Whaling, Greenpeace, critics from former leaders
Birger Andresen
--------
A week or so ago, the former leader of Greenpeace, Norway (I
don't remember his name) stated that Greenpeace (to put it
simple in my own words as I remember it) :
used too much time and effort on the Whaling Campaign
on the expense of other more important issues since
the Whaling campaign was very important finacially
(as it sold). Only one out of three persons payed by
Greenpeace did any form of work directly connected with
environmental issues, but was just trying to get money
into the organisation.
His arguments were disputed by the current leader, that tried to
discredit him as he has fired for "not doing his work" according
to Greenpeace, and for "critical remarks on how Greenpeace gave
priority to different environmental issues" according to the
former (sacked) leader.
Holland :
---------
Former leader of the staff-department and finances in
Greenpeace, Holland (Frantz Kotte), has according to the
Norwegian Newspaper VG (12.th June 1993) stated (translated
version) that :
"Money is the only thing that counts for Greenpeace. They
handles millons of dollars and don't use them in the best
way on the important issues for the environment. they pick
out single issues (like the Whaling), and doesn't seem to
care too much for important issues like chemical waste,
nuclear power/waste and pollution. Instead, they give
themself high wages."
"Even though I am personaly against Whaling, it is guite
obvious that there are many other issues that are far more
important to fight for. However, the Whaling Campaign gives
publicity."
Mr. Kotte left (was fired?) over a dispute on how Greenpeace
used thier money.
--
Regards,
Birger Andresen
*********************************************************
* So you're out of work and bored ?!.....
*
* Well, why don't you join the anti-whaling campaign of
* Greenpeace and get a free luxurious cruise on one of
* their expensive high tech ships, mostly sponsored by
* well-meaning people that have never seen a whale from
* their kitchen window and thus assume it to be almost
* extinct no matter what the scientists claim.
*********************************************************
Jym Dyer
=o= Care to cough up any substantiation for this? Care to
look up how this compares with the fund-raising efforts for
other groups? Otherwise this is just a mindless flame.
> they pick out single issues (like the Whaling), and doesn't
> seem to care too much for important issues like chemical
> waste, nuclear power/waste and pollution.
=o= Now I *know* that that is absolutely incorrect. Since the
speaker has allegedly worked for Greenpeace, the statement
qualifies as a lie.
=o= Some of the issues Greenpeace deals with (like whaling)
gets more media attention, but that doesn't mean they aren't
dealing with other issues. There are active and effective
Greenpeace campaigns devoted to *all* the issues you listed
and a bit more.
<_Jym_>
Birger Andresen
|> > Only one out of three persons payed by Greenpeace did any form
|> > of work directly connected with environmental issues . . .
|>
|> =o= Care to cough up any substantiation for this? Care to
|> look up how this compares with the fund-raising efforts for
|> other groups? Otherwise this is just a mindless flame.
I have not got the time to verify iti, and I don't think it is
by duty to do so either. I am just passing on his (their)
statements to the netters for them to make up their own mind.
I have not stated whether (spelling?) they are true or false.
|>
|> > they pick out single issues (like the Whaling), and doesn't
|> > seem to care too much for important issues like chemical
|> > waste, nuclear power/waste and pollution.
|>
|> =o= Now I *know* that that is absolutely incorrect. Since the
|> speaker has allegedly worked for Greenpeace, the statement
|> qualifies as a lie.
Might be, I don't know (see above)!
|>
|> =o= Some of the issues Greenpeace deals with (like whaling)
|> gets more media attention, but that doesn't mean they aren't
|> dealing with other issues. There are active and effective
|> Greenpeace campaigns devoted to *all* the issues you listed
|> and a bit more.
|> <_Jym_>
None of the two former Greenpeace leaders said that Greenpeace
did not do any enviromental work... they just claimed that too
little effort was given to the "most important" issues and too
much on the "less important" (for the environment) Whaling issue.
Again, these are not my words, but comes from former leaders of
Greenpeace in Norway and Holland.
Jym Dyer
> it is [my] duty to do so either.
=o= Fine. So it's just another mindless flame, and you're
happy with not being able to support it. My own direct
experience with the group -- as well as the efforts described
in their press releases, many of which I've posted here --
indicate that your mindless flame is groundless.
> Again, these are not my words, but comes from former
> leaders of Greenpeace in Norway and Holland.
=o= You keep calling them "leaders." Have any proof that
they deserve that title?
<_Jym_>
Birger Andresen
[About quoting statements made by former Greenpeace leaders] :
|> > I have not got the time to verify [it], and I don't think
|> > it is [my] duty to do so either.
|>
|> =o= Fine. So it's just another mindless flame, and you're
|> happy with not being able to support it. My own direct
|> experience with the group -- as well as the efforts described
|> in their press releases, many of which I've posted here --
|> indicate that your mindless flame is groundless.
Do I really have to tell you this once again ? I was only passing
some statements from two former leaders of Greenpeace and one
current leader of Greenpeace on to the readers of this newsgroup.
Unlike you, I did not comment on the truth of any of the statements.
It seems like you mean that other people can't be quoted unless
you have verified that their statements are true. You can't be
serious !!
|>
|> > Again, these are not my words, but comes from former
|> > leaders of Greenpeace in Norway and Holland.
|>
|> =o= You keep calling them "leaders." Have any proof that
|> they deserve that title?
I call them former "leaders" because that is what they are. You
can't blame me for the fact that Greenpeace elected them. I have
never said that they deserved it or did not deserve it. So what
is your problem? Please ..........
|> <_Jym_>
Oddvar Tveito FTO
|> > it is [my] duty to do so either.
|>
|> =o= Fine. So it's just another mindless flame, and you're
|> happy with not being able to support it. My own direct
|> experience with the group -- as well as the efforts described
|> in their press releases, many of which I've posted here --
|> indicate that your mindless flame is groundless.
The source of this information (that only one third of the Greenpeace employees
are working with environmental issues, the rest engaged in running the
money-machine) comes from a reliable source inside Greenpeace. Namly the former
leader of Greenpeace Norway Mr. Bjoern Oekern who has just published a very
critical book on Greenpeace called "Power without responsibility" (a not
authorized translation of the norwegian title :-)).
His main critics are that "cases" with a good potential for sponsoring governs
the priorities of Greenpeace, not the real environmental aspects of a case.
Seals and whales are to such "cases" they have picked because they give a huge
response in the american public. In the US 90% of their sponsor income comes
from these to cases according to a poll among the Greenpeace members. This
clearly shows why Greenpeace will never give up the whaling case and that
scientific aspects of whaling are irrelevant for them.
A major part of the book is focusing on how Greenpeace has destroyed the life
for several native populations in Alaska and Canada by putting pressure on the
governments to ban their hunting on sea animals which they depend on to
survive. But for Greenpeace the money governs....
He also writes that when Greenpeace was initiated it got heavy funding from the
CIA because the US needed an organisation who could take the increasing public
focus on evironmental issues away from US-affears. If you look into what
Greenpeace has focused on you will find a remarkable lack of "cases" putting a
critical focus of US environmental "bad behavior".
I really hope this book will be translated into english and that you will read
it. In the mean time maybe some norwegian would care to translate some extracts
from it (hint,hint :-)).
|>
|> > Again, these are not my words, but comes from former
|> > leaders of Greenpeace in Norway and Holland.
|>
|> =o= You keep calling them "leaders." Have any proof that
|> they deserve that title?
|> <_Jym_>
If you doubt this it`s easy for you to check who was the leader of Greenpeace
Norway until about two years ago and why he is no longer in the organisation.
If you ask him you will get a different reason than if you ask Greenpeace
ofcourse. But they can`t deny that he was theur former leader. But they have
allready started to tell a lot of shit about him.
Bjoern Oekern is the name. The "oe" is a substitute for a spesial norwegian
letter which is an "o" with a diagonal SW-NE line across it :-).
About this Dutch leader I have no information. Anyone, please enlighten.....
------------------
Oddvar Tveito
Norwegian Telecom Research (Televerkets Forskningsinstitutt)
P O Box 83, N-2007 Kjeller, Norway
Phone: (+47) 63 80 93 73
Fax: (+47) 63 81 00 76
Internet-mail: oddvar...@tf.tele.no
X400: G=Oddvar;S=Tveito;O=tf;P=tele;A=telemax;C=no;
Birger Andresen
|> NORWAY :
|> --------
|> A week or so ago, the former leader of Greenpeace, Norway (I
|> don't remember his name) stated that Greenpeace (to put it
|> simple in my own words as I remember it) :
The adress of the former leader is :
Bjoern Oekern,
Venabu,
N-2632 Venabygd,
Norway
Telephone : +47 61284192
Mr. Oekern was the highest Greenpeace official in Norway in a period
from 1990 to 1992 (source : The Norwegian Newspaper Nordlys (published
in the city of Tromsoe last week (?). I'll get the exact date if anybody
desperately needs it)).
|>
|> used too much time and effort on the Whaling Campaign
|> on the expense of other more important issues since
|> the Whaling campaign was very important finacially
|> (as it sold). Only one out of three persons payed by
|> Greenpeace did any form of work directly connected with
|> environmental issues, but was just trying to get money
|> into the organisation.
|>
|> His arguments were disputed by the current leader, that tried to
|> discredit him as he has fired for "not doing his work" according
|> to Greenpeace, and for "critical remarks on how Greenpeace gave
|> priority to different environmental issues" according to the
|> former (sacked) leader.
The name of the Greenpeace official that met with Mr. Oekern in the
debate (on Norwegian television) where the referenced statements were
given is Mr. Geir Wang Andersen. His adress is
Greenpeace, Norway
Geir Wang Andersen
Kjoepmannsgata 5
N-7013 Trondheim
Norway
Phone : +47 7 528360
The debate took place (according to Mr. Andersen) on the Norwegian
television channel 1 (NRK-1) on the 11th of June 1993 in the evening
news magazine ("Kveldsaktuelt") starting at 10 pm local Norwegian time.
In article <1993Jun17.0...@nntp.nta.no>, o...@hal.nta.no (Oddvar Tveito FTO) writes:
:> ......... Namly the former
:> leader of Greenpeace Norway Mr. Bjoern Oekern who has just published a very
:> critical book on Greenpeace called "Power without responsibility" (a not
:> authorized translation of the norwegian title :-)).
:>
:> .
:> .
:>
:> I really hope this book will be translated into english and that you will read
:> it. In the mean time maybe some norwegian would care to translate some extracts
:> from it (hint,hint :-)).
According to a friend of mine (Eirik Roehmen), the book will be
translated into English. I don't know when this will be done, but
I have left a question on Mr. Oekern's phoneanswering machine to
find it out. I'll tell you when I know (I can't prove that the book
deserves to be translated into English - Jym!!! Sorry).
Cameron L. Spitzer
>In article <Jym.16Jun1993.1450o@naughty-peahen>, Jym Dyer <j...@remarque.berkeley.edu> writes:
>|> > I have not got the time to verify [it], and I don't think
>|> > it is [my] duty to do so either.
>|>
>|> =o= Fine. So it's just another mindless flame, and you're
>|> happy with not being able to support it. My own direct
>|> experience with the group -- as well as the efforts described
>|> in their press releases, many of which I've posted here --
>|> indicate that your mindless flame is groundless.
>
>The source of this information (that only one third of the Greenpeace employees
>are working with environmental issues, the rest engaged in running the
>money-machine) comes from a reliable source inside Greenpeace. Namly the former
>leader of Greenpeace Norway Mr. Bjoern Oekern who has just published a very
>critical book on Greenpeace called "Power without responsibility" (a not
>authorized translation of the norwegian title :-)).
"Greenpeace" is a loosely connected hierarchy of organizations which
share a trademark. Mr. Oekern's experience with Greenpeace Norway
bears little on Greenpeaces in the rest of the world. They just don't
talk to each other that much.
From everything I've heard, Mr. Oekern's experience does represent certain
things common among most Greenpeaces though. They are prestigious nonprofits,
where competition is fierce, pay and other rewards low, job stress high,
and rivalries sometimes bitter. People who leave tend to leave angry.
I've met at least a dozen US Greenpeacers and a couple from Britain.
None of them was happy about the situation there.
>His main critics are that "cases" with a good potential for sponsoring governs
>the priorities of Greenpeace, not the real environmental aspects of a case.
>Seals and whales are to such "cases" they have picked because they give a huge
>response in the american public. In the US 90% of their sponsor income comes
>from these to cases according to a poll among the Greenpeace members.
I believe that is a lie. According to people deeply involved in
its fundraising, Greenpeace USA does not even maintain such records.
I've been on Greenpeace USA's main direct mail fundraising list for about ten
years now, and I've received only one whaling-related appeal and a couple
of tuna/dolphin appeals in that time. Greenpeace USA concentrates on energy
and transportation policy, toxic dumping, nuclear disarmament, ozone
depletion, deforestation, and environmental racism. Not seals and whales.
>He also writes that when Greenpeace was initiated it got heavy funding from the
>CIA because the US needed an organisation who could take the increasing public
This is a lie too. A really silly one.
>focus on evironmental issues away from US-affears. If you look into what
>Greenpeace has focused on you will find a remarkable lack of "cases" putting a
>critical focus of US environmental "bad behavior".
Actually, Greenpeace has been extremely critical of the largest toxic
dumper in the US, the US Government.
Cameron Spitzer in San Jose, California
c...@truffula.sj.ca.us
BTW, nobody's answered my question yet: What percentage of the
Norwegian population is dependent on whaling?
Simen Gaure
> Norwegian population is dependent on whaling?
I would guess about 0.03%, probably much less. (If you mean totally dependent).
The whaling wasn't started for economical reasons, but
to exercise our right to catch whatever wild animals which
aren't threatened (IMO). The cost of sustaining the boycott actions
will probably be much higher than the income from the whaling.
But probably not more than a couple of hours production of north sea oil.
We're not into civilized profit maximizing as Greenpeace is in this case.
Simen Gaure
University of Oslo
Svein-Ivar Lillehaug
>
>Actually, Greenpeace has been extremely critical of the largest toxic
>dumper in the US, the US Government.
What about issues like traffic pollution? What would happen if Greenpeace
made "triple the prices of gas and cars in the US" their main task? Such
a case would not only give the same prices as you find in Norway. It
would also have a good environmental outcome - as opposed to the campaign
against the Norwegian minke whale hunting (sustainable harvesting of the
resources in the sea which is not in conflict with the environment).
>BTW, nobody's answered my question yet: What percentage of the
>Norwegian population is dependent on whaling?
Very few. But this is not the question. The question is about management
and harvesting of the local natural recourses - and to give people a
change to keep on living in rural areas at our coast. Unfortunately the
urban self claimed environmentalists have big problems in understanding
these issues. It would help if they tried to increase their level of
knowledge.
Regards,
Svein-Ivar
Oddvar Tveito FTO
|> In article <1993Jun17.0...@nntp.nta.no> o...@hal.nta.no (Oddvar Tveito FTO) writes:
|> >The source of this information (that only one third of the Greenpeace employees
|> >are working with environmental issues, the rest engaged in running the
|> >money-machine) comes from a reliable source inside Greenpeace. Namly the former
|> >leader of Greenpeace Norway Mr. Bjoern Oekern who has just published a very
|> >critical book on Greenpeace called "Power without responsibility" (a not
|> >authorized translation of the norwegian title :-)).
|>
|> "Greenpeace" is a loosely connected hierarchy of organizations which
|> share a trademark. Mr. Oekern's experience with Greenpeace Norway
|> bears little on Greenpeaces in the rest of the world. They just don't
|> talk to each other that much.
