This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - AGelbert
Pages: 1 ... 425 426  428
« on: October 11, 2013, 06:25:14 pm »
Absolutely! Post anything you want that you find here with or without attribution.
The more people know about the bad stuff that has happened and the good stuff that can and is happening, the better.
« on: October 11, 2013, 06:19:14 pm »
Wisegeek seems to have dropped the ball on the bee response time.
Thanks for the info on frame rates in movies. I remembered dimly it had something to do with how many 'frames' human eyes see per second but I'm certain projector speed and film manufacturing technology limitations affected the final decision on movie frame rates.
I'm going to look into human visual acuity to get the scoop on how well we see.
« on: October 11, 2013, 05:51:38 pm »
75M-Liter Cellulosic Ethanol Plant Opens in Italy
Clean Edge News
Beta Renewables, a global leader in cellulosic biofuels and part of the Mossi Ghisolfi Group, and Novozymes, the world’s largest producer of industrial enzymes, today marked the official opening in Northern Italy of the world’s largest advanced biofuels facility. Situated in fields outside the city of Crescentino, it is the first plant in the world to be designed and built to produce bioethanol from agricultural residues and energy crops at commercial scale using enzymatic conversion.
“The advanced biofuels market presents transformational economic, environmental and social opportunities, and with the opening, we pave the way for a green revolution in the chemical sector,” says Beta Renewables’ Chairman and CEO, Guido Ghisolfi. “We will continue to commercially expand Beta Renewables’ core technology throughout the world, and we are very confident at this stage given the demand we see around the globe.”
“The opening today presents a leap forward and is truly the beginning of a new era for advanced biofuels,” says Peder Holk Nielsen, CEO of Novozymes. “Here, at this plant, enabled by Novozymes’ enzymatic technology, we will turn agricultural waste into millions of liters of low-emission green fuel, proving that cellulosic ethanol is no longer a distant dream. It is here, it is happening, and it is ready for large-scale commercialization.”
The two companies formed a strategic partnership in October 2012, making Novozymes the preferred enzyme supplier for Beta Renewables’ current and future cellulosic biofuel projects.The plant uses wheat straw, rice straw and arundo donax, a high-yielding energy crop grown on marginal land. Lignin, a polymer extracted from biomass during the ethanol production process, is used at an attached power plant, which generates enough power to meet the facility’s energy needs, with any excess green electricity sold to the local grid.
At the inauguration, Guido Ghisolfi and Peder Holk Nielsen were joined on the ground for the celebrations by Italy’s Minister for Economic Development, Flavio Zanonato, and representatives from the European Commission, as well as more than 500 global stakeholders.
Stable policy conditions required
With the technology ready at commercial scale, it will be vital to create stable and conducive policy conditions worldwide, to harvest better the vast opportunities in cellulosic ethanol and advanced biofuels.
“Policy makers now need to send clear signals to encourage the necessary investments in advanced biofuels,” says Peder Holk Nielsen. “Stable and predictable blending mandates, incentives for the collection of agricultural residues, and investment support for the first large-scale plants will help move the world substantially in terms of reducing greenhouse gasses, stimulating economies, and providing energy security. Continued reliance on fossil fuels is not viable.” A recent study by Bloomberg New Energy Finance concludes that transforming agricultural residues into advanced biofuels could create millions of jobs worldwide, economic growth, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and energy security by 2030. Government support is, however, vital to accelerate the deployment of next-generation biorefineries.
Cost-competitive technology ready
Beta Renewables’ PROESA™ engineering and production technology alongside Novozymes’ Cellic® enzymes represent the most cost-competitive advanced biofuels platform in existence today. More than $200 million has been invested in research and development of the technology used to produce cellulosic ethanol at the Crescentino facility, since 2011.
“Investors interested in cellulosic ethanol often ask when the technology will be ready at commercial scale,” says Guido Ghisolfi. “PROESA enables customers to produce advanced biofuel at a cost-competitive price relative to conventional biofuels – at large-scale and today. Our complete offering makes cellulosic biofuel projects bankable and replicable.
