For all the biodiesel fans:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0705231841.htm

"Todd Rich" wrote in message
...
For all the biodiesel fans:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0705231841.htm

Don't give up hope yet

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0421233819.htm

Cool, I especially like the part about
UF Biotech Breakthrough Drives World's First Biomass-To-Ethanol Plant

"The new technology will allow ethanol to become economically
competitive with fossil fuels for the first time," he said. "Until
now, all the world's ethanol has been produced by yeast fermentation,
which converts sugars into ethanol, carbon dioxide and other
by-products."

Most of us biodiesel fans like the fuel for its ability to make use of
"waste bio materials" such as used vegetable oils, sugar cane
residues, rice hulls, forestry and wood wastes and other organic
materials.

"Todd Rich" wrote in message
...
| For all the biodiesel fans:
|
| http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0705231841.htm

This is also great news:
Biodiesel Production Gets Simplified With New Method
The researchers are refining their economic model to account for
income from the sale of the lipid-free, protein-rich flakes left over
from the biodiesel reaction for use as animal feeds, and to account
for differences in the cost of the refined oil and flaked soybean
feedstocks.

Thanks for the good link.

"Todd Rich" wrote in message
...
| For all the biodiesel fans:
|
| http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0705231841.htm

"Sven" wrote in message
...

"Todd Rich" wrote in message
...
For all the biodiesel fans:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0705231841.htm

Don't give up hope yet

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0421233819.htm


Try reading the publication dates (they're even a part of the URLs posted
above).

Todd's reference supercedes Sven's by 3 months.

Unfortunately for biofuel fans there's no Perpetual Motion Machine here,
either.

The scheme *might* have a chance IFF [If and only if] no fertilizers, no
pesticides, and no motorized vehicles were to be used in the process of
growing the plants, harvesting, and transporting the components.

IOW, those dedicated to living "off the web" in the remotest areas who have
returned to animal power might be able to benefit but not on a commercial
scale.

Todd Rich writes:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0705231841.htm

"There is just no energy benefit to using plant biomass for
liquid fuel," says David Pimentel, professor of ecology and
agriculture at Cornell. "These strategies are not sustainable."

He's looking at the wrong plants-- try algae [large file]:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/biomass/p...from_algae.pdf

Some kinds of algae make 100 times as much oil as soybeans.
Soybean-based biodiesel is popular in the US because the soybean
farmers are subsidised.

Diesels can also burn straight vegetable oil, which saves a lot
of processing. It has to be heated, but that's no big deal.

I'm not sure what this has to do with metalworking...

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 09:39:56 -0500, "Sven" wrote:


"Todd Rich" wrote in message
...
For all the biodiesel fans:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0705231841.htm

Don't give up hope yet

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0421233819.htm

check out www.biodieselnow.com for thorough refutation of this study.
Of course, you can believe they are biased and wrong, but don't take
this one study as gospel (assuming you can actually find the full
study to read).

k

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 11:31:41 -0400, "Mungo Bulge"
wrote:

Cool, I especially like the part about
UF Biotech Breakthrough Drives World's First Biomass-To-Ethanol Plant

"The new technology will allow ethanol to become economically
competitive with fossil fuels for the first time," he said. "Until
now, all the world's ethanol has been produced by yeast fermentation,
which converts sugars into ethanol, carbon dioxide and other
by-products."

Most of us biodiesel fans like the fuel for its ability to make use of
"waste bio materials" such as used vegetable oils, sugar cane
residues, rice hulls, forestry and wood wastes and other organic
materials.

I dunno, seems to me an awful lot of BD users are in it for the
political statement: use local fuel instead of importing, use
clean-burning fuel instead of garbage petrol, produce fuel locally
instead of trucking it all over the planet, and help farmers instead
of CEO's and emirs.

but I also believe the stock could be grown more effectively by
organic methods (thus no petrochemical fertilizers), using equipment
fueled by the fruits of their own labor (i.e., biodiesel). Maybe I'm
just a crackpot lefty with no sense of reality.

k

"RAM^3" wrote in message
...
"Sven" wrote in message
...

"Todd Rich" wrote in message
...
For all the biodiesel fans:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0705231841.htm

Don't give up hope yet

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0421233819.htm


Try reading the publication dates (they're even a part of the URLs posted
above).

Todd's reference supercedes Sven's by 3 months.

Unfortunately for biofuel fans there's no Perpetual Motion Machine here,
either.

The scheme *might* have a chance IFF [If and only if] no fertilizers, no
pesticides, and no motorized vehicles were to be used in the process of
growing the plants, harvesting, and transporting the components.

IOW, those dedicated to living "off the web" in the remotest areas who
have returned to animal power might be able to benefit but not on a
commercial scale.

I believe liquid fuel from plants should be profitable with the right
technology and I would hate to see it written off just yet. There are far
too many things that were deemed impossible or improbable only to find out
otherwise, to point at something and say no way! We must keep the course we
are on.

"Steve Peterson" 123@nospam wrote in
:

I believe liquid fuel from plants should be profitable with the right
technology and I would hate to see it written off just yet. There are
far too many things that were deemed impossible or improbable only to
find out otherwise, to point at something and say no way! We must keep
the course we are on.