As I have understood Mr. Oekern he is refering to Greenpeace in general, i.e. an average of
all these loosely connected organisations. He definitely did not refer only to the
situation in Greenpeace Norway which is for obvious reasons quite small :-).
|>
|> From everything I've heard, Mr. Oekern's experience does represent certain
|> things common among most Greenpeaces though. They are prestigious nonprofits,
|> where competition is fierce, pay and other rewards low, job stress high,
|> and rivalries sometimes bitter. People who leave tend to leave angry.
|> I've met at least a dozen US Greenpeacers and a couple from Britain.
|> None of them was happy about the situation there.
The concrete reason he left or was fired (depending on who you ask) was that he could not
accept the Greenpeace way of running the whaling case. Because they as he saw it where
tricking with scientific facts, but also because he is personally in favour of hunting
animals as long as they are not threatend by extinction..
|>
|>
|> >His main critics are that "cases" with a good potential for sponsoring governs
|> >the priorities of Greenpeace, not the real environmental aspects of a case.
|> >Seals and whales are to such "cases" they have picked because they give a huge
|> >response in the american public. In the US 90% of their sponsor income comes
|> >from these to cases according to a poll among the Greenpeace members.
|>
|> I believe that is a lie. According to people deeply involved in
|> its fundraising, Greenpeace USA does not even maintain such records.
|> I've been on Greenpeace USA's main direct mail fundraising list for about ten
|> years now, and I've received only one whaling-related appeal and a couple
|> of tuna/dolphin appeals in that time. Greenpeace USA concentrates on energy
|> and transportation policy, toxic dumping, nuclear disarmament, ozone
|> depletion, deforestation, and environmental racism. Not seals and whales.
This is nice to hear. One may ofcourse question the validabillity of Mr. Oekern`s
information, but he claims he know from inside Greenpeace that the 90% number is a result
from Greenpeace questioning an arbitrary selection of their supporters "what is the main
reason for you to support us". 90% of the american supporters answered according to Oekern
the main reason was the whaling- and sealing campaigns. There where also numbers from other
countries which where slightly lower.
Please note: I don`t say that 90% of the Greenpeace activity is related to whaling. But 90% of the sponsor money income are mainly motivated from that campaign.
|> BTW, nobody's answered my question yet: What percentage of the
|> Norwegian population is dependent on whaling?
Sorry, I intended to answer but then I lost your posting. The percentage is probably less
than 0.001%. I think you also asked about the "companies" running the whaling. There are
none. Try to understand: this is small scale, done by fishermen in small boats 1-2 months
during the summer. I know Greenpeace are running commercials on american TV showing 20-60
years old movies of big factory ships in the antarctic manipulated to leave the impression
that this is relevant to the norwegian minke whale hunting today.
How can a small country manage to get thru with the truth when a multi-billion dollar
buisness see their main income preserved by lieing about us?
--
Don Christie
>In article <1993Jun18....@truffula.sj.ca.us> c...@truffula.sj.ca.us (Cameron L. Spitzer) writes:
>>
>>Actually, Greenpeace has been extremely critical of the largest toxic
>>dumper in the US, the US Government.
could this be because the U.S. Government can't `shoot back' without
looking like idiots and appearing `anti-environment'?
Greenpeace is good at finding vulnerable targets...
>What about issues like traffic pollution? What would happen if Greenpeace
>made "triple the prices of gas and cars in the US" their main task? Such
>a case would not only give the same prices as you find in Norway. It
>would also have a good environmental outcome - as opposed to the campaign
>against the Norwegian minke whale hunting (sustainable harvesting of the
>resources in the sea which is not in conflict with the environment).
I think what you're referring to is actually a variation of the NIMBY
syndrome... people will greet environmental challenges enthusiastically
until it directly affects them... and Greenpeace capitalizes on this.
If Greenpeace activists were to exert their influence to increase the
price of gasoline or cars, they would lose their popular support (translate
support = money) regardless that it would be a whole lot more meaningful
in terms of global environment than any whale hunt...
>
>>BTW, nobody's answered my question yet: What percentage of the
>>Norwegian population is dependent on whaling?
>
>Very few. But this is not the question. The question is about management
>and harvesting of the local natural recourses - and to give people a
>change to keep on living in rural areas at our coast. Unfortunately the
>urban self claimed environmentalists have big problems in understanding
>these issues. It would help if they tried to increase their level of
>knowledge.
It is the efforts of organizations like Greenpeace that maintains
the `level of knowledge' as it is.... Greenpeace higher-ups don't
want people to be too knowledgeable... otherwise the public at large
would see them for the money-grubbing charlatans that they are.
In my opinion, the primary reason for the continued existence of
Greenpeace has a whole lot less to do with the environment than it
has to do with politics and money.
//Don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who ELSE could have written The Adventures of Wild Bill Groady??
Cameron L. Spitzer
>I know Greenpeace are running commercials on american TV showing 20-60
>years old movies of big factory ships in the antarctic manipulated to leave the impression
>that this is relevant to the norwegian minke whale hunting today.
That is another lie.
Greenpeace does not run paid TV commercials in the US.
It's too expensive.
Greenpeace USA has produced one TV spot, on forest policy.
It is aired very late at night here in the San Francisco Bay TV
market, spliced into a string of so-called Public Service
Announcements (PSAs). TV stations here are compelled by FCC
regulations to run PSAs in exchange for their use of the
limited-bandwidth publicly-owned airwaves. They run them
late at night so they don't bump commercials from more
lucrative time slots.
Greenpeace has plenty of faults.
It's not necessary to lie to criticize Greenpeace.
But it is necessary to know what you're talking about.
Cameron Spitzer in San Jose CA, USA
Cameron L. Spitzer
>In article <1993Jun18....@truffula.sj.ca.us> c...@truffula.sj.ca.us (Cameron L. Spitzer) writes:
>>
>>Actually, Greenpeace has been extremely critical of the largest toxic
>>dumper in the US, the US Government.
>
>What about issues like traffic pollution? What would happen if Greenpeace
>made "triple the prices of gas and cars in the US" their main task?
Greenpeace USA spends far more time and money on transportation policy
than on cetaceans. Its book _The Environmental Impact of the Automobile_
has been widely praised for its thorough analysis and lack of polemic.
Greenpeaces everywhere are strong avocates of attaching the entire social
cost of petrochemical production and consumption to its price, without
regard to the polictial consequences.
Whoever is telling you the reverse is misinformed or lying.
Oddvar Tveito FTO
I do apologize if this was not correct. It is not my intention to lie about
Greenpeace.
I have this information from some months back and I am not able to claim that
my memory serves me correctly in all details. I think the source was a
norwegian newspaper or TV and the subject was how much resources that would be
needed to get through to the american public with the norwegian views on
whaling, taking into account how much that was spent from the "other side".
Then this example of showing old movies of factory ships in the antarctic
hunting the big whales was given as an example of what we would have to compeed
with.
It could be that it was an other organisation than Greenpeace who was running
this commercial.
Regards,
Oddvar
Svein-Ivar Lillehaug
And still there are no politicians that dare to talk about increasing
the taxes on gas and cars wheras the same guys have no problem in
speaking about boycotts of Norwegian products.
I have to admit that I have no background to say it, but to me it sounds
unbelievable that "Greenpeace USA spends far more time and money on
transportation policy than on cetaceans". Are there anybody that can
provide us with the numbers from any official reports?
Regards,
Svein-Ivar
Ronald J Friedel
>>Greenpeace USA spends far more time and money on transportation policy
>>than on cetaceans. Its book _The Environmental Impact of the Automobile_
>>has been widely praised for its thorough analysis and lack of polemic.
>>Greenpeaces everywhere are strong avocates of attaching the entire social
>>cost of petrochemical production and consumption to its price, without
>>regard to the polictial consequences.
>>Whoever is telling you the reverse is misinformed or lying.
>
>And still there are no politicians that dare to talk about increasing
>the taxes on gas and cars wheras the same guys have no problem in
>speaking about boycotts of Norwegian products.
>
>I have to admit that I have no background to say it, but to me it sounds
>unbelievable that "Greenpeace USA spends far more time and money on
>transportation policy than on cetaceans". Are there anybody that can
>provide us with the numbers from any official reports?
>
>
I, as an American, have been waiting for years for Greenpeace, or for any
other environmental organization, to strongly attack the overuse of the
automobile. I have never heard them say or read in their literature that
"You must reduce the amount of driving that you do on a daily basis. You
must be in a car pool; most excuses to not be in a car pool are just that,
excuses. Do everthing you can to encourage people to use their bicycles,
even if it means that as a car driver you are inconvienced."
Locally, there is an environmental fight going on to try to keep Target,
a department store chain, from building a distribution center out in the
country along the freeway. All kinds of self-rightous statements about
excess pollution from all those trucks and cars of workers going to this
distribution center. Also the idling semi trucks have lately been shown
to spew cancer causing pollution. Yet those same residents of that area
are on a daily basis are most likely making a long distance commute every
day to work in Milwaukee or Madison. If they are really concerned about
idling diesel engines, they should demand that school buses stop idling
their engines, except for certain circumstances. But that hits too close
to home. Someone may try to tell them that they can't idle their car engines
in the future. So they won't push for those kinds of restrictions.
Sorry for being so cynical.
Ron Friedel
--
Ron Friedel
GeoSciences UW-Milwaukee
rfri...@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Jym Dyer
> I, as an American, have been waiting for years for Greenpeace,
> or for any other environmental organization, to strongly
> attack the overuse of the automobile.
=o= Greenpeace and others have done so. A few years ago, they
even stopped making bumperstickers. Their transportation
campaign has leaned toward transportation alternatives, though
what coverage it's gotten has excluded criticism of the auto.
I don't particularly think that's Greenpeace's fault.
=o= Note that Greenpeace's response to the Exxon Valdez oil
spill wasn't geared towards criticizing Exxon (at least, not
until Exxon refused to actually finish cleaning up). It was
geared toward reduced dependency on the automobile. Their main
ad depicted the drunken Valdez captain, and said, "His driving
didn't caused the oil spill, yours did."
=o= An organization that has worked hard on these issues is
the Worldwatch Institute, 1776 Massachusetts Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20036, Phone 202/452-1999. They've published
a number of well-researched transportation papers. They use
international data, and it's interesting to see how autos
are being eschewed by most of the world because of their
high cost (to owners and to those paying for a country's
infrastructure), and how bicycles are gaining more ground.
=o= There are a number of organizations devoted specifically
to auto-free transportation. Some of the newer upstart ones
are local in nature and have "Auto-Free" in their names.
One that's been around for some time now is Transportation
Alternatives, 92 St. Marks Place, New York, NY 10009, Phone
212/475-4600.
<_Jym_>
Mend ::::: Jym Dyer ::: j...@remarque.berkeley.edu :::: ::::
Your :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: __Q :::
Fuelish :::: Bumpersticker: "My other car is :::: ==`\<s ::
Ways :::::::::::::::::::::: also a bicycle." :::: (*)^ (*) ::
Sol Lightman
]> I, as an American, have been waiting for years for Greenpeace,
]> or for any other environmental organization, to strongly
]> attack the overuse of the automobile.
Aside from the fatalities, and the ugly black pavement, they shouldn't
be. It isn't the cars that are causing the pollution. It's the kind of cars,
the chemicals and fuels they use, and the way in which they are manufactered
(i.e. how the materials are obtained and made) that should be attacked.
We have had the technology in this country to stop gasoline pollution for
decades -- It's called using methanol instead. Don't attack cars --
support biomass fuel! Biomass fuels don't contain sulfur or metal particles,
don't have to be drilled, mined, or shipped overseas, do not run out,
causing energy crises, and do not contribute to greenhouse gasses.
Likewise, motor oil would be a lot less dangerous if it were made from a
non-petrochemical base. So would the plastics which the car is made
out of. Both of these products can be made from biomass -- it is just
that nobody has bothered to fund the development of the intermediate steps
of technology which would make this possible.
]=o= Note that Greenpeace's response to the Exxon Valdez oil
]spill wasn't geared towards criticizing Exxon (at least, not
]until Exxon refused to actually finish cleaning up). It was
]geared toward reduced dependency on the automobile. Their main
]ad depicted the drunken Valdez captain, and said, "His driving
]didn't caused the oil spill, yours did."
No, their driving didn't cause the oil spill -- their political apathy
and lack of knowledge of alternative energy technologies did.
]=o= An organization that has worked hard on these issues is
]the Worldwatch Institute, 1776 Massachusetts Avenue NW,
]Washington, DC 20036, Phone 202/452-1999. They've published
]a number of well-researched transportation papers. They use
]international data, and it's interesting to see how autos
]are being eschewed by most of the world because of their
]high cost (to owners and to those paying for a country's
]infrastructure), and how bicycles are gaining more ground.
This is cool, too -- but did you ever try to deliver pizza on a bike?
And those helmets DO look silly -- don't delude yourselves.
Doesn't work.
]=o= There are a number of organizations devoted specifically
]to auto-free transportation. Some of the newer upstart ones
]are local in nature and have "Auto-Free" in their names.
]One that's been around for some time now is Transportation
]Alternatives, 92 St. Marks Place, New York, NY 10009, Phone
]212/475-4600.
] <_Jym_>
Gah. I support alternative & public transportation, but when are we going
to wake up, stop fighting the problem, and concentrate on the solution?
Brian
--
The University of Massachusetts at Amherst | _________,^-.
Cannabis Reform Coalition ( | ) ,>
S.A.O. Box #2 \|/ {
415 Student Union Building `-^-' ? )
UMASS, Amherst MA 01003 ver...@titan.ucs.umass.edu |____________ `--~ ;
\_,-__/
* To find out about our on-line library, mail me a message with the
* pattern "{{{readme}}}" contained IN THE SUBJECT LINE.
* You will be mailed instructions; your message will be otherwise ignored
Russ Brown
>
>]> I, as an American, have been waiting for years for Greenpeace,
>]> or for any other environmental organization, to strongly
>]> attack the overuse of the automobile.
>
>Aside from the fatalities, and the ugly black pavement, they shouldn't
>be. It isn't the cars that are causing the pollution. It's the kind of cars,
>the chemicals and fuels they use, and the way in which they are manufactered
>(i.e. how the materials are obtained and made) that should be attacked.
>
>We have had the technology in this country to stop gasoline pollution for
>decades -- It's called using methanol instead. Don't attack cars --
>support biomass fuel! Biomass fuels don't contain sulfur or metal particles,
>don't have to be drilled, mined, or shipped overseas, do not run out,
>causing energy crises, and do not contribute to greenhouse gasses.
Have you considered the energy requirements, chemical usage,
transportation, pollution, and land/water requirements of a methanol
economy?
Do you understand that perfect oxidation of methanol produces carbon dioxide (a
greenhouse gas) and water?
Do you understand that imperfect oxidation of methanol can produce
formaldehyde, a potential contributor to smog?
Sol Lightman
]In article <20clqb$a...@nic.umass.edu> ver...@twain.ucs.umass.edu writes:
]>
]>Aside from the fatalities, and the ugly black pavement, they shouldn't
]>be. It isn't the cars that are causing the pollution. It's the kind of cars,
]>the chemicals and fuels they use, and the way in which they are manufactered
]>(i.e. how the materials are obtained and made) that should be attacked.
]>
]>We have had the technology in this country to stop gasoline pollution for
]>decades -- It's called using methanol instead. Don't attack cars --
]>support biomass fuel! Biomass fuels don't contain sulfur or metal particles,
]>don't have to be drilled, mined, or shipped overseas, do not run out,
]>causing energy crises, and do not contribute to greenhouse gasses.