With the world’s first commercial plant up and running here in northern Italy, I very much look forward to an exciting journey of establishing an entirely new, and very promising, industry.” http://www.cleanedge.com/Resources/news/75M-Liter-Cellulosic-Ethanol-Plant-Opens-in-Italy
« on: October 11, 2013, 01:23:19 am »
A New York Times article dated Nov. 22, 1936, quotes from a lecture titled “Discoveries and Inventions” Lincoln gave in 1860, before he became president. Here’s the relevant part:
“Of all the forces of nature, I should think the wind contains the largest amount of motive power … Take any given space of the earth’s surface, for instance, Illinois, and all the power exerted by all the men, beasts, running water and steam over and upon it shall not equal the 100th part of what is exerted by the blowing of the wind over and upon the same place.
And yet it has not, so far in the world’s history, become properly valued as motive power. It is applied extensively and advantageously to sail vessels in navigation. Add to this a few windmills and pumps and you have about all. As yet the wind is an untamed, unharnessed force, and quite possibly one of the greatest discoveries hereafter to be made will be the taming and harnessing of it.”
« on: October 10, 2013, 11:01:09 pm »
Future Transport Solutions Will Require More Than Electric Cars
University of Vermont assistant professor Richard Watts believes policies need to be implemented that dis-incentivize car use and encourage other forms of mobility: walking, biking, public transit, car-pooling.
It certainly is fun to slip behind the wheel of an electric car. But if we aim to build a truly more sustainable transportation system, one that reduces greenhouse gas emissions AND addresses other social, physical and environmental impacts, we have to get out of our cars and use other forms of transportation.
Electric cars should be part of the solution — but the focus should be first on reducing use, providing real alternatives to the car, building communities that enable walking and biking, and living in ways that reduce our auto-dependence.
Borrowing the electricity heuristic of “negawatts” from Amory Lovins: The cleanest, greenest, cheapest mile is the “nega-mile,” the mile not driven in a car.
Yes, electric cars are cool. I’ve spent hundreds of hours behind the wheel of these peppy, quiet vehicles as the former director of an electric car research and demonstration project in Vermont.
And the promise of solving our transportation challenges — one-third of greenhouse gas emissions, for example — by simply switching fuels is alluring. President Obama has called for 1 million electric cars by 2015.
State policymakers also have embraced the idea. Vermont’s Comprehensive Energy Plan calls for 90 percent renewable energy by 2050
, in all sectors, identifying electric cars as a core strategy: “The state considers that the conversion of Vermont’s vehicle fleet to plug-in electric vehicles, including hybrids, is the best long-term path to reduce transportation fuel consumption by light-duty vehicles” (CEP, Volume 2, page 259).
Switching fuels in our cars allows life to go on as-is, and potentially “plug in” to cleaner energy. Anything else would be a major disruption.
For example more than three-quarters of us drive alone to work every day. Of the billions of trips made every day, more than eight out of 10 of them are in a motor vehicle, according to the Federal Highway Administration.
(See the administration’s 2009 National Household Travel Survey at http://bit.ly/NHTS2009
for a data-driven look at our automobile addiction.)
Technology solutions are easier for policymakers, because they don’t require behavior change. But switching fuels does not address other issues associated with driving, such as the impacts on human health, land use and the social fabric of our communities.
For example, sociologist Robert Putnam found that every additional 10 minutes spent driving cuts community involvement by 10 percent: “The car and the commute ... are bad for community life”
(“Bowling Alone,” page 213).
And what about the almost 10 percent of households that don’t own vehicles? Or the elderly who outlive their ability to drive a car? And young people, without access to activities without a car? Do we really want to endorse a car-centered world?This is the problem with switching vehicle fuels as a central transportation strategy. You can’t endorse and fund an auto-centered system and also expect other modes — walking, biking, public transit, car-pooling — to thrive.
In Vermont, for example, we spent less than 8 percent of the total transportation budget (about $450 million in 2010) on providing alternatives to personal vehicle travel (UVM Transportation Research Center Energy Report, page 16: Table 5-2).Imagine for a minute if we spent $400 million on providing real alternatives to automobiles? If we gave people real choices? Safe sidewalks, more frequent bus service, roads that were safe for bikers?
