/80%diesel > blend, by the year 2008. > > Running buses on B20 will be a big step in the right > direction for the future of school transportation. > Biodiesel is better for diesel engines than > petrodiesel. Biodiesel is a cleaner burning fuel than > petrodiesel. Biodiesel is non-toxic and biodegradable. > > Burning B20 will improve the air quality on school > buses, which is poor and causes children to suffer > many respiratory health problems. Best of all, > biodiesel is made right here in North Carolina. Having > > school buses burn B20 will keep NC tax dollars in > North Carolina! > > You can support this initiative by doing 1 or more of > 3 things below: > 1) Donate to the NC Biodiesel in Buses Initiative. > Proceeds are used to buy airtime for a public message > about the Initiative. > 2) Contact your NC legislators and convince them to > create and pass this legislation. > 3) Forward this message to your friends to help spread > > the word. > > Please visit http://www.biodieselinbuses.net for more > information on biodiesel and how you can help get NC > school buses running on B20 by 2008. > > Thanks for reading and happy motoring! > > -Hallie Sheaffer > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com From rickyb at rickyb.net Thu Mar 30 13:13:09 2006 From: rickyb at rickyb.net (rickyb@rickyb.net) Date: Thu Mar 30 17:44:32 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] Winston Salem Group Meeting Message-ID: <20060330181309.41D8A9E819@ws6-2.us4.outblaze.com> Anyone who might be interested? We have started a group in Winston Salem to create and use biodiesel. We are putting together our first reactor and have a good start so far. Here is an email we sent out this morning. We are slowly making progress. We would appreciate any and all support from this forum in spreading the word and any and we do mean any help getting started. We are starting out small... but thinking globally. thanks! and most egggggggggggggggggcellent! So here it is. We have dates through the end of the year and a place to meet. We will be meeting every fourth Thursday at the South Fork Recreation center at 7 pm. The address is: 4403 Country Club Rd. Winston Salem phone: 659-4305 We have a meeting room in the main building. The month of April we will meet there 7 pm the 27th. This first meeting we will meeting in the facility called "Our House" just because we are coming in at the last minute for booking. After this we will be in the main meeting room. So spread the word to anyone and everyone who might be interested. I will contact the Journal to see if we can get it put there. Also I will contact the biodiesel forum for Piedmont Biodiesel and make an announcement. We might draw some from there since they are state wide. I would like to plan a titration demonstration for that meeting and hopefully we will pics of the "reactor" then for everyone to see. Anything and I do mean anything anyone can think of for topics or show and tell let us know and we will give it a try. Mean time spread the word! We are on our way.! From pcantrell at gmail.com Thu Mar 30 20:39:42 2006 From: pcantrell at gmail.com (Paul S Cantrell) Date: Thu Mar 30 20:39:42 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] Fwd: Biopowered plants In-Reply-To: <511B97AB-937A-4305-B715-F3E99D9C0707@blast.com> References: <511B97AB-937A-4305-B715-F3E99D9C0707@blast.com> Message-ID: Let's pretend for a second that you could get biodiesel to the plant for $2 a gallon. 1 gallon of BD contains 130,000 Btu of energy versus natural gas that costs a utility such as FPL about $0.75 per therm or 100,000 BTU. 100,000 BTU of BD would be $1.53 or twice the cost. Coal is even cheaper than gas. Biogas or landfill gas or trashification plants would be economical and sustainable options, but biodiesel is best as a mobility fuel. On 3/29/06, Rachel Burton wrote: > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > From: "Ganter, Cheryl" > > Date: March 29, 2006 1:41:44 PM EST > > > > Why not use biodiesel? They can just as easily use biodiesel to run > > their generators as natural gas, oil or coal? > > What's wrong with these people?? -- Thanks, PC He's the kind of a guy who lights up a room just by flicking a switch You can't have everything. Where would you put it? - Steven Wright From marc at theforestfoundation.org Fri Mar 31 09:49:37 2006 From: marc at theforestfoundation.org (Marc Dreyfors-President) Date: Fri Mar 31 09:54:16 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] Fwd: Biopowered plants In-Reply-To: Message-ID: However, fuel oil grade biodiesel from trap grease may come in closer to $1 per gallon, though feedstock is finite. Plasma trash plants are still questionable as to emissions. Coal gasification with CO2 sequestration is likely the big player down the road. Point well taken. -----Original Message----- From: biofuels_interest_group-bounces@lists.emji.net [mailto:biofuels_interest_group-bounces@lists.emji.net]On Behalf Of Paul S Cantrell Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 8:40 PM To: Biofuels_Interest_Group@lists.emji.net Subject: Re: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] Fwd: Biopowered plants Let's pretend for a second that you could get biodiesel to the plant for $2 a gallon. 1 gallon of BD contains 130,000 Btu of energy versus natural gas that costs a utility such as FPL about $0.75 per therm or 100,000 BTU. 100,000 BTU of BD would be $1.53 or twice the cost. Coal is even cheaper than gas. Biogas or landfill gas or trashification plants would be economical and sustainable options, but biodiesel is best as a mobility fuel. On 3/29/06, Rachel Burton wrote: > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > From: "Ganter, Cheryl" > > Date: March 29, 2006 1:41:44 PM EST > > > > Why not use biodiesel? They can just as easily use biodiesel to run > > their generators as natural gas, oil or coal? > > What's wrong with these people?? -- Thanks, PC He's the kind of a guy who lights up a room just by flicking a switch You can't have everything. Where would you put it? - Steven Wright _______________________________________________ Biofuels_Interest_Group mailing list Biofuels_Interest_Group@lists.emji.net http://lists.emji.net/mailman/listinfo/biofuels_interest_group From wrenchwench at blast.com Fri Mar 31 09:37:13 2006 From: wrenchwench at blast.com (Rachel Burton) Date: Sat Apr 8 08:18:33 2006 Subject: [Biofuels_Interest_Group] 2nd Congressional District Bio-Fuels Summit Message-ID: <5137E149-97DE-4E32-8ECB-365019F7BEBB@blast.com> Hosted by Congressman Bob Etheridge April 12, 2006 9:00am-12:30pm Exploris Museum Raleigh, NC -------------- next part --------------