]Have you considered the energy requirements, chemical usage,
]transportation, pollution, and land/water requirements of a methanol
]economy?
Yes. It is more than adequately feasible. The chemical usage is practically
null -- you put in biomass and water, and get out charcoal, methane, methanol,
acetic acid, acetone, and, if you really want it, gasoline, as well as other
useful industrial chemicals which we now derive from sulfur/metal contaminated
oil.
]Do you understand that perfect oxidation of methanol produces carbon dioxide (a
]greenhouse gas) and water?
Yes. But the carbon dioxide produced is cycled through the biosphere, not
added to it. The fuel comes from plants, which take carbon OUT of the
air when they grow. This is the same carbon that is released, so you have
no net gain.
]Do you understand that imperfect oxidation of methanol can produce
]formaldehyde, a potential contributor to smog?
Yes. With a modicum of research, and/or emmissions control guidelines
requiring well tuned engines, the formaldehyde emmissions can be easily
controlled. The problems seen in South America are a result of poorly
tuned methanol engines.
Still, compared with gasoline, methanol is a much more friendly fuel.
Yet the only alternative fuel research that gets much funding in this
country is ethanol. Of course, that is just to get votes from the corn
states, I realize, but isn't it about time we got a real alternative
fuel program?
May I recommend a book?
``Farming For Fuel'' by Folke Dovring
It's not too long, either -- give it a read.
Tino
>>We have had the technology in this country to stop gasoline pollution for
>>decades -- It's called using methanol instead. Don't attack cars --
>>support biomass fuel! Biomass fuels don't contain sulfur or metal particles,
>>don't have to be drilled, mined, or shipped overseas, do not run out,
>>causing energy crises, and do not contribute to greenhouse gasses.
>
>greenhouse gas) and water?
>
>Do you understand that imperfect oxidation of methanol can produce
>formaldehyde, a potential contributor to smog?
Shhhh!! They're not supposed to know that! They're also not supposed to
know that building lots of natural gas turbines will increase, not decrease
CO2! Only our leaders are allowed such knowledge, and they're not allowed
to tell....
Tino
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Hundreds of millions of people will soon perish in smog disasters in New York
and Los Angeles...the oceans will die of DDT poisoning by 1979...the U.S. life
expectancy will drop to 42 years by 1980 due to cancer epidemics." - Paul Ehrlich, 1969
Jym Dyer
> don't contain sulfur or metal particles, don't have to be
> drilled, mined, or shipped overseas, do not run out, causing
> energy crises, and do not contribute to greenhouse gasses.
=o= Cleaner fuel, yes, but still producing CO2. Don't forget
the many other problems with autos: massive waste of land
(at a *minimum*, 50% of the land in urban areas is devoted to
autos), attendant land-use planning that interferese with mass
transit, community-destroying "compartmentalization," high
vehicle costs, high infrastructure costs, and a high death and
accident rate.
> Likewise, motor oil would be a lot less dangerous if it were
> made from a non-petrochemical base. So would the plastics
> which the car is made out of.
=o= Did you catch my posting on June 1st about new superlight
car technologies? Think carbon fiber.
> . . . did you ever try to deliver pizza on a bike?
=o= Yes, as a matter of fact. In some cities it's the only
way pizza can be delivered in a reasonable amount of time.
=o= Perhaps we need a Frequently Questioned Argument list
(FQA? :-)) for this topic, because the same arguments against
bikes and mass transit appear again and again. To cut to the
chase, here are three points to meditate on:
o It is pointless to use the inadequacies of current mass
transit to argue against improvements to mass transit
which would address those inadequacies.
o Bicycle trailers do exist, and yes, you can haul quite
a lot with them.
o You can come up with a lot of reasons why you *need*
an auto (hauling 1000lb sofas, etc.), but that doesn't
mean you need it for *every* trip. Most trips taken
are short (in bicycle range), and that includes most
commutes.
> And those helmets DO look silly -- don't delude yourselves.
=o= I remain deluded. My helmet is pretty cool. ---------.
<_Jym_> |
|
Mend ::::: Jym Dyer ::: j...@remarque.berkeley.edu :::: V ::::
Russ Brown
>Using an as yet undetermined appendage Russ Brown (ru...@pmafire.inel.gov) wrote:
>]In article <20clqb$a...@nic.umass.edu> ver...@twain.ucs.umass.edu writes:
>]>
>]>Aside from the fatalities, and the ugly black pavement, they shouldn't
>]>be. It isn't the cars that are causing the pollution. It's the kind of cars,
>]>the chemicals and fuels they use, and the way in which they are manufactered
>]>(i.e. how the materials are obtained and made) that should be attacked.
>]>
>]>We have had the technology in this country to stop gasoline pollution for
>]>decades -- It's called using methanol instead. Don't attack cars --
>]>support biomass fuel! Biomass fuels don't contain sulfur or metal particles,
>]>don't have to be drilled, mined, or shipped overseas, do not run out,
>]>causing energy crises, and do not contribute to greenhouse gasses.
>
>]Have you considered the energy requirements, chemical usage,
>]transportation, pollution, and land/water requirements of a methanol
>]economy?
>
>Yes. It is more than adequately feasible. The chemical usage is practically
>null -- you put in biomass and water, and get out charcoal, methane, methanol,
>acetic acid, acetone, and, if you really want it, gasoline, as well as other
>useful industrial chemicals which we now derive from sulfur/metal contaminated
>oil.
You need to check with your organic chemistry professor and the
thermodynamics boffins in the chemical engineering department before
proposing such a scheme......or begin the process for opening a few
Swiss bank accounts to handle the billions of dollars that must be
waiting for you.
Biomass+water = Biomass+water.
Growing the biomass requires land, water, and energy. Pollution byproducts.
Harvesting the biomass requires energy.
Transporting the biomass to the processing plant requires energy.
Conversion of biomass to an alcohol requires energy...and produces some
nasty waste for disposal.
Purification/separation of the alcohol requires energy.
Transportation of the alcohol requires energy, twice as much per unit of
energy as that of isooctane.
One might check to see if the net energy balance is positive or
negative. One might start to estimate the collective environmental impacts.
>
>]Do you understand that perfect oxidation of methanol produces carbon dioxide (a
>]greenhouse gas) and water?
>
>Yes. But the carbon dioxide produced is cycled through the biosphere, not
>added to it. The fuel comes from plants, which take carbon OUT of the
>air when they grow. This is the same carbon that is released, so you have
>no net gain.
>
If the amount of CO2 produced by the oxidation of hydrocarbons or
methanol would be equal, what would the difference be? If the oxidation
of methanol (not to mention all the ancillary effects of the full
production cycle) are greater, i.e., more CO2 per unit of tranportation
(don't forget the energy production per unit of CO2 produced
....different for methanol and isooctane), the impact on global warming
would be larger.
>]Do you understand that imperfect oxidation of methanol can produce
>]formaldehyde, a potential contributor to smog?
>
>Yes. With a modicum of research, and/or emmissions control guidelines
>requiring well tuned engines, the formaldehyde emmissions can be easily
>controlled. The problems seen in South America are a result of poorly
>tuned methanol engines.
>
Given equivalent regulations/requirements/technology, are the
differences favorable for alcohol burning?
Not all engines are (more important, _stay_) well-tuned. They get old,
worn, abused, etc.
>Still, compared with gasoline, methanol is a much more friendly fuel.
Unproven.
Russ Brown
>In article <1993Jun24.1...@pmafire.inel.gov> ru...@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown) writes:
>>>We have had the technology in this country to stop gasoline pollution for
>>>decades -- It's called using methanol instead. Don't attack cars --
>>>support biomass fuel! Biomass fuels don't contain sulfur or metal particles,
>>>don't have to be drilled, mined, or shipped overseas, do not run out,
>>>causing energy crises, and do not contribute to greenhouse gasses.
>>
>>Do you understand that perfect oxidation of methanol produces carbon dioxide (a
>>greenhouse gas) and water?
>>
>>Do you understand that imperfect oxidation of methanol can produce
>>formaldehyde, a potential contributor to smog?
>
>Shhhh!! They're not supposed to know that! They're also not supposed to
>know that building lots of natural gas turbines will increase, not decrease
>CO2! Only our leaders are allowed such knowledge, and they're not allowed
>to tell....
>
>Tino
But Sir, if our leaders know this and still advocate the expanded use of
natural gas for energy generation _while_ claiming great concern for the
potential problems associated with greenhouse gases, does this not seem
illogical?
Aren't scientists in charge of the higher levels of U.S. energy policy
development and implementation? The current state of affairs makes it
sound as if lawyers or clerks are running things; that would be
rather silly.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I prefer the wicked to the foolish. The wicked sometimes rest."
-Alexander Dumas, pere-
Mark S. Bilk
>Conversion of biomass to an alcohol requires energy...and produces some
> nasty waste for disposal.
Can this be done by a microorganism, the way yeast produces ethanol?
If so, the energy required comes from part of the biomass, and the
"nasty waste" is nitrogenous fertilizer that goes back to the biomass
field. The "waste" would containe all the nitrogen and minerals that the
plants consumed while growing, so very little additional fertilizer would
be required.
>One might check to see if the net energy balance is positive or negative.
True, but the energy balance can be *improved* by using better technology
for planting, harvesting, distilling, etc. The balance is certainly
potentially positive due to the *input* of solar energy.
>If the amount of CO2 produced by the oxidation of hydrocarbons or
>methanol would be equal, what would the difference be? If the oxidation
>of methanol (not to mention all the ancillary effects of the full
>production cycle) are greater, i.e., more CO2 per unit of tranportation
>(don't forget the energy production per unit of CO2 produced
>....different for methanol and isooctane), the impact on global warming
>would be larger.
Remember that plants take in CO2 and emit O2? And animals breathe O2 and
exhale CO2? That's how we and all the other animals stay alive on this
planet.
Plants get the C for their carbohydrate from CO2. The methanol (CH3OH)
is produced from that carbohydrate. All the C in the CH3OH comes from
atmospheric CO2. When the methanol is burned, that C goes back into the
atmosphere where it came from. Therefore, burning biomass alcohol yields
no change in atmospheric CO2. The net result is to transfer solar energy
to your car.
2CO2 + 4H2O + solar energy -> 2CH3OH + 3O2 [plant + methanol conversion]
2CH3OH + 3O2 -> 2CO2 + 4H2O + useful energy [burning of methanol]
Whereas burning oil takes C from the ground and puts it into the atmosphere.
Sol Lightman
]>Using an as yet undetermined appendage Russ Brown (ru...@pmafire.inel.gov) wrote:
]You need to check with your organic chemistry professor and the
]thermodynamics boffins in the chemical engineering department before
]proposing such a scheme......or begin the process for opening a few
]Swiss bank accounts to handle the billions of dollars that must be
]waiting for you.
No, what I need to do is prevent the petrochemical industry from
interfering with this plan -- which has been well researched by
very respected members of the scientific community -- as they have been.
]Biomass+water = Biomass+water.
Ummmmmm. I'd like to propose a more ACCURATE equation, if I may:
Sunlight + water + airborne carbon = biomass
biomass + water + energy = fuel
fuel = energy (Much more energy than in used in the second equation.)
+ airborne carbon + water
Or, in its most basic form, that is:
Sunlight + labor + energy = fuel + byproducts
Since fuel can be fed back to supply energy, that's
Sunlight + labor = fuel + byproducts
With a differential lag added in there, somewhere.
]Growing the biomass requires land, water, and energy. Pollution byproducts.
Biomass is very easy to produce, it is a low intensity crop -- especially
if you use cannabis hemp, which generates little pollution, and builds the
soil.
]Harvesting the biomass requires energy.
Which is provided for by the last batch of biomass fuel.
]Transporting the biomass to the processing plant requires energy.
Same -- and much less energy than shipping pertochemicals overseas.
]Conversion of biomass to an alcohol requires energy...and produces some
] nasty waste for disposal.
Care to name the nasty waste products?
]Purification/separation of the alcohol requires energy.
This is part of the processing.
]Transportation of the alcohol requires energy, twice as much per unit of
] energy as that of isooctane.
Not quite twice as much -- Methanol undergoes more complete combustion,
making it 60% as energy efficient as gasoline by volume. Is methanol
heavier, or lighter (density here) than gasoline, incidentally?
]One might check to see if the net energy balance is positive or
]negative.
One might take one look at how much energy enters the system via sunlight
and say ``no problem here!''
]One might start to estimate the collective environmental impacts.
One might read a few books on biomass pyrolysis (the few that there are)
and wonder what the big deal is -- compared to gasoline production from
fractional distillation of petrochemicals.
]>]Do you understand that perfect oxidation of methanol produces carbon dioxide (a
]>]greenhouse gas) and water?
]>
]>Yes. But the carbon dioxide produced is cycled through the biosphere, not
]>added to it. The fuel comes from plants, which take carbon OUT of the
]>air when they grow. This is the same carbon that is released, so you have
]>no net gain.
]>
]If the amount of CO2 produced by the oxidation of hydrocarbons or
]methanol would be equal, what would the difference be?
The difference would be that we are powering our cars off of last month's
sunlight, and not releasing the backlog of carbon which represents sunlight
which fell millions of years ago.
The difference is that there is no net gain in carbon content of earths
atmosphere, beyong differential shocks in the system.
]If the oxidation
]of methanol (not to mention all the ancillary effects of the full
]production cycle) are greater, i.e., more CO2 per unit of tranportation
](don't forget the energy production per unit of CO2 produced
]....different for methanol and isooctane), the impact on global warming
]would be larger.
No! Absolutely not! When you burn a fossil, you release stored carbon,
returning the earth's atmosphere to the state it was in when big lizards
ate plants all day. When you burn biomass, you take the carbon out of the
air, before releasing it. The carbon is like a storage battery, that's all.
]>]Do you understand that imperfect oxidation of methanol can produce
]>]formaldehyde, a potential contributor to smog?
]>
]>Yes. With a modicum of research, and/or emmissions control guidelines
]>requiring well tuned engines, the formaldehyde emmissions can be easily
]>controlled. The problems seen in South America are a result of poorly
]>tuned methanol engines.
]>
]Given equivalent regulations/requirements/technology, are the
]differences favorable for alcohol burning?
Yes.
]Not all engines are (more important, _stay_) well-tuned. They get old,
]worn, abused, etc.
True, but compare the emissions of gasoline with those of methanol.
]>Still, compared with gasoline, methanol is a much more friendly fuel.
]Unproven.
Only because we haven't tried it. Theoretically, it is obvious.
Sol Lightman
]> Don't attack cars -- support biomass fuel! Biomass fuels
]> don't contain sulfur or metal particles, don't have to be
]> drilled, mined, or shipped overseas, do not run out, causing
]> energy crises, and do not contribute to greenhouse gasses.
]=o= Cleaner fuel, yes, but still producing CO2. Don't forget
I don't know how many times I'm going to have to say this, but :
NO NET GAIN OF CO2
The rest of this, I agree with. Public transportation needs much
improvement. Thanks for the catagorized list of car `downs.'
]the many other problems with autos: massive waste of land
](at a *minimum*, 50% of the land in urban areas is devoted to
]autos), attendant land-use planning that interferese with mass
]transit, community-destroying "compartmentalization," high
]vehicle costs, high infrastructure costs, and a high death and
]accident rate.
]> Likewise, motor oil would be a lot less dangerous if it were
]> made from a non-petrochemical base. So would the plastics
]> which the car is made out of.