Instead of automobiles (whatever they run on), we should put “nega-miles” at the center of our sustainable transportation planning.
And here is the hopeful news. Even in a place like Vermont, according to an analysis by the TRC, 39 percent of all trips were less than two miles, and one-quarter were less than a mile
(TRC Energy Report, page 11).Some higher percent of those trips could be/should be captured by other modes.
But it will take policies that dis-incentivize car use and focus on behavior — charging the real cost for parking, for example — that will challenge the existing system.http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=31446
« on: October 10, 2013, 10:36:24 pm »
A High-Renewables Tomorrow, Today: Güssing, Austria
Writer / Editor
Bringing Economic Growth to a Dying Town
A small town in Austria that had no significant industry or trade business is now thriving thanks to local renewable resources.
Güssing (population: 4,000) sits in eastern Austria. In 1988 the region (population: 27,000) was one of the poorest districts in the country. It relied on agriculture, there was no transportation infrastructure, unemployment was high, and 70 percent of those who did have work were commuting to Vienna, 100 miles away. The town, where two-thirds of the working population was out of work and young people were moving away, was referred to as a dying town. Due to a lack of connections to the railway network and to the Austrian Autobahn (freeway) system, energy costs were extremely high. At the time the town of Güssing was said to be hardly able to afford its $8.1 million annual fossil fuel bill.
Several of the town leaders realized that $8 million dollars going to pay for fuel oil (mostly for heating) and other fossil fuels (such as coal for electricity) from outside the region could stay in the local economy if they could produce their own energy. However, they realized if they wanted to be energy self sufficient the first step was reducing energy use. In 1990, the town implemented an energy efficiency program, retrofitting all public buildings with new insulation and replacing all streetlights with energy-efficient bulbs, reducing energy expenditure in buildings in the town center by almost 50 percent.
With greatly improved efficiency, the town then adopted a policy calling for the complete elimination of the use of fossil fuels in all public buildings, in an attempt to keep more money in the local economy.
Heating with Local Resources
There is not a lot of wind in Güssing, but biomass is abundant—the town is surrounded by 133 hectares (328 acres) of forest. Some local residents, realizing that wood in the forest was decomposing and not being used, started to run a district heating station for six homes. With the success of that project, more small district heating systems were built. The mayor, who was looking for a way to revitalize the town, took notice. In 1996, the heating system was expanded to the whole town and was also generating electricity, all from renewable raw materials gathered from within a five-kilometer radius through sustainable forestry practices.
Then, in 2001, with the help of the federal government, Güssing installed a biomass gasification plant, that runs off of wood chips from wood thinned from the forest and waste wood from a wooden flooring company. This was the first utility-scale power plant of its kind in the world. The plant uses steam to separate carbon and hydrogen, then recombines the molecules to make a form of natural gas which fuels the city’s power plant. It produces on average 2 megawatts of electricity and 4.5 megawatts of heat, more than enough energy for the town’s needs, while only consuming one-third of the biomass that grows every year. The town also has a plant that converts rapeseed to biodiesel, which is carried by all the fueling stations in the district.
Becoming a Model Community
In 2007 the New York Times reported Güssing was the first community in the European Union to cut carbon emissions by more than 90 percent, helping it attract a steady stream of scientists, politicians, and eco-tourists. One year later, Güssing built a research institute focusing on thermal and biological gasification and production of second-generation fuels. That same year a solar manufacturer started producing PV modules in Güssing, producing 850 megawatts of modules a year and employing 140 people. Several other photovoltaic and solar thermal companies have relocated to Güssing, installing new demonstration facilities in the district.
The little town has become a net energy producer—generating more energy from renewables than it uses. Altogether, there are more than 30 power plants using renewable energy technologies within 10 kilometers of the village. Now the goal is to take the lessons from the small town of Güssing and make the entire 27,000-person district an energy-self-sufficient net producer.
