US: Ethanol made from corn is good.

Brazil: Ethanol made from sugar cane is better.

Future: Ethanol made from prarie grass is best, but kudzu works & is all over the South.

Forget hybrid cars. If you seriously want low cost mileage get DIESEL, now, or wait for the 2010 Jeep diesel hybrid. Better yet, make your own bio-diesel fuel. Fuck petroleum products - especially petroleum jelly!!

Mother Jones: Recycled Biofuel

"Economic Brief: E.U. Plans for Alternative Energy"

by PINR, 13 October 2005

On September 12, a group of European deputies announced the creation of a broad platform designed to find the quickest way to a European hydrogen-based economy, thus ending the E.U. countries' dependence on fossil energy.

Italian liberal-democrat deputy Vittorio Prodi recently told the press that given the high price of oil and the widespread worries about peak oil and an energy crisis, it was time for action in order to ensure energy independence for E.U. member states through the exploitation of renewable, ecology-friendly alternatives to oil and gas. The initiative followed those of the 2002-2004 period, all of which concentrated on the use of hydrogen as the primary energy source. Previous initiatives, however, led to very few concrete results.

Europeans in Search of Renewable Energy

For nearly three years, the concept of a hydrogen-based economy has become an axis of the E.U.'s energy strategy, designed to guarantee the highest rate of energy security and independence to the Union's member states in the coming decades. It is striking how in E.U. literature the idea of hydrogen energy progressed from a "remote alternative" to a "prospect for the future."

At the heart of the matter is the belief that the era of fossil energies will soon come to an end; however, no in-depth study has been able to indicate precisely how many decades of intense oil usage are left. Therefore, "soon" is a relative term. In spite of this lack of assurance about the future of oil and natural gas, the ruling elites in Europe perceive such a future as both uncertain and ecologically unmanageable.

In the summer of 2005, French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin called for an increase in oil refinery capability by French majors, but at the same time launched an ambitious agenda of new energy policies based primarily on nuclear power, solar energy and bio-fuels. Such a move highlights the serious question on how to manage the coming transition phase from a fossil-based energy policy to a new era based on renewable energies. [See: "Intelligence Brief: French Energy Policy"]

Pushes toward the rapid implementation of urban "hybrid vehicles," using both classical engines and electric refillable accumulators, have been advocated in recent years. Some of the biggest hopes of substituting oil in cars and busses lie in hydrogen. Combining hydrogen with oxygen makes it possible to obtain electricity with which a fuel cell can function. The residue of such a combination would be water instead of the toxic fumes left by today's combustible engines. The hybrids also have other advantages: high energy efficiency and dramatic noise reduction. The time of the electric car could finally be approaching.

Many Options, Many Doubts

Other options are available for the post-oil era. Bio-fuels are among them. In 2004, Royal Assent was given in Britain to an energy bill that contained all the provisions necessary to bring in legislation that would require oil companies to sell a given proportion of their annual fossil fuel sales as bio-fuels (bio-diesel, bio-ethanol and bio-gas). At any rate, it is still unclear whether these fuels could be a viable global alternative to fossil energy.

Hydrogen is, at the moment, the most debated option, and the one which seems to gain more preference by European decision makers. Hydrogen is an "elementary" resource particularly abundant on Earth, not only in its oceans and rivers, but also in the whole organic world -- from bio-masses to hydrocarbons. The use of hydrogen instead of fossil fuels could be decisive to reduce carbon dioxide emissions dramatically.

The big question is to define a consistent policy and to choose a sustainable and economic way of production so as to solve the problem of cost reductions and of many technical aspects still unsettled. The E.U. deputies led by Prodi count among them a substantial Green Party presence, whose representatives are fiercely opposed to the use of nuclear power to produce hydrogen.

Clearly, E.U. states and political factions have different perceptions of nuclear power, thus opening the way for a political battle over the "right" way to produce hydrogen -- a battle in which not only economic but also ethical and scientific considerations will be decisive.

The Bottom Line

Since oil prices are expected to remain high, and as global warming -- and the associated natural catastrophes -- is increasingly linked to the use of fossil energies, expect the E.U. deputies' initiative to be only the first among a series of attempts to find a viable alternative to oil and gas.

Hydrogen, solar energy, and bio-fuels are the most debated options to produce the needed electricity and fuel. However, many problems still hinder movement past the use of fossil energy. There are several methods to produce hydrogen energy cells, and among them nuclear power is strenuously opposed in Western countries since a large part of civil society perceive it as both ecologically dangerous and linked to aggressive military policies. Moreover, managing the transition phase is extremely complicated in political, industrial, social and technological aspects.