]=o= Did you catch my posting on June 1st about new superlight
]car technologies? Think carbon fiber.
No, I didn't, do you have a copy, still, or is there an archive
ftp for this group?
Another way to cut motor oil damage is to use non-metal engines.
New polymers are looking good for this purpose.
]> . . . did you ever try to deliver pizza on a bike?
]=o= Yes, as a matter of fact. In some cities it's the only
]way pizza can be delivered in a reasonable amount of time.
Let me modify that.... in a suburb.
]=o= Perhaps we need a Frequently Questioned Argument list
](FQA? :-)) for this topic, because the same arguments against
]bikes and mass transit appear again and again. To cut to the
]chase, here are three points to meditate on:
] o It is pointless to use the inadequacies of current mass
] transit to argue against improvements to mass transit
] which would address those inadequacies.
No kidding: improvement = improvement, not more of same.
] o Bicycle trailers do exist, and yes, you can haul quite
] a lot with them.
] o You can come up with a lot of reasons why you *need*
] an auto (hauling 1000lb sofas, etc.), but that doesn't
] mean you need it for *every* trip. Most trips taken
] are short (in bicycle range), and that includes most
] commutes.
Cool, but I can't afford a bike -- I have to save my gas money.
Maybe if I didn't have to pay the Sheik, I'd buy one!
]> And those helmets DO look silly -- don't delude yourselves.
]=o= I remain deluded. My helmet is pretty cool. ---------.
] <_Jym_> |
] |
]Mend ::::: Jym Dyer ::: j...@remarque.berkeley.edu :::: V ::::
]Your :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: __Q :::
]Fuelish :::: Bumpersticker: "My other car is :::: ==`\<s ::
]Ways :::::::::::::::::::::: also a bicycle." :::: (*)^ (*) ::
Geek. :-)
Sol Lightman
Using an as yet undetermined appendage Mark S. Bilk (m...@netcom.com) wrote:
]In article <1993Jun25.1...@pmafire.inel.gov> ru...@pmafire.inel.gov
]>Conversion of biomass to an alcohol requires energy...and produces some
]> nasty waste for disposal.
]Can this be done by a microorganism, the way yeast produces ethanol?
Maybe, but the trick is to do it by pyrolysis -- the produces the product
much quicker and cost effectively, making it competative with fossil
fuels. The by-products aren't as hard to deal with as this person
makes them sound -- many of them have important industrial applications
and can be sold for profit.
]If so, the energy required comes from part of the biomass, and the
]"nasty waste" is nitrogenous fertilizer that goes back to the biomass
]field. The "waste" would containe all the nitrogen and minerals that the
]plants consumed while growing, so very little additional fertilizer would
]be required.
This is nice, but unnecessary. In fact, the ethanol producing operations
are glutting the market for greenhouse fertilizers.
I suggest you check out the book I mentioned: I'll repeat the cite:
``Farming For Fuel'' by Folke Dovring.
It goes into detail about this.
]>One might check to see if the net energy balance is positive or negative.
]True, but the energy balance can be *improved* by using better technology
]for planting, harvesting, distilling, etc.
Technology which we need to develope anyway.
]The balance is certainly
]potentially positive due to the *input* of solar energy.
]>If the amount of CO2 produced by the oxidation of hydrocarbons or
]>methanol would be equal, what would the difference be? If the oxidation
]>of methanol (not to mention all the ancillary effects of the full
]>production cycle) are greater, i.e., more CO2 per unit of tranportation
]>(don't forget the energy production per unit of CO2 produced
]>....different for methanol and isooctane), the impact on global warming
]>would be larger.
]Remember that plants take in CO2 and emit O2? And animals breathe O2 and
]exhale CO2? That's how we and all the other animals stay alive on this
]planet.
]Plants get the C for their carbohydrate from CO2. The methanol (CH3OH)
]is produced from that carbohydrate. All the C in the CH3OH comes from
]atmospheric CO2. When the methanol is burned, that C goes back into the
]atmosphere where it came from. Therefore, burning biomass alcohol yields
]no change in atmospheric CO2. The net result is to transfer solar energy
]to your car.
]2CO2 + 4H2O + solar energy -> 2CH3OH + 3O2 [plant + methanol conversion]
]2CH3OH + 3O2 -> 2CO2 + 4H2O + useful energy [burning of methanol]
]Whereas burning oil takes C from the ground and puts it into the atmosphere.
Correct.
I would add to this that for every increase in fuel use, we must have
a corresponding increase in useful biomass production. This means growing
more plants, and faster growing plants (like hemp.) This sucks more
carbon out of the atmosphere.
This way, our carbon emission and carbon removal are fundamentally linked --
a much better way to ensure control over the greenhouse gas CO2 than any
law or regulation will ever be.
Best of all, our farmers have something to grow, for a change.
Tino
>>know that building lots of natural gas turbines will increase, not decrease
>>CO2! Only our leaders are allowed such knowledge, and they're not allowed
>>to tell....
>
>natural gas for energy generation _while_ claiming great concern for the
>potential problems associated with greenhouse gases, does this not seem
>illogical?
Yes, it does, doesn't it?
>Aren't scientists in charge of the higher levels of U.S. energy policy
>development and implementation? The current state of affairs makes it
>sound as if lawyers or clerks are running things; that would be
>rather silly.
Yes, it is, isn't it?
You were setting me up for that, Russ...weren't you?
Tino
Lawrence C Smith
>Do you understand that perfect oxidation of methanol produces carbon dioxide
>(a greenhouse gas) and water?
Do _you_ understand that the biomass-produced methanol took that carbon out
of the atmosphere in the first place? If we switched to biomass methanol
tomorrow out net _increase_ in greenhouse gases would drop to nearly nil.
>Do you understand that imperfect oxidation of methanol can produce
>formaldehyde, a potential contributor to smog?
Do _you_ understand that computer-control of combustion makes oxidation of
most any fuel nearly perfect already, and that water-injection will increase
the efficiency and drop the NOx production to reduce that even further?
Larry Smith (sm...@ctron.com) No, I don't speak for Cabletron. Need you ask?
-
Liberty is not the freedom to do whatever we want,
it is the freedom to do whatever we are able.
Mark Wilson
| o You can come up with a lot of reasons why you *need*
| an auto (hauling 1000lb sofas, etc.), but that doesn't
| mean you need it for *every* trip. Most trips taken
| are short (in bicycle range), and that includes most
| commutes.
Do you have any surveys to support this point. It runs counter to my
experience.
--
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark....@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Lawrence C Smith
>=o= Cleaner fuel, yes, but still producing CO2.
This is the second time this "point" was made, and it's the second time I
got the uneasy feeling that the ecolunies may be even less on the ball than
I thought, which is a frightening thought considering my opinion of them to
begin with.
The whole _point_ was that the methanol is produced from _biomass_, which
means the carbon came _out_ of the atmosphere in the first place! It means
there is _no_ net contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere, no more digging up
carbon in the form of oil or coal and pumping it into the atmosphere where
at no time in history was _all_ that carbon present in the atmosphere all at
once.
Such a proposition is an unalloyed, uncompromised, no-holds-barred _win_ for
anyone who worries about C02 warming for as soon as it is accomplished the
increase of C02 will stop, pure and simple. Yes, we may need vast areas of
acreage to grow that biomass, but we have vast areas that are now being held
unproductive by gov't payouts. It will not only give farmers a new lease on
life, it may eliminate one of the most expensive gov't boondoggles ever invent-
ed. Methanol is nearly as good as nuclear when it comes to reducing pollution
byproducts and greenhouse gas production. With _no_ radioactive byproducts to
deal with. _Anyone_ professing a concern for the environment who does not
endorse biomass fuels reveals themselves to be the anti-progress luddites I
have long suspected they all would be.
>Don't forget
>the many other problems with autos: massive waste of land
Wasted by _whose_ standards? We need some kind of roads even if trains,
trucks, buses and bikes are all that are allowed on them. How are we
going to "reduce" this "waste"? Tear down town and cities and try to
force everyone to live in great big cities? Oh, _there's_ a good idea.
Make septic and composting systems impractical, kiss solar and wind power
goodbye and say hello to gigantic sewage-treatment plants that overflow in
heavy rain and dump raw sewage in nearby estuaries; cross off the home
gardens that reduce the amount of trucked produce grown that doesn't taste
as good; and bid a warm welcome to new aqueducts ranging the countryside to
supply the water that used to come from individual wells, and say hello to
the pall of pollution that accompanies every human habitation of more than
100,000 souls. That'll be just terrific, we eliminate the "problems" of the
automobile, and exchange them for all the problems of overcrowded urban living,
the dying bays and estuaries loaded with raw sewage that gets flushed when the
system can't handle it, the vast crowds packed together - the subway stuffers
to get more people crushed into the cars like in Tokyo. Oh, what a compelling
vision _that_ is. If living that close together is such a great benefit then
how come Bombay isn't the financial capital of the world? Look at all the
benefits they had! They saved all that money _we_ blew on _cars_, they avoided
_all_ the problems of decentralized living, they are _already_ using the
bicycle. What a good place to look for inspiration!
>(at a *minimum*, 50% of the land in urban areas is devoted to
>autos), attendant land-use planning that interferese with mass
>transit,
Mass transit, that holy grail that has always been waved as our savior but
which has never successfully competed in a fair market because it just isn't
good enough.
> community-destroying "compartmentalization,"
Oh, boy, new buzzword. No one has even shown me more "compartmentalizing"
than in an average city, where anyone of any identifiable ethnic stripe is
packed into their own neighborhoods. What a crock.
> high
>vehicle costs, high infrastructure costs, and a high death and
>accident rate.
My great-grandfather was run down and killed by a runaway horse. Just how
"safe" are your alternatives when _they_ are scaled up to service as many
people as cars? Don't forget to add in the exposure to violent crime,
and the number of fatalities to pedestrians walking to the next mass
transit connection. Nothing is 100% safe. Cars are already so safe that
most fatality statistics have ceased to be meaningful. Around 30-45,000
people are going to die _travelling_ each year no matter _how_ they do it.
>=o= Did you catch my posting on June 1st about new superlight
>car technologies? Think carbon fiber.
And if you had read that paper, how could you think there is any life left
in these old arguments? A car as big as a Taurus, _safer_ than a Taurus,
costing about the _same_ as a Taurus, with at least as much _performance_
as a Taurus, and getting from 200-300 mpg, and you think _buses_ and _trains_
are going to be the future? Do you have any contact with _this_ planet?
If nothing else, at least acknowledge the political reality of the situation,
only a _fool_ would buy into this, and there aren't _enough_ of _them_ to
get their man elected more than once every two or three administrations.
_Your_ person Billary down in DC is trying to get a nationwide motor-voter
bill passed even now. _There's_ an idea, make sure everyone who drives or
is connected with a car is registered automatically, and you think they're
going to vote their cars into an early technological grave and start tearing
up pavement to all the small ghost towns that can't be reached by _bike_?!
ROTFL!
> o It is pointless to use the inadequacies of current mass
> transit to argue against improvements to mass transit
> which would address those inadequacies.
The most important inadequacy is _never_ addressed: they don't do the whole
job. They won't get from my door to where I want to go and bring me back,
only a car will. Any "mass" transit that is capable of addressing _that_
is going to look a whole lot like a car, one way or another.
> o Bicycle trailers do exist, and yes, you can haul quite
> a lot with them.
Provided you have two good legs, plenty of time and either real good weather,
or a high tolerance for getting wet and/or sweaty, and have facilities to
shower at each end of the trip.
> o You can come up with a lot of reasons why you *need*
> an auto (hauling 1000lb sofas, etc.), but that doesn't
> mean you need it for *every* trip. Most trips taken
> are short (in bicycle range), and that includes most
> commutes.
Really? Nashua to Durham by bicycle. What the hey, it's only fifty miles.
I don't really _need_ a car. Just because my knees are already so-so just
getting in from the parking lot doesn't mean I can't _bike_ 500 miles a week.
Biking 50 miles through snow and slush in a New Hampshire winter can be really
aerobic, I'm sure. Oh, yeah, I'm the exception, it's true for _most_ people.
Of course, to get rid of cars we have to drive up taxes, drive up fees, drive
up everything but cars, so I guess I'm just expendable.
And only five and half hours by bus. Such a deal.
>> And those helmets DO look silly -- don't delude yourselves.
>=o= I remain deluded. My helmet is pretty cool. ---------.
We stand corrected. Your helmet is pretty cool. Your moldy old ideas about
how to protect the environment are the things that look really silly. And
it's your own pal Lovitz who put the rubber nose on you, too.
Russ Brown
>In article <1993Jun25.1...@pmafire.inel.gov> ru...@pmafire.inel.gov
> (Russ Brown) writes:
>>Conversion of biomass to an alcohol requires energy...and produces some
>> nasty waste for disposal.
>
>Can this be done by a microorganism, the way yeast produces ethanol?
>If so, the energy required comes from part of the biomass, and the
>"nasty waste" is nitrogenous fertilizer that goes back to the biomass
>field. The "waste" would containe all the nitrogen and minerals that the
>plants consumed while growing, so very little additional fertilizer would
>be required.
>
from the gaseous products consists of an aqueous phase, called
pyroligneous acid, which includes 1-2% MeOH, 9-10% CH3COOH, 0.1-0.5%
acetone, and a mixture of other substances. An oily tarry phase is also
produced and is found in the distillation process bottoms. Removal of
the water from the distillate with lime, producing the characteristic
slimy calcium hydroxide. Subsequent distillation yield 95% MeOH, with
the contaminant being mainly acetone. Pure MeOH can be obtained (at
additional energy cost) by careful fractional distillation.
Synthetic methanol is produced by reduction of carbon monoxide with
hydrogen at high temperature in a catalyst bed. By-products are methane
and some of the higher alcohols. The reaction is typically carried out
at 100 atmospheres and at 250-350 C. The fuel value of the final
product must be balanced against the energy cost of producing (and
purifying) carbon monoxide and hydrogen.
("Things are seldom what they seem, skim milk masquerades as cream")
-W. S. Gilbert-
>>One might check to see if the net energy balance is positive or negative.
>
>True, but the energy balance can be *improved* by using better technology
>for planting, harvesting, distilling, etc. The balance is certainly
>potentially positive due to the *input* of solar energy.
>
If one uses wood, the forests will be impacted with concomitant negative
effects on soil, water, habitat, etc. In many areas of the country, the
economics of timber harvest are negative...and the environmental impacts
are severe.
>
>>If the amount of CO2 produced by the oxidation of hydrocarbons or
>>methanol would be equal, what would the difference be? If the oxidation
>>of methanol (not to mention all the ancillary effects of the full
>>production cycle) are greater, i.e., more CO2 per unit of tranportation
>>(don't forget the energy production per unit of CO2 produced
>>....different for methanol and isooctane), the impact on global warming
>>would be larger.
>
The rate of release of product CO2 would have to be balanced against the
capability of the biomass (necessarily reduced by the additional harvest
for production of fuel) to absorb and convert to biomass. The
differential equations describing the system might yield some
interesting insights. Maybe we could reincarnate some old analogue
computers to do the simulation. Note that not all such systems are
stable. Production of more CO2 per unit of travel than is currently
done while diminishing the biomass that can sorb CO2 poses some
interesting forcing functions.
>Remember that plants take in CO2 and emit O2? And animals breathe O2 and
>exhale CO2? That's how we and all the other animals stay alive on this
>planet.