Currently around 400 people come to Güssing each week to visit the numerous demonstration plants. Even Austria’s favorite celebrity, former California governor, and renewable energy advocate Arnold Schwarzenegger visited Güssing in 2012. “Güssing has become a green island,” he said when he spoke at the Güssing renewable energy demonstration plant. “You have built your own district heating [system]. You are generating your own electricity. You are operating a biomass power plant, produce synthetic natural gas from wood and develop new fuels at the research lab. I have seen all of this with my own eyes. Everyone should follow your example. The whole world should become Güssing.”
The town now has 60 new companies, 1,500 new jobs, and annual revenues of $17 million due to energy sales, all resulting from the growth of the renewable energy sector. The downtown has been rebuilt and young people picture themselves staying there in the future. And other areas are following Gussing’s lead. More than 15 regions in Austria are now energy independent with regard to electricity, heating, and/or transportation. The town of Güssing has shown that not only is a high-renewables future possible, but also economically advantageous. Schwarzenegger must agree, because when he left he said, “I’ll be back.”http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2013_10_08_high-renewables_tomorrow_today_gussing_austria
« on: October 10, 2013, 10:26:04 pm »
The Micro(grid) Solution to the Macro Challenge of Climate Change
The Microgrid Solution
Not that long ago, I wrote a piece describing how a microgrid could help you survive a zombie apocalypse; the reality is microgrids can help us both prepare for and prevent the much more realistic threat of climate change. Combatting climate change necessarily involves a critical shift away from fossil fuels and towards clean energy, efficiency, and renewable energy.
Such energy resources are inherently distributed and resilient, which makes them naturally compatible with—and their benefits maximized by—microgrids. Thus with efficiency and renewables as part of a microgrid electricity architecture, you don’t have to choose between mitigation and adaptation. You can have both. You can have your cake and eat it, too.
San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) has partnered with the Department of Energy (DOE) and the California Energy Commission (CEC) to build the Borrego Springs Microgrid. This vulnerable portion of SDG&E territory lies in the remote northeast corner of their service territory, at the end of a single transmission line, in an area prone to wildfires.
In order to provide better service to this territory while also protecting the greater SDG&E grid, the utility has assembled a microgrid that incorporates distributed solar PV, distributed energy storage, community and utility-scale energy storage, smart controls, an advanced Outage Management System (OMS), and microgrid capabilities. In the event that SDG&E needs to isolate Borrego Springs due to a wildfire or other system threat, the community has a diverse mix of energy assets, which give it the ability to stand on its own.
It is, in many ways, a textbook deployment of a microgrid—integrated with the macro-grid normally, able to self-sufficiently island when necessary, powered by portfolio of distributed and largely renewable energy resources.http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2013_10_02_microgrid_solution_to_macro_challenge_of_climate_change
« on: October 10, 2013, 09:13:03 pm »
What is a fossil fuel subsidy?A fossil fuel subsidy is any government action that lowers the cost of fossil fuel energy production, raises the price received by energy producers or lowers the price paid by energy consumers. There are a lot of activities under this simple definition—tax breaks and giveaways, but also loans at favorable rates, price controls, purchase requirements and a whole lot of other things.
Are you looking for information about International Fossil Fuel Subsidies? Then go here.
Want to take action to end fossil fuel subsidies? Sign this petition.
How much money does the U.S. government give oil, gas and coal companies?In the United States, credible estimates of annual fossil fuel subsidies range from $14 billion to $52 billion annually, while even efforts to remove small portions of those subsidies have been defeated in Congress, as shown in the graphic belowhttp://priceofoil.org/content/uploads/2012/05/FIN.USCapitolSubsidyGraphicFlyer.pdfhttp://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/
« on: October 10, 2013, 08:53:49 pm »
For two stroke engines, placing a small round piece of metal in the cylinder head raises the compression ratio so they can run efficiently. You do NOT have to do this. It is simply done to get more engine efficiency per amount of ethanol gallon. Alcohol does not damage two stroke engines at all. The only problem is that, when it is cold, they are a bit harder to start. That's just an engineering issue that can be gotten around. More on ethanol and the ICE below.