Notwithstanding these serious obstacles, look for alternative energy -- and energy independence -- to become a dominant theme in public policy discourse, and the resulting policies to have important industrial and geopolitical consequences.

Hydrogen Engine Cars

GM & Toyota Plan to Make Fuel-Cell Systems

"GM's Wild Gamble: Betting the Future on Hydrogen" - 4/25/05 issue of Forbes magazine

Running a Gasoline Engine on Hydrogen Using Water

Hydrogen Cars

Maat Water Car

Fuel Cells on the "Radar" Early at Green Car Journal Executive Information Service

January 27, 2000

San Luis Obispo, Calif. (Business Wire) - Those just discovering the importance of fuel cells aren't really on the cutting edge of auto technology information, but months, perhaps even years, behind the curve.

So goes the assessment of editors at the Green Car Journal, a leading auto industry newsletter that regularly reports on this advanced, environmentally friendly powerplant technology. Green Car Journal also covers other promising technologies in its Business Briefs, Market Watch and Patents Intelligence sections. Areas of interest include synthetic fuels, biofuels, electric vehicle motors and controllers, advanced electric vehicle batteries, hybrid vehicle powertrains and other low emission and alternative fuel technologies and the companies developing them.

"Our job has always been to help readers identify the important trends and players in the advanced technology vehicle field," said GCJ editor/publisher Ron Cogan, a recognized auto industry authority. Green Car Journal has been reporting on fuel cell development since 1992 and has road tested many advanced technology prototype and production vehicles in the United States, Europe and Asia.

Last year, the 1999 International Automotive Media Conference recognized the newsletter with a first-place MOTO award for its April 1999 news coverage of the fuel cell field with the article "There's No Mistaking It: Fuel Cell Activity Gaining Momentum." Additionally, Green Car Journal's July 1999 cover story, "Driving DaimlerChrysler's NECAR 4 Fuel Cell Vehicle," was awarded a MOTO in the road test category, as well as Best of Newsletter Division.

Staying on top of important, breaking environmental and advanced auto technologies is quite a bargain with Green Car Journal, said Cogan. The Green Car Journal executive information service costs just more than $37 per month in North America, billable annually at $445. Overseas cost is just more than $40 per month, billable at $485 annually. Checks, wire transfers and VISA/MasterCard subscription payments are accepted.

Green Car Journal is produced by Green Car Group, a publishing, marketing, public relations and consulting firm that specializes in the environmental automotive field.

Contact: Green Car Group Tom Fulks, 805/541-0477

www.greencars.com/greencarjournal

The U.S. population consumes its entire weight in oil every week!

Pass on Gas

We need to remove America away from a dependency on petroleum ASAP. OPEC recently cut back production of oil. The price of gas in America has doubled the last 18 months.

By 2012, while the US Government will be in political control of the distribution of 75% of the world's food supply, Red China will be in political control of the distribution of 75% of the world's petroleum supply.

As a result of this disparity, China will launch a missile attack against the U.S. in 2015.

Let's develop other sources of energy NOW.

Mexican Gulf Oil Drilling

Crowell on Energy

Alternative Energy Sources

Carfree Towns & Cities

'Too little' oil for global warming

Each year the U.S. buys $19 billion of oil from Arab contries. Each year the U.S. spends $36 billion in military costs in that part of the world to ensure that oil gets to the U.S.

The team was able to illuminate a real light bulb by using the natural properties of tap water, by pumping it through tiny micro-channels, and now they claim the discovery could eventually lead to the creation of a new source of clean, non-polluting electric power that could rival wind or solar power.

One of those involved in the discovery is Professor Daniel Kwok, and he's been telling Jo Mazzocchi why he stands by the claim that the research is such an extraordinary breakthrough.

DANIEL KWOK: Well, if you look at our history, has not been a new method of generating electricity since Michael Faraday in 1831. You're talking about over 160 years ago there has not been a new way of producing electricity, and this will be a totally new area or new research or new direction in generating electricity.

JO MAZZOCCHI: But some scientists might say well that's a lot of hype because what you've done, while it's quite extraordinary, it's on such a small scale that you can't really give it that kind of title.

DANIEL KWOK: When Michael Faraday first did this, nobody ever believed that he can generate electricity, and nobody knows how to use it too.

What we have done is we have basically discovered a device that we can build to transform from one form of energy into another, which is electricity, by means of water and a natural material, by natural charge separation.

JO MAZZOCCHI: So how did you do that? What was the methodology involved?