>
>Plants get the C for their carbohydrate from CO2. The methanol (CH3OH)
>is produced from that carbohydrate. All the C in the CH3OH comes from
>atmospheric CO2. When the methanol is burned, that C goes back into the
>atmosphere where it came from. Therefore, burning biomass alcohol yields
>no change in atmospheric CO2. The net result is to transfer solar energy
>to your car.
>
>2CO2 + 4H2O + solar energy -> 2CH3OH + 3O2 [plant + methanol conversion]
>
>2CH3OH + 3O2 -> 2CO2 + 4H2O + useful energy [burning of methanol]
>
>Whereas burning oil takes C from the ground and puts it into the atmosphere.
>
>
All of this is nice....as well as known. The dynamics, the energy
balance, and the environmental impacts are where the game is played.
Neither qualitative approaches nor simple algebra are enough to describe
the system.
Russ Brown
>In article <1993Jun24.1...@pmafire.inel.gov>, ru...@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown) writes:
>
>>Do you understand that perfect oxidation of methanol produces carbon dioxide
>>(a greenhouse gas) and water?
>
>Do _you_ understand that the biomass-produced methanol took that carbon out
>of the atmosphere in the first place? If we switched to biomass methanol
>tomorrow out net _increase_ in greenhouse gases would drop to nearly nil.
I do. You seem to have ignored the dynamics.
>
>>Do you understand that imperfect oxidation of methanol can produce
>>formaldehyde, a potential contributor to smog?
>
>Do _you_ understand that computer-control of combustion makes oxidation of
>most any fuel nearly perfect already, and that water-injection will increase
>the efficiency and drop the NOx production to reduce that even further?
>
I understand that there is many a slip between the cup and lip. All
that pollution in the LA basin comes from imperfect oxidation. A
columnist in an auto magazine recently offered the suggestion that
replacing 200 of the observable worst clunkers on California roads with
new Cadillacs (free of charge to the clunker-owners) would achieve a
pollution reduction equal to that the ZEV goals of CARB at a fraction of
the cost.
If memory serves (and I can verify the above-noted figures if you like),
his observation was that CARB was apparently technology-driven rather
than results-driven, with the technology being the objective. My
preference would, of course, be to replace _all_ the clunkers with
35-40 mpg vehicles and to achieve larger pollution reduction benefits
without merely inflicting the cost of regional benefits on someone else.
We like our clean air here in the mountains.
Lawrence C Smith
>In article <20naiq...@ctron-news.ctron.com> sm...@ctron.com writes:
>>In article <1993Jun24.1...@pmafire.inel.gov>, ru...@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown) writes:
>>>Do you understand that perfect oxidation of methanol produces carbon dioxide
>>>(a greenhouse gas) and water?
>>Do _you_ understand that the biomass-produced methanol took that carbon out
>>of the atmosphere in the first place? If we switched to biomass methanol
>>tomorrow out net _increase_ in greenhouse gases would drop to nearly nil.
>I do. You seem to have ignored the dynamics.
Dynamics, dyshmamics, the carbon comes from the air, it goes back to the
air, and the net increase in greenhouse gas is zip. You obviously don't
have a clue. Like most environmentalists. Here a solution to the "green-
house problem" just bit you in the ass and you refuse to see it.
>>>Do you understand that imperfect oxidation of methanol can produce
>>>formaldehyde, a potential contributor to smog?
>>Do _you_ understand that computer-control of combustion makes oxidation of
>>most any fuel nearly perfect already, and that water-injection will increase
>>the efficiency and drop the NOx production to reduce that even further?
>I understand that there is many a slip between the cup and lip. All
>that pollution in the LA basin comes from imperfect oxidation. A
>columnist in an auto magazine recently offered the suggestion that
>replacing 200 of the observable worst clunkers on California roads with
>new Cadillacs (free of charge to the clunker-owners) would achieve a
>pollution reduction equal to that the ZEV goals of CARB at a fraction of
>the cost.
Sure enough. Which is why reasoning people are against electric cars. But
may I be the first to point out that failing to keep cars in tune is already
a problem, and however bad it might be with methanol, it won't be as bad as
with gas? Or that the real solution to this problem is for the gov't to
grow some balls and be prepared to _condemn_ and crush cars that don't pass
the emissions test, rather than the namby-pamby, "oh, you tried three times,
so I guess it's okay for _you_ to pollute" rule, which is how most of those
junkers survive in the first place? Every one of those cars is registered
and inspected, and every purchaser of a new car is forced to pay extra, to
make the new car even cleaner in a desperate doomed attempt to compensate.
Can _you_ say "cost-ineffective?" I knew you could.
>If memory serves (and I can verify the above-noted figures if you like),
>his observation was that CARB was apparently technology-driven rather
From the editorial:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When a regulator talks to me for an hour about his agency's history of for-
cing technology and never once mentions cleaner air, I conclude the agency sees
itself in the technology-forcing business, rather than the air-cleaning busi-
ness.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, as Bedard goes on to point out, that _isn't_ what the damn agency
was set up to do. It has abdicated its real responsibility.
>than results-driven, with the technology being the objective. My
>preference would, of course, be to replace _all_ the clunkers with
>35-40 mpg vehicles and to achieve larger pollution reduction benefits
>without merely inflicting the cost of regional benefits on someone else.
That is quite resonable. But if you read a copy of the Lovitz report, I
think perhaps you would agree with me that replacing it with 200-300 mpg
cars as large, safe and fast as current vehicles would be even better. Such
vehicles would achieve even greater efficiency at passenger-movement than
buses or trains, according to my calculations - even if the same technology
is _applied_ to buses and trains, since the real difference in efficiency
is due to the disparity in vehicle infrastructure related to number of
passengers - small vehicles become more and more attractive, while larger
ones becomes less and less as materials technology progresses. The break-even
point is well this side of where Lovitz, et al, would like us to be. I don't
think _he_ realizes that yet, as he has a couple throwaway lines genuflecting
to the mass transit god, but the writing is very clear - and compelling.
>We like our clean air here in the mountains.
Enjoy it while you can. So long as Congress is in session, no one is safe.
Russ Brown
>In article <1993Jun28.2...@pmafire.inel.gov>, ru...@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown) writes:
>>In article <20naiq...@ctron-news.ctron.com> sm...@ctron.com writes:
>>>In article <1993Jun24.1...@pmafire.inel.gov>, ru...@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown) writes:
>
>>>>Do you understand that perfect oxidation of methanol produces carbon dioxide
>>>>(a greenhouse gas) and water?
>
>>>Do _you_ understand that the biomass-produced methanol took that carbon out
>>>of the atmosphere in the first place? If we switched to biomass methanol
>>>tomorrow out net _increase_ in greenhouse gases would drop to nearly nil.
>
>>I do. You seem to have ignored the dynamics.
>
>Dynamics, dyshmamics, the carbon comes from the air, it goes back to the
>air, and the net increase in greenhouse gas is zip. You obviously don't
>have a clue. Like most environmentalists. Here a solution to the "green-
>house problem" just bit you in the ass and you refuse to see it.
Feeling a little excited today, eh? Take a deep breath (unless you live
in California) and think about this in a more quantitative manner. Your
apparent hypothesis is that the biosphere can't absorb CO2 as fast as we
are releasing it by combustion of hydrocarbons. That may be correct.
But what you are suggesting is that we convert to a fuel source that
will:
-require more energy to produce
-release more CO2 per unit of travel than iso-octane
-require more energy to transport
This doesn't seem like a very attractive solution to the "greenhouse
problem". Remember, the original poster noted that the methanol-based
energy system would not produce any greenhouse gases.
The dynamics are important.
I haven't read the Lovitz report....and talk of 200-300 mpg vehicles as
large, safe, and fast as current vehicles leaves me with a mild feeling
of skepticism. Will they work on snow covered roads? How do they
handle windy days? Does stop and start traffic affect their
performance? Hills? Handling? Safety? Tire wear? Comfort?
Reality checks?
Jym Dyer
> This is the second time this "point" was made, and it's the
> second time I got the uneasy feeling that the ecolunies may
=o= Is name-calling any more productive when you spell it
wrong? At any rate, you might as well ignore the following,
since it's sheer loonacy [sic].
=o= I am well aware of the argument that CO2 production from
biomass fuels is absorbed when more biomass is grown. I have
not, however, seen any evidence that the system will be tight
enough that there will be no net increase in atmospheric CO2.
=o= From an agribiz perspective, biomass is just another crop.
Agribiz is notoriously short-sighted -- sustainable agriculture
is all too rare in this country. Our crops are as addicted to
oil as our cars are.
=o= This can change. But until it does, biomass is not the
panacea it's made out to be.
>> problems with autos: massive waste of land
> Wasted by _whose_ standards?
=o= 50% of urban landspace is devoted to the car, at a minimum.
Urban space is expensive, and millions are homeless. This land
use exacts an even greater toll because everyone needs to travel
that much further.
> Mass transit, that holy grail that has always been waved as
> our savior but which has never successfully competed in a fair
> market because it just isn't good enough.
=o= Autos do not compete in a fair market either, between the
massive subsidies they receive and the many costs they exact
but are not held accountable for.
> No one has even shown me more "compartmentalizing" than in
> an average city . . .
=o= You misunderstand. The average city's compartmentalization
is the result of the automobile. People don't know their
neighbors because they step out of their house compartment and
into their car compartments. The term and effect is well-know
amongst urban planners. Do a little research if you want to
understand it.
>> . . . a high death and accident rate.
> Just how "safe" are your alternatives when _they_ are scaled
> up to service as many people as cars?
=o= Get real. There has never been a means of transportation
with more deaths/mile than automobiles.
> Don't forget to add in the exposure to violent crime, and the
> number of fatalities to pedestrians walking to the next mass
> transit connection.
=o= Check the statistics: There is less violent crime in
pedestrian-oriented communities and in pedestrian-oriented
areas of a community.
>> Did you catch my posting on June 1st about new superlight
>> car technologies? Think carbon fiber.
> And if you had read that paper, how could you think there
> is any life left in these old arguments?
=o= The arguments did indeed get old very fast in this forum,
since nobody here bothered to read Amory Lovins' actual paper.
To repeat what I said:
| =o= Lovins has a knack for presenting dramatic facts that are in
| fact based on the most conservative of data. Peer review of the
| report prompted a higher conservative estimate! To quote from
| an early version of the abstract:
|
| Ultralight 4-passenger cars with modern hybrid-electric drives
| could achieve <1,6 liters per 100 km (>150 mi/gal composite)
| with demonstrated technologies such as switched reluctance
| motors, conventional buffer batteries, and compact petrol
| engines. Consumption <1,0, probably <=0,8, l/100 km
| (~240-300 mi/US gal) is probably achievable with advanced
| technologies expected to be demonstrated shortly, such as
| monolithic solid-oxide fuel cells, carbon-fibre flywheels,
| and small adiabatic diesels.
|
| These are also achievable, to quote the synopsis:
|
| . . . with superior safety, amenity, performance, and
| apparently price. Industrial implications are profound.
|
| =o= I suspect that the news reports would kick a reprise of
| the pointless month-long flamewar we had after the 100mpg news
| reports. Allow me to suggest something: If you must flame,
| flame informedly. Copies of the report will probably be
| available from the ECEEE. In the United States, copies can
| be obtained from the Rocky Mountain Institute, 1739 Snowmass
| Creek Road, Snowmass, Colorado 81654-9199 (phone 303/927-3851),
| for $15. The report is over 30 pages long, and is entitled
| _Supercars:_The_Coming_Light-Vehicle_Revolution_, by Amory B.
| Lovins, John W. Barnett, and L. Hunter Lovins.
> Nashua to Durham. . . . Biking 50 miles through snow and slush
> in a New Hampshire winter can be really aerobic, I'm sure.
=o= This is pointless, but hey, Nashua to the outskirts of
Mason in snow and slush is a lovely ride, and that was before
the mountain bike was invented.
> Oh, yeah, I'm the exception, it's true for _most_ people
> Of course, to get rid of cars we have to drive up taxes,
> drive up fees, drive up everything but cars, so I guess
> I'm just expendable.
=o= The whine of the overprivileged. Yeah, I'm upset that
I can't afford to live in the Sierra Mountains and commute
to work in the Bay Area every day, but the gummint refuses
to subsidize my daily plane ride. It's so unfair.
<_Jym_>
Mend ::::: Jym Dyer ::: j...@remarque.berkeley.edu :::: ::::
Russ Brown
>
>>Do you understand that perfect oxidation of methanol produces carbon dioxide
>>(a greenhouse gas) and water?
>
>Do _you_ understand that the biomass-produced methanol took that carbon out
>of the atmosphere in the first place? If we switched to biomass methanol
>tomorrow out net _increase_ in greenhouse gases would drop to nearly nil.
>
hydrocarbons are part of the planet's total carbon inventory; most of
the hydrocarbon's came from the atmosphere at one point. Gold
postulated that significant quantities might be abiotic, but this has
not been proven yet.
For practical purposes, the carbon inventory of the world is not changing.
But the rate at which we discharge it into the atmosphere, whether it
comes from fossil hydrocarbons or biomass, is a critical factor. Either
source could exceed the rate at which it is reconverted to biomass. Add the
rate of depletion of biomass to produce the CO2 generating fuel to the
set of differential equations and you could get large instabilities.
If the fuel you choose releases more carbon dioxide per unit of energy
generated than petrochemicals, the situation would be worse.
Jym Dyer
>> in a New Hampshire winter can be really aerobic, I'm sure.
=o= Note that in my reaction to this argument I did not address
the point I started off with: Even if there are situations in
which an auto is "needed" (i.e., there are no acceptable alter-
natives), it does not follow that the auto is "needed" at all
times.
=o= Does the "need" to drive from Nashua to Durham mean there
is also a "need" to drive the same vehicle around Nashua to do
some shopping, go out to eat, etc.? Is bicycling in the winter
such a horrifying prospect that one can't bicycle in the summer?
=o= I remember Nashua as a bike-accessible area. It's suffering
from a steady encroachment of auto-oriented mall/condo hell, but
it's not been entirely overtaken yet.
Sol Lightman
]In article <20naiq...@ctron-news.ctron.com> sm...@ctron.com writes:
]>In article <1993Jun24.1...@pmafire.inel.gov>, ru...@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown) writes:
]>
]>>Do you understand that perfect oxidation of methanol produces carbon dioxide
]>>(a greenhouse gas) and water?
]>
]>Do _you_ understand that the biomass-produced methanol took that carbon out
]>of the atmosphere in the first place? If we switched to biomass methanol
]>tomorrow out net _increase_ in greenhouse gases would drop to nearly nil.
]>
]Cheerfully yielding to the risk of stating the obvious, the fossil
]hydrocarbons are part of the planet's total carbon inventory; most of
]the hydrocarbon's came from the atmosphere at one point. Gold
]postulated that significant quantities might be abiotic, but this has
]not been proven yet.
Cheerfully yeilding to the risk of re-stating the obvious: I don't care
how much carbon used to be in the atmosphere, or how much is in the ground,
I am neither a dinosaur nor an oil baron. I care about the concentration
of carbon in the air NOW.
]For practical purposes, the carbon inventory of the world is not changing.
But the concentration of atmospheric carbon is.
]But the rate at which we discharge it into the atmosphere, whether it
]comes from fossil hydrocarbons or biomass, is a critical factor. Either
]source could exceed the rate at which it is reconverted to biomass. Add the
]rate of depletion of biomass to produce the CO2 generating fuel to the
]set of differential equations and you could get large instabilities.
You seem to have missed a very important factor: the rate at which the carbon
is removed from the atmosphere will increase when streamlined technology
makes biomass fuels an important commodity. Fuel producers will invest
in the cultivation of renewable, high yeild biomass crops, simply because
their businesses will fail if they do not.