Surly said, "WHAT do YOU make of it? I would trust your judgement as the most informed mind I know on these matters.".
I hope the last comment I made cleared some of the doubts from your mind about ethanol. I feel duckweed ethanol is far more cost effective than corn but nevertheless, even corn has always been a better deal than gasoline when the environmental costs are added. Sugar cane ethanol is 8 times more cost efficient than corn. That's why Brazil is doing so well with it.
As you know from my writings, ethanol is the historical enemy number one of Big Oil. Rockefeller managed to put the kibosh on it with Prohibition but ethanol is back with a vengeance now.
Another irony of all this disinformation from the fossil fuelers is that everything they say about increased engine and fuel tank corrosion, inefficiency and wear actually applies to GASOLINE! It's absolutely Orwellian in its mind boggling duplicity. Gasoline isn't called by one chemical name because it is a witches brew of VOCs (volatile organic compounds some of which are carcinogenic) and asphaltenes (heavier hydrocarbons with sulphur and heavy metal contaminants). Gasoline is a refinery WASTE product. It's a catch all at the tail end of the process. There is NO WAY all these hydrocarbons with different kindling temperatures and energies of activation for combustion are going to burn evenly in an engine. Aircraft ICE manufacturers have always been aware of this fact. That is why aircraft ICEs have TWO spark plugs in each cylinder (to make sure the burn is thorough and as even as possible to avoid loss of power, engine failure or temporary outage). When all these hydrocarbons combust, a tremendous amount of waste heat goes to making carbon bucky balls called soot (this is lost energy and you get no mechanical energy from it - it increases cylinder wear through abrasion and makes your engine hot as hell so they have to design adequate cooling systems - even so, the high thermal stresses increase engine wear).
With ethanol, you can touch the engine manifold with your hand or the muffler on a your car or motorcycle without getting burned (Consider what that means to an engineer designing the cooling system for an ethanol burning engine!). Ethanol burns evenly because it is just ONE chemical compound, not a host of them. It also produces no soot
. Consequently, there is very little heat waste. The engine runs more efficiently and, every bit as important, cooler. From an engineering standpoint, the alloys used in an ICE are over engineered if you burn ethanol instead of gasoline because the engine will never suffer the same thermal stress. This means less wear and more longevity for all moving parts. If an engine is designed for ethanol, it can be lighter and cheaper to make because the alloys do not have to deal with such high temperatures.
If you haven't read my two part behemoth on duckweed and ethanol, I recommend you wade through it at your leisure. We have been conned big time. http://thehalloffame.wikidot.com/agelbert
The bullshit about crops being used for ethanol taking away from food crops is disinformation. Less than 3% of the corn grown in the US is for human food. True, a lot of it is for animal feed so you might say that is indirectly for human use and making ethanol takes some food off the table but it would be a LIE. Why? Because the amount of corn grown for ethanol is still peanuts compared with corn for animal feed and high fructose corn syrup. And no, that corn syrup is NOT going to make ethanol; it's going to **** up the diet of Americans. So ignore the disinformation crocodile tears of the fossil fuel industry about biofuels being a danger to the world food supply.
In 2005, the U.S. produced 42 percent of the world’s corn. Over 50 percent of the U.S. crop is produced in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska or Illinois. Other states in which corn is grown include Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, South Dakota, Wisconsin and Missouri. In 2005, over 58 percent of the U.S. corn crop was used for feed. The remaining U.S. crop was split between exports (25 percent) and food, seed or industrial uses such as ethanol production (17 percent).http://www.soyatech.com/corn_facts.htm
Other major corn producing countries include China, Brazil, Mexico and the 25 countries that make up the European Union.
Over 50% of our corn is grown in
) about THREE STATES and fossil fuelers are wailing and moaning about taking food out of the human population's mouths??? Can you say DISINGENUOUS?
In the videos in the duckweed article, permaculturist David Blume, in the ethanol business since the 1980s, tells the real story of how big oil has manipulated the message.