DANIEL KWOK: Well, it was basically by pushing water one end into very tiny channels. You're looking at in the order of 100,000 times smaller than the size of a human hair for each one of those channels. So if you push water into these tiny channels, then there will be charge separation occurring at that scale, and this small charge separation will cause a potential difference from the front and the back. So if you're to connect this by a wire, then you get current out of this. But then we have used a very simple idea, natural phenomenon that occurs at a small scale, and we were able to accumulate and stack this up from small scale to bigger scale to get all the currents.

JO MAZZOCCHI: And that's the great beauty with this, with what you've done, it's just so simple isn't it?

DANIEL KWOK: It's just a simple idea that we were surprised that nobody ever thought about this, because this equipment does not have any moving parts, and you just use water and there's no emission on it.

JO MAZZOCCHI: Why hasn't anyone done this before if it's so simple?

DANIEL KWOK: Well, I guess just everybody take it for granted in terms of the electricity generation. Now, we have not been thinking about how to produce electricity by a totally new different method.

JO MAZZOCCHI: Could a mobile phone be fitted with a battery that uses this pressurised water?

DANIEL KWOK: Ah, this is one thinking, that if the cell phone doesn't draw that much current and your pressure's high enough and you can scale the current up, yes it could, in principle, be able to use it, but not at this moment.

HAMISH ROBERTSON: Professor Daniel Kwok from the University of Alberta in Canada. He was speaking to Jo Mazzocchi.

Critics have long suspected that the Bush administration's energy policy was the result of very cozy relations with corporations, and now they've got the evidence to back it up: Eighteen of the energy industry's top 25 financial contributors to the Republican Party advised Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force, according to interviews and election records. The White House has refused to release the names of consultants to the energy policy, which calls for additional oil and gas drilling and the building of 1,300 to 1,900 more power plants over the next 20 years. The General Accounting Office has sued Cheney for a list of advisors to the task force, and a federal judge on Wednesday ordered the Energy Department to turn over 7,500 pages of related documents, after the Natural Resources Defense Council filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

* Straight to the source: New York Times, Don Van Natta, Jr., and Neela Banerjee, 01 March 2002 www.nytimes.com/2002/03/01/business/01ENER.html

* Straight to the source: Washington Post, Dana Milbank and Ellen Nakashima, 28 Feb 2002 www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13092-2002Feb27.html

* Only in Grist: Confessions of an energy task force member -- diary of Dick Cheney's secretive group discovered! -- satire in our opinions section www.gristmagazine.com/grist/imho/imho062901.asp?source=daily

* Do good: Support a cleaner energy plan http://www.gristmagazine.com/grist/dogood/climate.asp?source=daily#cleaner

Apollo II

Ecotopia

The Mirage of a Growing Fuel Supply

by Evar Nering, 4 Jun 01

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. - When I discussed the exponential function in the first-semester calculus classes that I taught, I invariably used consumption of a nonrenewable natural resource as an example. Since we are now engaged in a national debate about energy policy, it may be useful to talk about the mathematics involved in making a rational decision about resource use.

In my classes, I described the following hypothetical situation. We have a 100-year supply of a resource, say oil - that is, the oil would last 100 years if it were consumed at its current rate. But the oil is consumed at a rate that grows by 5 percent each year. How long would it last under these circumstances? This is an easy calculation; the answer is about 36 years.

Oh, but let's say we underestimated the supply, and we actually have a 1,000-year supply. At the same annual 5 percent growth rate in use, how long will this last? The answer is about 79 years.

Then let us say we make a striking discovery of more oil yet - a bonanza - and we now have a 10,000-year supply. At our same rate of growing use, how long would it last? Answer: 125 years.

Estimates vary for how long currently known oil reserves will last, though they are usually considerably less than 100 years. But the point of this analysis is that it really doesn't matter what the estimates are. There is no way that a supply-side attack on America's energy problem can work.

The exponential function describes the behavior of any quantity whose rate of change is proportional to its size. Compound interest is the most commonly encountered example - it would produce exponential growth if the interest were calculated at a continuing rate. I have heard public statements that use "exponential" as though it describes a large or sudden increase. But exponential growth does not have to be large, and it is never sudden. Rather, it is inexorable.

Calculations also show that if consumption of an energy resource is allowed to grow at a steady 5 percent annual rate, a full doubling of the available supply will not be as effective as reducing that growth rate by half - to 2.5 percent. Doubling the size of the oil reserve will add at most 14 years to the life expectancy of the resource if we continue to use it at the currently increasing rate, no matter how large it is currently. On the other hand, halving the growth of consumption will almost double the life expectancy of the supply, no matter what it is.