We are not talking trees here, we are talking specialized, soil building
crops with high bimass output.
]If the fuel you choose releases more carbon dioxide per unit of energy
]generated than petrochemicals, the situation would be worse.
Nothing could be worse than actually adding carbon to the atmosphere,
barring actually cutting down every last tree or shrub. But this won't
happen, because every last tree or shrub are far from ideal feedstock.
Industry will demand the best feedstocks, and these must be sustainable
for industry to continue operating, or it will go the way that the loggers
are soon to go. :-]
Besides, methanol is 50% by weight Oxygen. I don't know the density of
either methanol or gasoline, so I can't do the calculations, but due to
more complete combustion, methanol contains 60% as much energy by volume
as gasoline. I'm not even sure that burning methanol DOES emit more carbon
per unit energy.
[Someone with the relevant information on hand is welcome to oblige.]
Jarand Roeynstrand
As long as no fossil fuels are burned and the total biomass on earth is not decreasing,
the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will not increase. That means that if the fuel is made
from crops grown for this purpose, and the amount grown equals the amount used for fuel,
the biomass will be constant, and the CO2 contents of the atmosphere will not increase.
(Ingnoring a possible initial increase if the removal of eg. a forest to make room for a
fuel field results in a net decrease in biomass ).
Any steady increase in CO2 as a result of using biomass for fuel implies that we will
sooner or later run out of fuel. ( Of course, the Greenehous effect might have
killed us all by then...:-( ).
But that does not mean that I think at al car-related problems may be solved by using
biomass as fuel.
--
Jarand Roeynstrand Phone: +47-7-597275 (EFI)
EFI +47-7-962355 (Home)
N-7034 Trondheim
Norway email: j...@efi.sintef.no
Russ Brown
>In article <1993Jun29.1...@pmafire.inel.gov>, ru...@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown) writes:
>|> In article <20naiq...@ctron-news.ctron.com> sm...@ctron.com writes:
>|>
>|> For practical purposes, the carbon inventory of the world is not changing.
>|>
>|> But the rate at which we discharge it into the atmosphere, whether it
>|> comes from fossil hydrocarbons or biomass, is a critical factor. Either
>|> source could exceed the rate at which it is reconverted to biomass. Add the
>|> rate of depletion of biomass to produce the CO2 generating fuel to the
>|> set of differential equations and you could get large instabilities.
>|>
>|> If the fuel you choose releases more carbon dioxide per unit of energy
>|> generated than petrochemicals, the situation would be worse.
>
>As long as no fossil fuels are burned and the total biomass on earth is not decreasing,
>the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will not increase. That means that if the fuel is made
>from crops grown for this purpose, and the amount grown equals the amount used for fuel,
>the biomass will be constant, and the CO2 contents of the atmosphere will not increase.
>(Ingnoring a possible initial increase if the removal of eg. a forest to make room for a
>fuel field results in a net decrease in biomass ).
>
Can we burn biomass-based MeOH faster than the product CO2 is
converted back to biomass?
If this is possible, i.e., if the rate of combustion exceeds the rate
of photosynthesis (note that this involves both kinetics and mass
transfer factors), then we have a problem...and that problem would
exist whether the carbon source was fossil hydrocarbons or biomass.
Since the biomass cycle seems to release _more_ CO2 per unit of energy
generated than the hydrocarbons, I suspect that the situation would be
worse.
Russ Brown
This last paragraph seems to include a lot of "to be determined". You
seem to base all your projections on the hope/wish that "streamlined
technology" can be developed...and that "high yield biomass crops" will
be cultivated. They will do this because they "will fail if they do
not."
Yes, if they don't they will fail. But that does not make success inevitable.
>
>We are not talking trees here, we are talking specialized, soil building
>crops with high bimass output.
>
To be determine?
>]If the fuel you choose releases more carbon dioxide per unit of energy
>]generated than petrochemicals, the situation would be worse.
>
>Nothing could be worse than actually adding carbon to the atmosphere,
>barring actually cutting down every last tree or shrub. But this won't
>happen, because every last tree or shrub are far from ideal feedstock.
>
>Industry will demand the best feedstocks, and these must be sustainable
>for industry to continue operating, or it will go the way that the loggers
>are soon to go. :-]
>
>Besides, methanol is 50% by weight Oxygen. I don't know the density of
>either methanol or gasoline, so I can't do the calculations, but due to
>more complete combustion, methanol contains 60% as much energy by volume
>as gasoline. I'm not even sure that burning methanol DOES emit more carbon
>per unit energy.
>
>[Someone with the relevant information on hand is welcome to oblige.]
>
On a straight heat of combustion basis, isooctane delivers more than
twice the energy per unit mass as methanol (11.4 vs 5.4 Kcal/gm)
Cars burning methanol will require bigger fuel tanks and have to pay the
energy penalty for carrying the extra fuel.
If the methanol is produced by synthesis (CO + H2) or by pyrogenic
decomposition of biomass, the CO2 equivalent of the requisite energy
must be added to the CO2 produced when the MeOH is oxidized.
The heat of vaporization of methanol is about 263 cal/gm.
The heat of vaporization of gasoline is about 87 cal/gm.
Starting engines with methanol will be more difficult, especially in
cold weather. Current systems appear to have significant corrosion
problems with alcohol fuels.
A reference recommended to me was:
"Automotive Fuels" by Owen and Coley (SAE Press)
Sol Lightman
]>Cheerfully yeilding to the risk of re-stating the obvious: I don't care
]>how much carbon used to be in the atmosphere, or how much is in the ground,
]>I am neither a dinosaur nor an oil baron. I care about the concentration
]>of carbon in the air NOW.
]>
]>]For practical purposes, the carbon inventory of the world is not changing.
]>
]>But the concentration of atmospheric carbon is.
]>
]>]But the rate at which we discharge it into the atmosphere, whether it
]>]comes from fossil hydrocarbons or biomass, is a critical factor. Either
]>]source could exceed the rate at which it is reconverted to biomass. Add the
]>]rate of depletion of biomass to produce the CO2 generating fuel to the
]>]set of differential equations and you could get large instabilities.
]>
]>You seem to have missed a very important factor: the rate at which the carbon
]>is removed from the atmosphere will increase when streamlined technology
]>makes biomass fuels an important commodity. Fuel producers will invest
]>in the cultivation of renewable, high yeild biomass crops, simply because
]>their businesses will fail if they do not.
]This last paragraph seems to include a lot of "to be determined". You
]seem to base all your projections on the hope/wish that "streamlined
]technology" can be developed...and that "high yield biomass crops" will
It can, that is not a hope or a wish. A well planned biomass fuel industry
is well within our means.
]be cultivated. They will do this because they "will fail if they do
]not."
Biomass producers who cultivate these crops will beat their competitors
hands down, due to increased efficiency in production, which they can pass
in savings to their customer.
]Yes, if they don't they will fail. But that does not make success inevitable.
]>
]>We are not talking trees here, we are talking specialized, soil building
]>crops with high bimass output.
]>
]To be determine?
I could go out to my back yard and start a biomass farm right now. Of course,
I'd probably get arrested for producing controlled substances, but it is not
a matter of finding the crops, just using them for a change.
]>]If the fuel you choose releases more carbon dioxide per unit of energy
]>]generated than petrochemicals, the situation would be worse.
]>
]>Nothing could be worse than actually adding carbon to the atmosphere,
]>barring actually cutting down every last tree or shrub. But this won't
]>happen, because every last tree or shrub are far from ideal feedstock.
]>
]>Industry will demand the best feedstocks, and these must be sustainable
]>for industry to continue operating, or it will go the way that the loggers
]>are soon to go. :-]
]>
]>Besides, methanol is 50% by weight Oxygen. I don't know the density of
]>either methanol or gasoline, so I can't do the calculations, but due to
]>more complete combustion, methanol contains 60% as much energy by volume
]>as gasoline. I'm not even sure that burning methanol DOES emit more carbon
]>per unit energy.
]>
]>[Someone with the relevant information on hand is welcome to oblige.]
]>
]On a straight heat of combustion basis, isooctane delivers more than
]twice the energy per unit mass as methanol (11.4 vs 5.4 Kcal/gm)
Great, but what percentage of the iso-octane is carbon, and what percentage
is oxygen? This will effect your ratio of CO2 emmissions::energy
Whoa .... vas is das ???
Methanol is about 33% carbon by weight,
(4*1 = 4 Hydrogen
1*6 = 6 Carbon
1*8 = 8 Oxygen)
Gasoline is at the very least 75% Carbon
So, the ratio of carbon produced per unit energy is, using your figures above
5.4 Kcal/.33 g Carbon = (app) 16 Kcal/g Carbon
11.4 Kcal/.75 g Carbon = (app) 15 Kcal/g Carbon
Vellllllll. Eet appearsss I haff you bete on both frontss, eh?
In addition to cycling carbon through the biosphere, Methanol emits LESS
carbon per unit energy as gasoline.
Add to this that methanol burns more completely than gasoline = less pollution
per unit energy output.
That's a good thing to know.
]Cars burning methanol will require bigger fuel tanks and have to pay the
]energy penalty for carrying the extra fuel.
The gas tanks would be bigger, yes. This is a trifle, however.
]If the methanol is produced by synthesis (CO + H2) or by pyrogenic
]decomposition of biomass, the CO2 equivalent of the requisite energy
]must be added to the CO2 produced when the MeOH is oxidized.
You must also add in the CO2 equivalent, then, of drilling oil, and
shipping it, as well as the energy used to clean up oil spills, power
military vehicles to secure access to oil(big $), and run the fractional stills
which convert crude into gasoline. I'd be happy to put these production
costs to a comparison with the home-grown biomass alternative. Biomass
plants, once established as an industry, can achieve high degrees of
efficiency through engineering. They are by far the better buy in the
long run. Besides -- our fossil fuel supply won't be lasting long anyway.
]The heat of vaporization of methanol is about 263 cal/gm.
]The heat of vaporization of gasoline is about 87 cal/gm.
Which is environmentally beneficial, as vapor air pollution would be
reduced. A tidbit, yes, but another point in favor of methanol.
]Starting engines with methanol will be more difficult, especially in
]cold weather. Current systems appear to have significant corrosion
]problems with alcohol fuels.
1) Ever heard of a glow plug? Alternative starter fuels? There are tons
of ways to fix this.
2) Not signifigant enough, it appears, if methanol burning cars are
out and running and on the road today. I suspect technological means could
be found to counter this, as well.
]A reference recommended to me was:
]"Automotive Fuels" by Owen and Coley (SAE Press)
And one I recommend to you is ``Farming for Fuel'' by Folke Dovring.
A nice, short, thought provoking read.
If we spent half of what we spend securing oil supplies from the gulf
on establishing a biomass fuel industry here in the U.S., we could be
breathing better by the end of the year.
Cheers,
Brian -- who doesn't really like cars, except ones with good stereo systems :-)
Lawrence C Smith
>Feeling a little excited today, eh? Take a deep breath (unless you live
>in California) and think about this in a more quantitative manner. Your
>apparent hypothesis is that the biosphere can't absorb CO2 as fast as we
>are releasing it by combustion of hydrocarbons. That may be correct.
>But what you are suggesting is that we convert to a fuel source that will:
>
> -require more energy to produce
> -release more CO2 per unit of travel than iso-octane
> -require more energy to transport
>
>This doesn't seem like a very attractive solution to the "greenhouse
>problem". Remember, the original poster noted that the methanol-based
>energy system would not produce any greenhouse gases.
Russ, you are aven dumber than I gave you credit for. The additional
energy to produce is less relevent because it is _solar_, it will come
from the combustion of the byproducts, itself merely recycling carbon
back where it came from. The amount of C02 that it releases per unit
of travel time is also irrelevant, it will be releasing precisely as
much as was removed to make it. And since it will be transported in
tankers also fueled by alcohol, the net increase in atmosphere greenhouse
gases is 0, which is all the "dynamics" that is important. Yes, the scale
of energy production will be greater - so what? If we need five gallons
of methanol to do the job of one gallon gas, we have still spared the
atmosphere the carbon load of that one gallon, for the alcohol adds _none_.
Your objections would only be valid if fossil fuels were used to create
the alcohol, but the _point_ of this whole discussion is that it comes
from _biomass_, from corn, from algae, whatever is most efficient at
converting the _real_ source of energy, _sunlight_.
If you _still_ don't see why this means 0 increase in greenhouse gases
then you are a complete idiot.
>I haven't read the Lovitz report....and talk of 200-300 mpg vehicles as
>large, safe, and fast as current vehicles leaves me with a mild feeling
>of skepticism. Will they work on snow covered roads? How do they
>handle windy days? Does stop and start traffic affect their
>performance? Hills? Handling? Safety? Tire wear? Comfort?
Yes. As well as todays. Less than with current designs. Faster. Better.
As good or better. _MUCH_ less. As good as today. _Read_ the report.
Good grief, man, he's one of your own and he convinced _himself_ and several
reviews of the report have already noted that Lovitz was being _conservative_.
>Reality checks?
I think yours bounced.
Lawrence C Smith
>In article <1993Jun29.1...@pmafire.inel.gov>, ru...@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown) writes:
>|> In article <20naiq...@ctron-news.ctron.com> sm...@ctron.com writes:
>|>
>|> For practical purposes, the carbon inventory of the world is not changing.
WATCH your ATTRIBUTIONS people, I _never_ said this. It is true, but
it ignores the different effects on the overall system that shifting
carbon from land to atmosphere or back will cause.
Lawrence C Smith
> Can we burn biomass-based MeOH faster than the product CO2 is
> converted back to biomass?
Almost by definition, no. If all fuel is biomass alcohol it came from
plantations that must grow more biomass to make the alcohol that it will
sell next, which must take that much carbon out of the atmosphere. However,
that said, there will be a transition period while we continue to burn fossil
fuels and the initial plantations are set up. That will, of course, be a
shorter time if the gov't handles it properly.
Lawrence C Smith
>>> Cleaner fuel, yes, but still producing CO2.
>> This is the second time this "point" was made, and it's the
>> second time I got the uneasy feeling that the ecolunies may
>> be even less on the ball than I thought . . .
>=o= Is name-calling any more productive when you spell it
>wrong? At any rate, you might as well ignore the following,
>since it's sheer loonacy [sic].
Let me check here...hmmm...looks like "ecolunie" is slang, and I can
spell it any way I care to. In any case, I find spelling flames an
encouraging sign, it always means you don't have anything more substantial
so say.
>=o= I am well aware of the argument that CO2 production from
>biomass fuels is absorbed when more biomass is grown. I have
>not, however, seen any evidence that the system will be tight
>enough that there will be no net increase in atmospheric CO2.
What kind of nonsense is this? How does the system have to be "tight"?
The only possible source of non-atmospheric carbon in such a system is
fossil fuels, if they are banned, as would be the natural result once
the system was converted, then it should be easy to tell if any illegal
carbon is getting into the atmosphere.
>=o= From an agribiz perspective, biomass is just another crop.
>Agribiz is notoriously short-sighted -- sustainable agriculture
>is all too rare in this country. Our crops are as addicted to
>oil as our cars are.
They are addicted to _fertilizers_. Those are currently made from oil,
but they could also be made from lots of other things. Sewage, for one.