In his web site he busts several negative myths about ethanol. Here's one:Myth #2: There Isn’t Enough Land to Grow Crops for Both Food and Fuel!
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. has 434,164,946 acres of “cropland”—land that is able to be worked in an industrial fashion (monoculture).
This is the prime, level, and generally deep agricultural soil. In addition to cropland, the U.S. has 939,279,056 acres of “farmland.”
This land is also good for agriculture, but it’s not as level and the soil not as deep.
Additionally, there is a vast amount of acreage—swamps, arid or sloped land, even rivers, oceans, and ponds—that the USDA doesn’t count as cropland or farmland, but which is still suitable for growing specialized energy crops.Of its nearly half a billion acres of prime cropland, the U.S. uses only 72.1 million acres for corn in an average year. The land used for corn takes up only 16.6% of our prime cropland, and only 7.45% of our total agricultural land.Even if, for alcohol production, we used only what the USDA considers prime flat cropland, we would still have to produce only 368.5 gallons of alcohol per acre to meet 100% of the demand for transportation fuel at today’s levels. Corn could easily produce this level—and a wide variety of standard crops yield up to triple this. Plus, of course, the potential alcohol production from cellulose could dwarf all other crops.http://www.permaculture.com/node/490
« on: October 10, 2013, 07:46:19 pm »
Op-Ed: Big Oil Tells More Lies About Ethanol, Only Idiots Believe Them
In a move that should surprise no-one, the whining cry-baby rich-boys at Big Oil are butt-hurt over the latest federal court ruling that upholds the EPA’s E15 mandate. In a legal brief filed with the US Supreme Court, the American Petroleum Institute – a powerful, well-funded lobbyist group that represents more than 500 oil and natural gas companies – insisted that transportation fuels containing 15 percent ethanol (E15) could damage cars and trucks.
Should we believe them?
Obviously, the answer is a resounding “Haha! F**k no
we should not!”Let’s get one thing clear: the oil industry does not give one fat rat’s ass about the health, safety, future, or security of you, me, or anyone else.
The horrible people involved in the oil industry have proven, again and again – from Washington DC to Canada to Saudi Arabia to the Mississippi Gulf – that lining their own pockets with cash is more important to them than the your continued health or your children’s clean drinking water. Still, that hasn’t stopped them from faking a concern for your safety.http://gas2.org/2013/06/11/op-ed-big-oil-tells-more-lies-about-ethanol-only-idiots-believe-them/Here's a small anecdote from my days as an air taxi pilot to help you understand how water contamination and consequent damage to your engine is far more likely with gasoline than ethanol.
I flew light twin aircraft for a number of years. Unfortunately, to this day the gasoline on ICE powered aircraft is the really bad stuff with tetra-ethyl lead (and you thought it was banned from use, didn't you?). Of course they could run these aircraft engines on ethanol but apparently big oil is exerting influence there too. Remember that if you are on an approach path to a busy general aviation airport, you are getting showered with lead poisons. It's legal.http://www.onearth.org/articles/2013/08/aiplanes-flying-on-leaded-gasoline-are-still-poisoning-us?iref=obinsiteBut getting back to my flying experience and water contamination causing corrosion or faulty engine performance, let me explain what big oil doesn't want to explain to you
As a pilot you are concerned with water in your fuel. All pilots are trained to fill the tanks on their aircraft when they finish flying that day. Why? Because any air in those tanks contains a certain amount of water vapor. When the aircraft tank cools at night, water vapor inside a half filled tank will condense into the gasoline.
Gasoline and water do not mix. Water is heavier and always sinks to the lowest part of the tank which just happens to be where the fuel line to the engine is located. As an air taxi pilot, you don't own the aircraft and cannot tell if the tanks were topped off the day before until you check. If you are making the first flight on an aircraft on a given day and you find partially filled fuel tanks, that's a danger sign.
I would carry a fuel contamination tester (see above) for each preflight. The aircraft fuel tanks have sump drains that are just a hair lower than the fuel line location. You open the sump and take a sample. If you don't see water in the bottom, you are good to go. If you do find water, you keep draining the sump until there is no evidence of water.