This mathematical reality seems to have escaped the politicians pushing to solve our energy problem by simply increasing supply. Building more power plants and drilling for more oil is exactly the wrong thing to do, because it will encourage more use. If we want to avoid dire consequences, we need to find the political will to reduce the growth in energy consumption to zero - or even begin to consume less.

I must emphasize that reducing the growth rate is not what most people are talking about now when they advocate conservation; the steps they recommend are just Band-Aids. If we increase the gas mileage of our automobiles and then drive more miles, for example, that will not reduce the growth rate.

Reducing the growth of consumption means living closer to where we work or play. It means telecommuting. It means controlling population growth. It means shifting to renewable energy sources.

It is not, perhaps, necessary to cut our use of oil, but it is essential that we cut the rate of increase at which we consume it. To do otherwise is to leave our descendants in an impoverished world.

- Evar D. Nering is professor emeritus of mathematics at Arizona State University.

Learning a Lesson from the Chinese

Despite Population, China Cuts Pollution

Ray Cheung is the outreach director of Global Village of Beijing, the U.S. affiliate of the Chinese Environmental Nongovernment Organization. He has lived in China for two years and works extensively with the Chinese environmental movement.

The China bashing has begun. With the return of the U.S. spy plane crew from Hainan island, the U.S. government is blasting China's handling of the incident as reckless, threatening and irresponsible for the stability and security of the world. In the following weeks, U.S. President Bush and Congress will decide how to punish with China for its "disrespect" of international law and the rights of the United States government.

All this American rhetoric about China's violation of international law is hypocritical. Last month, Mr. Bush shunned global responsibility in addressing for global climate change when he announced the United States will reject the carbon emission-curbing Kyoto Protocol which is signed by 84 countries including the United States. The result -- the United States will continue to be the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, pumping more than its fair share, 15.5 billion metric tons -- or 25 percent -- of the world's total emissions.

Meanwhile, China is drastically slashing its emission. Yes -- China. In the last three years, China has made the greatest reduction in carbon emissions of the entire world -- a decrease of 17 percent, or 140 million metric tons (as reported the U.S. Department of Energy's own statistics). Driven mostly out of environmental and economic necessity, China made these reductions from significant decreases in the use of coal, the dirtiest source of carbon emissions, and improving its overall energy efficiency.

China's recent improvements carbon reductions have been remarkable. However, China still faces an environment and energy crisis.

China is the second largest greenhouse gas emitter (behind the United States) with a contribution of 11 percent of the world's total. Seven of the world's ten most air polluted cities are in China -- each regularly has air pollution levels that exceed by tenfold the standard maximum proposed by the World Health Organization. The World Bank estimates China's urban air pollution has been responsible for over 178,000 premature deaths and 6 million emergency room visits.

China's energy demands are growing fast -- expected to double in twenty years -- as a result of its rapid economic growth and rising standard of living. To meet this need, China is desperately developing new sources of energy such as building the controversial Three Gorges Dam; expanding nuclear power use -- nuclear power currently accounts for only 1 percent of its total electricity production; and increasing dependency in foreign oil -- China was previously an oil exporter only six years ago.

Nevertheless, China is a different animal then the United States. Consider the following analysis.

The World Resources Institute estimates each American, from their energy use, emits the same amount of carbon as eight Chinese. And in the past century, the U.S. discharged 40 billion metric tons more than China.

The U.S. Department of Energy's annual world energy review found since 1997, U.S. coal consumption has increased by 40 million short tons while China declined by 411 million short tons. And, since 1996, Americans' use of renewable energy sources has fallen 3 percent, while that of the Chinese has risen 2 percent.

Even more startling are the differences between the two nations' energy strategies -- and their impact on global climate change.

Defending his decision not to curb power-plant carbon emissions, Mr. Bush argued that regulation would raise energy prices, hurt consumers and damage the economy. He also insisted that the U.S. should be building more power plants as quickly as possible. China is going in the opposite direction. Despite incurring enormous social costs, the country has shut down hundreds of power plants, thousands of highly polluting factories and 30,000 coal mines. The mine closures alone left more than 500,000 Chinese jobless.

Mr. Bush's energy policy priority is to increase U.S. supply and production of fossil fuels, specifically coal. Mr. Bush wants to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling, create further exemptions in the Clean Air Act and increase subsidies of coal and energy producers.