Biomass byproducts, for another. This is because few modern crops can
fix their own nitrogen. Using a crop that _can_ do this, like legumes,
(maybe hemp, I don't recall if it fixes nitrogen, too) then less or no
fertilizer is needed. If the Luddite Rifkinites can be controlled, it
could also be done with genetically-engineered "normal" crops. And, of
course, it is quite possible we could just implement more sustainable
methods. For pure biomass, it seems to me the best way is to make a
silk purse from a sow's ear, and use sewage in shallow ponds to grow
_lots_ of algae. No other fertilizer needed.
>=o= This can change. But until it does, biomass is not the
>panacea it's made out to be.
As with anything, it must be done right. If we had had a plan for our
cities and kept our gov'ts taxing proclivities in line then we wouldn't
have set up our entire infrastructure around so much travel. It is quite
possible - I would even go so far as to say "quite likely" - that the
gov't will screw this up, too. But it is another chance to solve our
ecological problems, so we have to take it. Or build lots more nuclear
plants to support electric cars. There are always options.
>>> problems with autos: massive waste of land
>> Wasted by _whose_ standards?
>=o= 50% of urban landspace is devoted to the car, at a minimum.
>Urban space is expensive, and millions are homeless. This land
>use exacts an even greater toll because everyone needs to travel
>that much further.
What are you going to do, build homes in the middle of the road? You need
that much land for access. Look at primitive villages that have no cars or
bikes, they _still_ have 50% of the land - or more - devoted to roads, they
just _walk_ on them. This is stupid. If you want to house the homeless,
the use of land for roads is not stopping you, it's housing standards and
the lack of money. New York City has enough vacant lots and empty buildings
to house the homeless of the entire bloody _country_, but it's either illegal
or too expensive to use them for that. That's a financial problem related
to driving up the price of things, including cars. It hasn't anything to do
with roads.
>> Mass transit, that holy grail that has always been waved as
>> our savior but which has never successfully competed in a fair
>> market because it just isn't good enough.
>=o= Autos do not compete in a fair market either, between the
>massive subsidies they receive and the many costs they exact
>but are not held accountable for.
They get no subsidies. They are net tax _income_, not an outgo, and have
been since before you were born. This lie is the most enduring of the
econazi's (check the spelling on _that_), but repetition does not make it
truer.
The road system overall may well require subsidies, but it _isn't_ there
for just cars, something you conveniently forget. It is there for bikes,
who get a free ride as _no_ place taxes them. It is there for trucks,
whose rising weights increase wear and push up engineering requirements and
therefore costs, even while cars weight and cost are dropping. Eliminate
cars, and the rest of the system will collapse for lack of income.
>> No one has even shown me more "compartmentalizing" than in
>> an average city . . .
>=o= You misunderstand. The average city's compartmentalization
>is the result of the automobile. People don't know their
>neighbors because they step out of their house compartment and
>into their car compartments. The term and effect is well-know
>amongst urban planners. Do a little research if you want to
>understand it.
Cow manure. The average city dweller steps out of his _apartment_ into a
_hall_ and ignores everyone he passes on the way to the taxi stand, subway
terminal, or bus stop. People don't know their neighbors because there
are too many of them, and the normal human reaction to such pressures is
to invent standoffish habits to increase the size of the personal space.
That is why citydwellers are often ruder and less friendly than people from
smaller towns. The term and effect is "well-know" among psychologists. Do
a little research if you want to understand it.
>>> . . . a high death and accident rate.
>> Just how "safe" are your alternatives when _they_ are scaled
>> up to service as many people as cars?
>=o= Get real. There has never been a means of transportation
>with more deaths/mile than automobiles.
Get real. Practically _all_ of them did. People were thrown from horses
and died from infected scratches, stagecoaches would fall over from a pot
hole, ships would sink. 35,000 deaths a year with the number of passenger
miles driven in this country is only barely significant _statistically_,
never mind for the average person. The deaths/passenger mile statistic
is not all that informative anyway, but that's another thread. In any case,
the potential lethality of most forms of transit are within a couple
standard deviations of each other. And cars are _far_ safer than a whole
lot of things people do for _fun_. What's the passenger-mile deathrate
for skydiving?
>> Don't forget to add in the exposure to violent crime, and the
>> number of fatalities to pedestrians walking to the next mass
>> transit connection.
>=o= Check the statistics: There is less violent crime in
>pedestrian-oriented communities and in pedestrian-oriented
>areas of a community.
One of those 95% of all statistics that are made up, I suspect. The only
"pedestrian-oriented" communities _I_ am aware of are a few tribeman in
South America. Virtually everything else is oriented around _something_.
Horses, if they are old enough. Bikes if they are poor enough. Trains
and buses if they are liberal enough. Cars if they are smart enough.
Only _personal_ transportation can provide much safety from violent crime,
and insofar as walking can be construed as personal transportation, your
statement is tautologous.
>>> Did you catch my posting on June 1st about new superlight
>>> car technologies? Think carbon fiber.
>> And if you had read that paper, how could you think there
>> is any life left in these old arguments?
>=o= The arguments did indeed get old very fast in this forum,
>since nobody here bothered to read Amory Lovins' actual paper.
Funny, I went out and ordered a copy right away. I was most amused to find
it vindicated almost everything I've said in this forum in the last two years.
It's my favorite reference.
>> Nashua to Durham. . . . Biking 50 miles through snow and slush
>> in a New Hampshire winter can be really aerobic, I'm sure.
>=o= This is pointless, but hey, Nashua to the outskirts of
>Mason in snow and slush is a lovely ride, and that was before
>the mountain bike was invented.
Terrific. Do let me know when National Health Insurance will get me
some new knees that can take cold weather so I can enjoy this experience.
>> Oh, yeah, I'm the exception, it's true for _most_ people
>> Of course, to get rid of cars we have to drive up taxes,
>> drive up fees, drive up everything but cars, so I guess
>> I'm just expendable.
>=o= The whine of the overprivileged.
No, Sir. The "whine" of a tax-paying citizen who wants to continue to
do so and is sure that he won't in the world you are trying to create.
Along with entirely too many of my fellow citizens, I might add, and
while a real, good, long Depression will pretty well eradicate your
sort of idiocy, it is far too steep a price to pay.
> Yeah, I'm upset that
>I can't afford to live in the Sierra Mountains and commute
>to work in the Bay Area every day, but the gummint refuses
>to subsidize my daily plane ride. It's so unfair.
Typical stupidity. Just because I disagree with his brain-damaged
ideas, I must therefore be rich and one of the oppressors, sucking
all that money from the gov't. IF I WAS RICH I WOULDN'T HAVE TO
GIVE A DAMN ABOUT YOU, YOU DAMNED FOOL.
Russ Brown
The total energy required to obtain CO and H2 and then to synthesize
methanol exceeds the energy produced by the oxidation of methanol. The
energy balance is _negative_. The sum of all the energy costs
associated with hydrocarbons is _less_ than the energy produced by
oxidation. We can't continue to consume hydrocarbons forever; we _will_
use them up eventually....no argument. But changing to a system that is
worse from an energy standpoint will only accelerate the decline.
>
>]The heat of vaporization of methanol is about 263 cal/gm.
>]The heat of vaporization of gasoline is about 87 cal/gm.
>
>Which is environmentally beneficial, as vapor air pollution would be
>reduced. A tidbit, yes, but another point in favor of methanol.
Well, before you get too passionate, note that at 21 degrees C, the
vapor pressure of methanol (100 mm Hg) is more than 7 times as high as
that of octane (about 13 mm Hg).
The disadvantage of methanol in the combustion cycle, i.e., requiring
more heat transfer to vaporize the fuel, is combined with pollution
disadvantages at ambient conditions.
>]Starting engines with methanol will be more difficult, especially in
>]cold weather. Current systems appear to have significant corrosion
>]problems with alcohol fuels.
>
>1) Ever heard of a glow plug? Alternative starter fuels? There are tons
>of ways to fix this.
>
Yes, people with diesel cars have to use them. Winter in the
intermountain region often makes those people frustrated.
Russ Brown
>]In article <20q97n$s...@nic.umass.edu> ver...@twain.ucs.umass.edu writes:
>]>Besides, methanol is 50% by weight Oxygen. I don't know the density of
>]>either methanol or gasoline, so I can't do the calculations, but due to
>]>more complete combustion, methanol contains 60% as much energy by volume
>]>as gasoline. I'm not even sure that burning methanol DOES emit more carbon
>]>per unit energy.
>]>
>]>[Someone with the relevant information on hand is welcome to oblige.]
>]>
>
>]On a straight heat of combustion basis, isooctane delivers more than
>]twice the energy per unit mass as methanol (11.4 vs 5.4 Kcal/gm)
>
>Great, but what percentage of the iso-octane is carbon, and what percentage
>is oxygen? This will effect your ratio of CO2 emmissions::energy
>
>Whoa .... vas is das ???
>
>Methanol is about 33% carbon by weight,
>
>(4*1 = 4 Hydrogen
> 1*6 = 6 Carbon
> 1*8 = 8 Oxygen)
Your atomic weights are wrong; you used atomic numbers. The atomic
weights of the most prevalent isotopes are C=12 and O=16.
>
>Gasoline is at the very least 75% Carbon>
Gasoline is 84% carbon; methanol is 37.5% carbon.
>So, the ratio of carbon produced per unit energy is, using your figures above
>
>5.4 Kcal/.33 g Carbon = (app) 16 Kcal/g Carbon
>
>11.4 Kcal/.75 g Carbon = (app) 15 Kcal/g Carbon
>
>
The difference (corrected) is still small, as mentioned previously,
compared to the CO2 equivalent of the energy required to produce and
refine methanol.
Sol Lightman
]Your atomic weights are wrong; you used atomic numbers. The atomic
]weights of the most prevalent isotopes are C=12 and O=16.
]Gasoline is 84% carbon; methanol is 37.5% carbon.
Thank you, that works out to: (brought my calculator this time :-))
5.4 Kcal/.375 g C = 14.4 Kcal/g C for methanol
11.4 Kcal/.84 g C = 13.6 Kcal/g C for iso-octane
]The difference (corrected) is still small, as mentioned previously,
]compared to the CO2 equivalent of the energy required to produce and
]refine methanol.
Not by my figuring.
By the way, carbon that does not become methane or methanol ends
up as sulfur-free charcoal, which can be substituted for coal in electric
power plants, and burns cleaner. This is another energy product of
biomass pyrolysis.
Brian
Sol Lightman
]The total energy required to obtain CO and H2 and then to synthesize
]methanol exceeds the energy produced by the oxidation of methanol. The
]energy balance is _negative_. The sum of all the energy costs
]associated with hydrocarbons is _less_ than the energy produced by
]oxidation. We can't continue to consume hydrocarbons forever; we _will_
]use them up eventually....no argument. But changing to a system that is
]worse from an energy standpoint will only accelerate the decline.
Bull! It seems I am going to end up taking you to task for everything. The
energy balance is net positive -- do you really think the process would be
getting any attention if it were not?
Biomass itself has an energy content. When you feed biomass into a processing
system, barring atomic reaction :-), you get an equivalent amount of energy out
(in stored, potential form) as you put in, minus waste through heat.
Do you claim that the entire stored energy of the feedstock, plus some, is
lost in this process? I balk at this claim -- where does it go? Is there
some highly explosive by-product which nobody has noticed yet?
Perhaps you are assuming that heat from certain stages of the reaction is
going to be released into the atmosphere? NOT! It gets fed back (or forward)
to preheat other stages of the process. Most biomass plants will run off
of their own products in a feedback loop. Estimates of fuel-to-feed
efficiency for these self-powered plants have been put as high as 95%.
The trick is engineering the construction of the plants so they last long
enough to reclaim their construction value -- which should not be very hard,
looking at the price of gas these days.
I will get back to you with the actual figures.
Biomass industry is localized, which makes transportation and distribution
costs lower than for petrochemicals. Biomass employs our farmers and builds
our soil for food crops. Biomass is free from metallic and sulfur
contaminants.
]>]The heat of vaporization of methanol is about 263 cal/gm.
]>]The heat of vaporization of gasoline is about 87 cal/gm.
]>
]>Which is environmentally beneficial, as vapor air pollution would be
]>reduced. A tidbit, yes, but another point in favor of methanol.
]Well, before you get too passionate, note that at 21 degrees C, the
]vapor pressure of methanol (100 mm Hg) is more than 7 times as high as
]that of octane (about 13 mm Hg).
]The disadvantage of methanol in the combustion cycle, i.e., requiring
]more heat transfer to vaporize the fuel, is combined with pollution
]disadvantages at ambient conditions.
Ever heard of a gas heater? Timer operated engine preheating?
Such considerations can be easily dealt with.
?Polution disadvantages? Name them (all) please.
]>]Starting engines with methanol will be more difficult, especially in
]>]cold weather. Current systems appear to have significant corrosion
]>]problems with alcohol fuels.
]>
]>1) Ever heard of a glow plug? Alternative starter fuels? There are tons
]>of ways to fix this.
]>
]Yes, people with diesel cars have to use them. Winter in the
]intermountain region often makes those people frustrated.
Laying aside the fact that cars can be properly engineered to burn methanol
in the colder states -- recall that a large portion of our country doesn't
get that cold. In these regions, there would be no trouble whatsoever.
Brian
Russ Brown
>In article <1993Jun29....@pmafire.inel.gov>, ru...@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown) writes:
>
>>Feeling a little excited today, eh? Take a deep breath (unless you live
>>in California) and think about this in a more quantitative manner. Your
>>apparent hypothesis is that the biosphere can't absorb CO2 as fast as we
>>are releasing it by combustion of hydrocarbons. That may be correct.
>
>>But what you are suggesting is that we convert to a fuel source that will:
>>
>> -require more energy to produce
>> -release more CO2 per unit of travel than iso-octane
>> -require more energy to transport
>>
>>This doesn't seem like a very attractive solution to the "greenhouse
>>problem". Remember, the original poster noted that the methanol-based
>>energy system would not produce any greenhouse gases.
>
>Russ, you are aven dumber than I gave you credit for.
Interesting choice of words and thought pattern.
>The additional
>energy to produce is less relevent because it is _solar_, it will come
>from the combustion of the byproducts, itself merely recycling carbon
>back where it came from.
The major by-products of pyrogenic decomposition of woody materials are
acetic acid and acetone. Are you quite sure of the chemistry,
thermochemistry, and thermodynamics of all of these steps. It may not
be quite as simple as you believe.
The amount of C02 that it releases per unit
>of travel time is also irrelevant, it will be releasing precisely as
>much as was removed to make it.
You are neglecting the additional energy (primary and secondary)
required to plant, fertilize, irrigate, and harvest crops.
>And since it will be transported in
>tankers also fueled by alcohol, the net increase in atmosphere greenhouse
>gases is 0, which is all the "dynamics" that is important. Yes, the scale
>of energy production will be greater - so what? If we need five gallons
>of methanol to do the job of one gallon gas, we have still spared the
>atmosphere the carbon load of that one gallon, for the alcohol adds _none_.
>
>Your objections would only be valid if fossil fuels were used to create
>the alcohol, but the _point_ of this whole discussion is that it comes
>from _biomass_, from corn, from algae, whatever is most efficient at
>converting the _real_ source of energy, _sunlight_.
>
>If you _still_ don't see why this means 0 increase in greenhouse gases
>then you are a complete idiot.
>
One of us seems to be impaired; a gentler interpretation would be
one of ignorance rather than idiocy, and this condition is curable.
>>I haven't read the Lovitz report....and talk of 200-300 mpg vehicles as
>>large, safe, and fast as current vehicles leaves me with a mild feeling
>>of skepticism. Will they work on snow covered roads? How do they
>>handle windy days? Does stop and start traffic affect their
>>performance? Hills? Handling? Safety? Tire wear? Comfort?