A Perpetual Motion Machine would be nice, too!

After all, that's what this dream is: another variant on the Perpetual
Motion Machine.

The goal of the elimination of petroleum-based fuels IS doable BUT not by
this approach.

The key ingredient is the utilization of electricity produced by Nuclear
Reactors to power the equipment needed to produce the Hydrogen and Oxygen
needed to power the Fuel Cells that, eventually, will supply the motive
power for the Electric Cars of the future.

Until the Anti-Nuclear idiots are told to "Go Home And Be Silent" this will
never come to pass.

FWIW, it may amuse you to know that the Aussies had taxicabs running on
Charcoal during WW2.

"RAM^3" wrote in message
3...
| "Steve Peterson" 123@nospam wrote in
| :
--- snip ---
| A Perpetual Motion Machine would be nice, too!
|
| After all, that's what this dream is: another variant on the
Perpetual
| Motion Machine.
|
| The goal of the elimination of petroleum-based fuels IS doable BUT
not by
| this approach.
|
| The key ingredient is the utilization of electricity produced by
Nuclear
| Reactors to power the equipment needed to produce the Hydrogen and
Oxygen
| needed to power the Fuel Cells that, eventually, will supply the
motive
| power for the Electric Cars of the future.
|
| Until the Anti-Nuclear idiots are told to "Go Home And Be Silent"
this will
| never come to pass.
|
| FWIW, it may amuse you to know that the Aussies had taxicabs running
on
| Charcoal during WW2.


Why go to all that trouble. What's wrong with a small personal Nuclear
Power Pack. That way we are self sufficient. We power anything we
need. We would be responsible for our own power.

Cool!

"Mungo Bulge" wrote in news:9MydnWYvyJgKFUHfRVn-
:


"RAM^3" wrote in message
3...
| "Steve Peterson" 123@nospam wrote in
| :
--- snip ---
| A Perpetual Motion Machine would be nice, too!
|
| After all, that's what this dream is: another variant on the
Perpetual
| Motion Machine.
|
| The goal of the elimination of petroleum-based fuels IS doable BUT
not by
| this approach.
|
| The key ingredient is the utilization of electricity produced by
Nuclear
| Reactors to power the equipment needed to produce the Hydrogen and
Oxygen
| needed to power the Fuel Cells that, eventually, will supply the
motive
| power for the Electric Cars of the future.
|
| Until the Anti-Nuclear idiots are told to "Go Home And Be Silent"
this will
| never come to pass.
|
| FWIW, it may amuse you to know that the Aussies had taxicabs running
on
| Charcoal during WW2.


Why go to all that trouble. What's wrong with a small personal Nuclear
Power Pack. That way we are self sufficient. We power anything we
need. We would be responsible for our own power.

Cool!




HydrOx can be used to power aircraft but fuel cells can't.

"Treedweller" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 09:39:56 -0500, "Sven" wrote:


"Todd Rich" wrote in message
...
For all the biodiesel fans:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0705231841.htm

Don't give up hope yet

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0421233819.htm

check out www.biodieselnow.com for thorough refutation of this study.
Of course, you can believe they are biased and wrong, but don't take
this one study as gospel (assuming you can actually find the full
study to read).

k


After looking at the forum all I see is folks saying He is evil and
wrong, NO REAL refuting of numbers using facts just bashing him because
they don't like him.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Todd Rich wrote:
For all the biodiesel fans:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0705231841.htm

The one I liked (Discovery Channel) was wind powered electricity to
produce the H2 (electrolysis) to power small around town fuel cell
powered cars.

Ted

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 12:56:12 -0400, "Steve W."
wrote:


After looking at the forum all I see is folks saying He is evil and
wrong, NO REAL refuting of numbers using facts just bashing him because
they don't like him.

perhaps you should look deeper--some of those guys are REALLY into
this and seem to know their stuff. I am certainly not an expert in BD
or chemistry, but I like being able to fuel up with soybeans
regardless.

k

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 12:56:12 -0400, "Steve W."
wrote:

After looking at the forum all I see is folks saying He is evil and
wrong, NO REAL refuting of numbers using facts just bashing him because
they don't like him.

Hmm, I looked back and you are right, there is no real refutation
using numbers. Instead, they point out the flaws in methodology,
including:
*treating soy meal byproduct as waste
*assuming forests are clearcut to create new crop land to grow soy
*factoring the cost of food to feed farm workers (won't they be eating
anyway?)

These are big omissions, and don't even address the idea that ANY
bio-oil can be used, including waste oil, lard, palm, peanut,
canole/rapeseede (comon in Europe), algae (as had been mentioned
already in another post) . . . well, you get the idea.

Again, I'm no expert, but I see this as a major benefit. And, maybe
it was someone else who compared BD to perpetual motion, but whoever
it was overlooked that the energy is not pulled out of the air--no,
wait, it IS pulled out of the air, as it streams down from the sun.
Hard to figure how that is a cost to people or the planet.

k

ps, if you read in the thread "Cornell Study Bad for Biodiesel?" you
can find two different posts where user turbobiodiesel offers to send
the complete study to anyone interested. Maybe you should go straight
to the source and see for yourself.