As a flight instructor, I would put some spit in the gasoline to show my students how easy it is to tell if you have water contamination. The spit will turn into a shiny bead and sink to the bottom of the sample. In other words, if you run gasoline in your tank and don't fill it up each night (nobody that owns an ICE car does, do they?), you have water in your fuel guaranteed!
The irony of this fossil fuel founded disinformation about ethanol is that ethanol
, unlike gasoline, DOES mix quite well with water!
It does NOT separate out. How many times have you seen water in your whisky bottle?
You aren't drinking anhydrous 200 proof are you? Of course not! Humans can't handle those levels. You probably have between 80 and 130 proof hard liquor ethanol and the rest is WATER (80 proof = 40% ethanol and 60% water).
So boys and girls, if you have ethanol in your fuel tank, you have LESS chance of water corrosion than with gasoline in an inverse proportion to the ethanol percentage. The greater percentage of ethanol in your fuel, the less chance of corrosion in your tank.
Because your tank was designed for gasoline, you are ALREADY home free for ethanol. IOW, a tank for ethanol does NOT require the same level of corrosion resistance as a tank designed for gasoline.
Why? Because water condensation from cooled air inside your fuel tank will mix freely with the alcohol molecules in a state of equilibrium and will NOT sink to the bottom.
However, if gasoline is what is in your tank, condensed water will sink right to the bottom of your tank and be positioned for hours to DAYS on that bottom ready to aid corrosion when it encounters a bit of oxygen from the air swishing around your tank. You can put that in the next fossil fueler's pipe and make them smoke it the next time you hear some lies about ethanol caused water corrosion.
« on: October 10, 2013, 07:12:48 pm »
Not So Fast, Big Oil: the AAA is NOT Against Ethanol or E15
In an official statement released this past week, the AAA spoke out against the American Petroleum Institute (API) ads
, stating that “this commercial is the latest in a series of communications on social media and elsewhere which portray AAA as being ‘anti-ethanol’. This is not the case … AAA remains a strong supporter of the development and use of alternative fuels such as ethanol. The auto club believes ethanol fuels provide motorists with a choice at the pump that promotes U.S. energy independence, supports American and South Dakotan jobs, and can save the consumer money.”The AAA is specifically mentioning ads and rhetoric
that are part of the API’s latest campaign to reduce the role of ethanol as an available alternative fuel, and is calling for API to have ads and articles mentioning the AAA in an anti-ethanol context taken down immediately.http://gas2.org/2013/07/23/not-so-fast-big-oil-the-aaa-is-not-against-ethanol-or-e15/
« on: October 10, 2013, 07:04:37 pm »
Bipartisan Committee to Investigate Big Oil for Anti-ethanol Practices
In addition to lobbying against ethanol blends and blatant, GOP-sponsored lies about ethanol production raising global food costs, the NCGA says that gas station owners’ franchise agreements have been changed in order to force gas stations to remove E85 and E15.
In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez, Klobuchar and Grassley wrote “We have heard allegations that the oil industry is mandating retailers to carry and sell premium (grades of) gasoline, thereby blocking the use of the current retail infrastructure to sell renewable fuels.
Station owners who wish to sell renewable fuel would bear the cost and logistical burden of having to install additional infrastructure to do so.”
Every once in a while, these politicians get something right!http://gas2.org/2013/08/27/bipartisan-committee-to-investigate-big-oil-for-anti-ethanol-practices/
« on: October 10, 2013, 07:00:49 pm »
Renewable Fuels Standard Saves You $0.50 – 1.50 per Gallon
According to a new analysis by renowned energy economist Philip K. Verleger – who has served as an energy advisor to both Republican and Democratic Presidents – American consumers are saving between $0.50 and $1.50 per gallon on gasoline as a direct result of increased ethanol production under the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS).
“The implication for world consumers is clear,” says Verleger. “The (Renewable Fuels Standard) has cut annual consumer expenditures in 2013 between $700 billion and $2.6 trillion. This translates to consumers paying between $0.50 and $1.50 per gallon less for gasoline.”