>
>Yes. As well as todays. Less than with current designs. Faster. Better.
>As good or better. _MUCH_ less. As good as today. _Read_ the report.
>Good grief, man, he's one of your own and he convinced _himself_ and several
>reviews of the report have already noted that Lovitz was being _conservative_.
I'm not sure what "one of your own" is. I certainly don't give
automatic credence to ideas by virtue of the proponent's ideology or
school tie. How many of these miracle vehicles are being road-tested in
the real world? Is this just at the conceptual stage? Occasionally,
things don't work out quite as well in the real world as they do in the
office. The examples are legion.
>>Reality checks?
>
>I think yours bounced.
>
Perhaps. But that is essentially what the cow magnet promoter said when
his claims of increased fuel efficiency by magnetic fields said.
Anatole Holt characterized the general class behavior of more highly-
implemented systems with:
"A large number of installed systems work by fiat; that is, they work
by being declared to work."
Remember, the generalized rate constant for a set of serial differential
equations of similar form is the product of the set of rate constants
divided by the sum of the rate constants. As you might remember from
the study of sets of conductances (electrical), when one of the set is
much smaller than all the others, it becomes the rate-limiting factor.
Russ Brown
>Using an as yet undetermined appendage Russ Brown (ru...@pmafire.inel.gov) wrote:
>]In article <20qm5h$d...@nic.umass.edu> ver...@twain.ucs.umass.edu writes:
>]The total energy required to obtain CO and H2 and then to synthesize
>]methanol exceeds the energy produced by the oxidation of methanol. The
>]energy balance is _negative_. The sum of all the energy costs
>]associated with hydrocarbons is _less_ than the energy produced by
>]oxidation. We can't continue to consume hydrocarbons forever; we _will_
>]use them up eventually....no argument. But changing to a system that is
>]worse from an energy standpoint will only accelerate the decline.
>
>Bull! It seems I am going to end up taking you to task for everything. The
>energy balance is net positive -- do you really think the process would be
>getting any attention if it were not?
>
>Biomass itself has an energy content. When you feed biomass into a processing
>system, barring atomic reaction :-), you get an equivalent amount of energy out
>(in stored, potential form) as you put in, minus waste through heat.
>
>Do you claim that the entire stored energy of the feedstock, plus some, is
>lost in this process? I balk at this claim -- where does it go? Is there
>some highly explosive by-product which nobody has noticed yet?
>
>Perhaps you are assuming that heat from certain stages of the reaction is
>going to be released into the atmosphere? NOT! It gets fed back (or forward)
>to preheat other stages of the process. Most biomass plants will run off
>of their own products in a feedback loop. Estimates of fuel-to-feed
>efficiency for these self-powered plants have been put as high as 95%.
>The trick is engineering the construction of the plants so they last long
>enough to reclaim their construction value -- which should not be very hard,
>looking at the price of gas these days.
>
>I will get back to you with the actual figures.
>
Since the advocacy of cannabis reform (does this involve some change in
the tetrahydrocannabinol content or the carcinogenic/mutagenic potential
of the oxidized vegetation?) may not have provided an adequate basis for
communication, I suggest you consider the practical example of the
failure of the gasohol (corn-produced ethanol) "industry". Without the
substantial tax subsidy (and in some cases, with it), it was/is an
economic loser. This was a biomass-based system with a net negative
energy balance.
Beware of shamans, telemarketers, and gurus of various cloth.
Lawrence C Smith
>In article <20s717...@ctron-news.ctron.com> sm...@ctron.com writes:
>>In article <1993Jun29....@pmafire.inel.gov>, ru...@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown) writes:
>>Russ, you are aven dumber than I gave you credit for.
>Interesting choice of words and thought pattern.
Expressive, though. Also truthful.
>The major by-products of pyrogenic decomposition of woody materials are
>acetic acid and acetone. Are you quite sure of the chemistry,
>thermochemistry, and thermodynamics of all of these steps. It may not
>be quite as simple as you believe.
They aren't being decomposed, they are being fermented. The process works
for Anheuser-Busch, it'll work for "Methyltron."
>The amount of C02 that it releases per unit
>>of travel time is also irrelevant, it will be releasing precisely as
>>much as was removed to make it.
>You are neglecting the additional energy (primary and secondary)
>required to plant, fertilize, irrigate, and harvest crops.
No, I'm not, nor are any of the other people who have advocated this both
on the net and in the gov't. First of all, this energy is no greater than
that already expended on fossil fuel exploration, mining or drilling, pipeline
construction and crude oil transport, refining, more transport, and pumping.
Even if it were, the net energy obtained is positive, we simply scale the
operation up accordingly. Only if the net were so slim that this scaling
would be beyond our farming resources would make this untenable, and that
would mean a several orders of magnitude error in everyone's calculations.
Haven't you gotten a clue yet that you are the only one that thinks biomass
fuels are going to increase atmospheric C02 input and/or be uneconomic?
>>If you _still_ don't see why this means 0 increase in greenhouse gases
>>then you are a complete idiot.
>One of us seems to be impaired; a gentler interpretation would be
>one of ignorance rather than idiocy, and this condition is curable.
Didn't bother to answer the arguments in the elided paragraphs. And not
all ignorance is curable. Yours isn't responding to treatment at all.
>I'm not sure what "one of your own" is. I certainly don't give
>automatic credence to ideas by virtue of the proponent's ideology or
>school tie. How many of these miracle vehicles are being road-tested in
>the real world?
GM ultralight concept car, 200 mpg, available for examination at your
nearest auto show. The point of the report was to determine the likelihood
of being able to apply this to "real" cars, and the conclusion is that it
is very possible. Lovitz et all go into great detail. More than enough
to conclude that the scheme is workable. The question isn't "will it be
better" the question is only "how much and how soon".
> Is this just at the conceptual stage? Occasionally,
>things don't work out quite as well in the real world as they do in the
>office. The examples are legion.
True. Are you therefore advocating that this entire idea be abandoned because
it _might_ not work out? what shall we do, make every use mass transit that
is _already_ demonstrated in no uncertain terms to have "not worked out" in
the real world? Or do we identify the possibility with the best cost-benefit
ratio and the best preservation of existing investments and see where it goes?
Begining an alcohol-fuel program would cost _less_ than what California is
proposing to blow on electric cars alone.
Sol Lightman
]the tetrahydrocannabinol content or the carcinogenic/mutagenic potential
]of the oxidized vegetation?) may not have provided an adequate basis for
Hemp stalks contain no THC, if that is what you are asking.
]communication, I suggest you consider the practical example of the
]failure of the gasohol (corn-produced ethanol) "industry". Without the
]substantial tax subsidy (and in some cases, with it), it was/is an
]economic loser. This was a biomass-based system with a net negative
]energy balance.
Not a fair comparison. Ethanol production was accomplished from corn,
a crop with much sugar which is very expensive to produce on an agricultural
basis. Methanol can be made from high cellulose crops, like hemp, which
are not soil depleting and cost much less to farm. Ethanol is only useful
as a gasoline additive in practice. Methanol can be used pure.
]Beware of shamans, telemarketers, and gurus of various cloth.
Russ Brown
>In article <1993Jun30....@pmafire.inel.gov>, ru...@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown) writes:
>>In article <20s717...@ctron-news.ctron.com> sm...@ctron.com writes:
>>>In article <1993Jun29....@pmafire.inel.gov>, ru...@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown) writes:
>
>>>Russ, you are aven dumber than I gave you credit for.
>
>>Interesting choice of words and thought pattern.
>
>Expressive, though. Also truthful.
>
balance of quality matched only by your sense of truth and taste.
>>The major by-products of pyrogenic decomposition of woody materials are
>>acetic acid and acetone. Are you quite sure of the chemistry,
>>thermochemistry, and thermodynamics of all of these steps. It may not
>>be quite as simple as you believe.
>
>They aren't being decomposed, they are being fermented. The process works
>for Anheuser-Busch, it'll work for "Methyltron."
Please note reference quotation from "Organic Chemistry", H. J. Lucas:
"For many years teh principal source of this alcohol (methanol) was wood
distillation so called, actually the pyrogenic decomposition of wood."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>No, I'm not, nor are any of the other people who have advocated this both
>on the net and in the gov't. First of all, this energy is no greater than
>that already expended on fossil fuel exploration, mining or drilling, pipeline
>construction and crude oil transport, refining, more transport, and pumping.
>Even if it were, the net energy obtained is positive, we simply scale the
>operation up accordingly. Only if the net were so slim that this scaling
>would be beyond our farming resources would make this untenable, and that
>would mean a several orders of magnitude error in everyone's calculations.
>Haven't you gotten a clue yet that you are the only one that thinks biomass
>fuels are going to increase atmospheric C02 input and/or be uneconomic?
Note: "orders of magnitude" indicate error factors in excess of
hundred-fold. Did you mean that?
Note reference quotation from "Energy for a Sustainable World" by
Goldemberg, et al. (wrt ethanol, a biomass-based fuel; methanol analysis
not available in the reference):
"On the surface, therefore, Brazil's ethanol produced from sugarcane
does not appear to be competitive at present with gasoline from imported
petroleum." and "Adding the 20% surcharge" (a penalty for spending hard
currency in foreign exchange) "to imported oil brings the total cost of
gasoline...to $47 per barrel. This still leaves the cost of ethanol,
based on full gasoline replacement, costing 6-19 percent more than gasoline."
>>>If you _still_ don't see why this means 0 increase in greenhouse gases
>>>then you are a complete idiot.
>
>>One of us seems to be impaired; a gentler interpretation would be
>>one of ignorance rather than idiocy, and this condition is curable.
>
>Didn't bother to answer the arguments in the elided paragraphs. And not
>all ignorance is curable. Yours isn't responding to treatment at all.
>
How kind.
Consider also the following quotation from "Energy in a Finite World" by
Hafele, et al:
"But in the long run, we must reckon with the fact that fermentation
is not efficient in its use of carbon. The energy for the process is
actually supplied by biological burning of some of the sugar, as is
evidenced by _copious_ production of carbone dioxide; and less than
30% of the original energy content actually appears in the liquid
fuel that is produced. Moreover, natural alcohol is rather
expensive. For example, its present cost is more than twice than of
gasoline from oil, on an energy content basis, when taxes and
subsidies are eliminated."
>>I'm not sure what "one of your own" is. I certainly don't give
>>automatic credence to ideas by virtue of the proponent's ideology or
>>school tie. How many of these miracle vehicles are being road-tested in
>>the real world?
>
>GM ultralight concept car, 200 mpg, available for examination at your
>nearest auto show. The point of the report was to determine the likelihood
>of being able to apply this to "real" cars, and the conclusion is that it
>is very possible. Lovitz et all go into great detail. More than enough
>to conclude that the scheme is workable. The question isn't "will it be
>better" the question is only "how much and how soon".
>
I have found no mention of anyone named "Lovitz". Could this be
"Lovins"? If so, what is the reference?
>>Is this just at the conceptual stage? Occasionally,
>>things don't work out quite as well in the real world as they do in the
>>office. The examples are legion.
>
>True. Are you therefore advocating that this entire idea be abandoned because
>it _might_ not work out?
Hardly. But the technical/economic/environmental uncertainties seem to
belie your charming confidence in the concept.
James W Gregory
(jym dyer writes:)
>]=o= An organization that has worked hard on these issues is
>]the Worldwatch Institute, 1776 Massachusetts Avenue NW,
>]Washington, DC 20036, Phone 202/452-1999. They've published
>]a number of well-researched transportation papers. They use
>]international data, and it's interesting to see how autos
>]are being eschewed by most of the world because of their
>]high cost (to owners and to those paying for a country's
>]infrastructure), and how bicycles are gaining more ground.
>This is cool, too -- but did you ever try to deliver pizza on a bike?
Yes. I do just that, and make good money doing it, too. I also haul
groceries for people using my bike and a trailer I've built.
This month I started a curbside recycling program in my city using my
"rig", and have already signed up 69 households.
Tonight, I'll be hauling a new twin-size futon and futon frame for a
friend of mine with my bike.
So, yes, I think a bicycle _is_ a perfectly workable solution to the
local transportation problem.
-jim
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Gregory fres...@iastate.edu | "10,000 lemmings can't be wrong"
Dept. of Plant Pathology, ISU (by day) | - anonymous
Fresh Aire Delivery Services (by night/weekends)
Sol Lightman
]Please note reference quotation from "Organic Chemistry", H. J. Lucas:
]"For many years teh principal source of this alcohol (methanol) was wood
]distillation so called, actually the pyrogenic decomposition of wood."
This is correct. So is the data about fermentation/algae etc. being an
inefficient process. Destructive distillation, or pyrolysis, is not,
however.
One of the petrochemicals industry's biggest fears must be the utilization of
biomass in a form competitive to gasoline. Perhaps this is why they were
willing to allow grant money for ethanol production to get by their lobbies
in Congress -- they knew it would fail, discrediting the methanol industry's
bid for funding.
It is high time the USDE woke up from the malaise and began whole-hearted
research on the production of fuel through destructive distillation
(pyrolysis) of biomass. They are wasting valuable time and resources
on fermentation and ethanol production. Methanol presents a clear path
to a sane energy policy for the future, based on for-fuel crop production
and localized industry.
Skeezix
In article <Jym.25Jun1993.0910@naughty-peahen>, Jym Dyer <j...@remarque.berkeley.edu> writes:
> o It is pointless to use the inadequacies of current mass
> transit to argue against improvements to mass transit
> which would address those inadequacies.
The most important inadequacy is _never_ addressed: they don't do the whole
job. They won't get from my door to where I want to go and bring me back,
only a car will. Any "mass" transit that is capable of addressing _that_
is going to look a whole lot like a car, one way or another.
Not necessarily. My brother lives in Stockholm, and does not have a
car. He spends less than $100/month on transportation. My car is
paid for and I spend more than that just on gas and insurance, never
mind repairs. The $100/mo *includes* one or two cab rides a month
when you can't get from point A to point B at whatever time of day for
whatever reason. And the cab rides are pretty good, because most
people are on the train or on their bikes, so the streets are clear.
> o Bicycle trailers do exist, and yes, you can haul quite
> a lot with them.
Provided you have two good legs, plenty of time and either real good weather,
or a high tolerance for getting wet and/or sweaty, and have facilities to
shower at each end of the trip.
Increasingly, showers exist at work. This is an infrastructure
decision, just like building roads. There is no Law of the Universe
that says you can't have showers at work.
> o You can come up with a lot of reasons why you *need*
> an auto (hauling 1000lb sofas, etc.), but that doesn't
> mean you need it for *every* trip. Most trips taken
> are short (in bicycle range), and that includes most
> commutes.
Really? Nashua to Durham by bicycle. What the hey, it's only fifty miles.
I don't really _need_ a car. Just because my knees are already so-so just
getting in from the parking lot doesn't mean I can't _bike_ 500 miles a week.
Biking 50 miles through snow and slush in a New Hampshire winter can be really
aerobic, I'm sure. Oh, yeah, I'm the exception, it's true for _most_ people.
So rent one the few times you need it. Or at least don't pretend you
couldn't. If you're talking about going to work, then obviously this
is a problem, sure. It results from past infrastructure decisions and
settlement patterns. It's not written in stone that things have to be
that way.
Of course, to get rid of cars we have to drive up taxes, drive up fees, drive
up everything but cars, so I guess I'm just expendable.
You are so persecuted. Cry me a river.
-JC
--
"And the mountains shall sink and the valleys shall rise,
And great shall be the tumult thereof, I should think." -BtF