China's energy policy priority is to decrease the use of coal. China's State Economic and Trade Commission said last year it will decrease coal production by another 20 percent by 2015 (a move that could reduce carbon emissions by 30 million tons). China is cutting subsidies for coal -- by over 40 percent since 1990.

In his recently announced budget initiatives, Mr. Bush seeks to cut $277 million for energy efficiency and renewable energy R&D and technology deployment programs.

In Agenda 21, China's environmental blueprint, China says it hopes to increase alternative and renewable energy sources by tenfold within fifteen years. China has launched a $25 million rural wind and solar energy project. A recent U.S. Department of Energy study discovered that China has already doubled its wind-energy capacity in five years' time.

In the face of global climate change, the U.S., the world's strongest nation with a per capita GNP of $30,000, is sitting on its hands and carrying on as usual. On the other hand, China, the world's most populated nation with a per capita of GNP of $780, is shouldering its responsibility and trying to change.

Last week, environment ministers of the European Union have been visiting their counterparts throughout the world urging their commitment to carbon reduction despite the American rejection. In their visit to Beijing, China's State Environmental Protection Administration Minister Xie Jie Hua assured Swedish Environment Minister Kjell Larsson that China is devoted to bringing the Kyoto Protocol into force. Mr. Larrson praised China's support and carbon reductions by saying the Chinese "really want to be part of the process. ... they are doing all they can." When asked about the United States, Mr. Larrson replied, "We cannot allow one country to decide for almost 200 other countries what action should be taken."

The Bush administration and Congress in the following weeks will be seeking to teach China a lesson about rights of the United States government and respect for international law. Perhaps Mr. Bush and his colleagues would be better served if they use the time instead to learn from the Chinese something about compliance for international agreements and global responsibility.

Mega-Artichokes to Power Homes?

London (Reuters) - April 27, 2000 - Spanish farmers are growing three-meter high artichokes for burning in special power stations to produce electricity, the Independent newspaper reported on Thursday.

The genetically-modified monster vegetables, which boast seven meter roots, will be generating power for 60,000 people when operations in the northern towns of Villabilla de Burgos and Alcala de Gurrea begin in two years.

The newspaper said twin power stations will burn 105,000 tonnes of the dried and pulped Cynara Cardunculs each year.

Farmers were persuaded to sow the prickly plant by EU subsidies and price guarantees from the electricity generator.

Burning plants for energy is not a new idea, but the biomass sector has seen a revival in recent years as environmental concerns rise.

While there are already a number of biomass schemes in Europe they often struggle to compete commercially with other green energy schemes.

An Irish scheme to burn cannabis as a fuel foundered last year because of it was considered too expensive compared with wind power projects.

Gas rationing in the 80's worked even though we grumbled about it. It might even be good for us!

The Saudis are boycotting American goods. We should return the favor.

An interesting thought is to boycott their GAS.

Every time you fill up the car, you can avoid putting more money into the coffers of Saudi Arabia. Just buy from gas companies that don't import their oil from the Saudis.

I thought it might be interesting for you to know which oil companies are the best to buy gas from and which major companies import Middle Eastern oil :

Arab oil:

Shell............................. 205,742,000 barrels

Chevron/Texaco......... 144,332,000 barrels

Exxon/Mobil............... 130,082,000 barrels

Marathon/Speedway... 117,740,000 barrels

Amoco............................62,231,000 barrels

If you do the math at $30/barrel, these imports amount to over $18 BILLION!

Here are some large companies that do not import Middle Eastern oil:

Other oil:

Citgo.......................0 barrels

Sunoco...................0 barrels

Conoco...................0 barrels

Sinclair.....................0 barrels

BP/Phillips..............0 barrels

Hess........................0 barrels

ARC0........................0 barrels

All of this information is available from the Department of Energy and each is required to state where they get their oil and how much they are importing. But to have an impact, we need to reach literally millions of gas buyers.

It's really simple to do. Now, don't wimp out at this point... keep reading and I'll explain how simple it is to reach millions of people!!

I'm sending this note to about thirty people.

If each of you send it to at least ten more (30 x 10 = 300)... and those 300 send it to at least ten more (300 x 10 = 3,000) .. and so on, by the time the message reaches the sixth generation of people, we will have reached over THREE MILLION consumers!

If those three million get excited and pass this on to ten friends each, then 30 million people will have been contacted!

If it goes one level further, you guessed it . THREE HUNDRED MILLION PEOPLE!!!

Again, all you have to do is send this to 10 people.

How long would all that take?

If each of us sends this e-mail out to ten more people within one day, all 300 MILLION people could conceivably be contacted within the next eight days!

Certainly worth a try!