The reasons for the savings involve the lower cost of domestic ethanol compared to gasoline, as well as the effect of increased ethanol use driving down overall demand for petroleum-based fuels. The Renewable Fuels Association (who, admittedly, are probably less objective than Mr. Verleger) claim, on their website, that “crude oil prices would be between $15 – 40 per barrel higher today without the substantial volumes of ethanol that have been added to petroleum inventories since enactment of the RFS.”
Verleger’s report is just one of the many pieces of evidence that, despite big oil’s unethical anti-ethanol business practices and price-gouging, the Renewable Fuels Standard is working to improve America’s overall health, add new jobs in a tough economy, reduce food costs, and all with AAA support. At least, that’s what court after court has found in their in-depth analysis of the issues involved.
What about you, dear readers? Are you fed up with big oil’s nonsense, yet, or are you still frothing at the mouth with anti-ethanol hysteria? I’m sure you’ll let us know, either way.http://gas2.org/2013/10/05/renewable-fuels-standard-saves-0-50-1-50-per-gallon/
« on: October 10, 2013, 06:30:18 pm »
Representative for Maryland and dissenting Anti-Federalist. Was shocked at the attempt by the elite to overthrow the existing government in secret in 1787, and swore to tell the people what Washington, Madison and Hamilton were up to. The rich were terrified of the people screwed by Hamilton's bank bailouts and after Shay's Rebellion almost saw Philidelphia captured by angry citizens, they were ready to instal a police state. Martin warned we were ill-advised to install a President King who would plot against the people in concert with the Senate: He said we were crazy to put men into a chamber for six year terms instead of the current one-year terms; men who would no longer be paid by their states and move away from their constituents to a corrupt political city, and who could not be recalled for any reason by their state for misbehavior. He said we were going to lose our freedom under the reintroduction of a hated standing army and that we would suffer under the despotism of a Supreme Court with no citizen jury.
He stormed out and refused to sign the Constitution without a Bill of Rights, and broke the convention's signed oath of secrecy that Mad-Man Madison made everyone sign before being admitted. Martin went straight to the press and warned the people not to ratify this powerful central government with a crazy central bank and insane electoral college scheme designed to strip citizens of any meaningful representation. Before this abomination was ratified, there were 2,000 representatives for the people: One rep existed for about 300 citizens.
The Constitution made it one rep per MINIMUM 30,000 to 60,000 but CONVENIENTLY DID NOT STATE A MAXIMUM POPULATION PER REP!
That apparently wasn't good enough for the oligarchs as our population grew so shortly after 1913 a cork was put on the maximum number of representatives. Please note that ALL new voting groups from women to minorities to Native Americans got the "right" to vote AFTER the cork was put on the maximum number of reps .
NOTE: The 14th Amendment right to vote for African Americans after the Civil War became a cruel farce by 1876. The elitist Supreme Court twisted the 14th Amendment to give Corporations personhood as a cruel and cynical vicious slap to the original intent of the 14th Amendment. Even as blacks where being disenfranchised, the courts were busy giving corporations extra privileges along with the license to break the law with impunity called limited liability.
Now, in most states, there is only one rep for 740,000 citizens, and virtually ZERO chance of you ever talking to one.
Source: the Actual Anti-Federalist writings...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Complete_Anti-Federalist
Pages: 1 ... 425 426  428
March 22, 2017, 10:37:11 pm
Human Life is Fragile but EVERY Life is Valuable
March 22, 2017, 02:31:17 pm
March 22, 2017, 01:34:05 pm
Global Warming is WITH US
March 22, 2017, 12:50:59 pm
March 21, 2017, 05:01:39 pm
Corruption in Government
March 21, 2017, 04:25:27 pm
Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
March 21, 2017, 02:18:43 pm
Member Interesting, Hair Raising, Humorous or Otherwise Unusual Experiences
March 21, 2017, 01:43:20 pm
March 21, 2017, 01:20:55 pm
March 20, 2017, 07:09:27 pm