[Paleopsych] Kerry and Armageddon

[Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.]

Why isn't biodiesel the preferred next step? Small diesel engines are 
all over Europe now, and biodiesel requires no new delivery technology. 
A crash program - driven by tax incentives, etc. - would bring about a 
greatly reduced dependence on fossil fuel. The biodiesel should not 
increase CO2, since it is from living plants already in the CO2 - O2 
loop. Government could mandate a switch to diesel in all new cars, 
unless they were hybrid. Eh?
Lynn Johnson

Werbos, Dr. Paul J. wrote:

> At 03:22 PM 9/13/2004 -0700, Steve wrote:
>
>> What does it involve mechanically?
>>
>> Does it go beyond changes to the
>> fuel injection systems?
>
>
> Materials in gas tanks, gaskets, hoses ... and, in the conventional
> tehcnology, an oxygen sensor and hookups from there to control injection.
>
> The last part can be made cheaper ($1) using new technology we have 
> been funding,
> but I wouldn't wait for it (even though truly competent folks COULD do 
> it within 2 years,
> and it helps clean air at the same time!).
>
> Brazil is already getting lots of ethanol/gasoline vehicles on the 
> private market.
> but we need to move faster, and to add that little increment to let 
> methanol compete too.
>
> For the record, all incentives and R&D programs which support 
> biohydrogen or bioethanol should be extended to
> biomethanol, simply because logic insists... the external benefits of 
> getting it from renewable bio sources are as
> good for biomethanol as for the others. Whatever they may be. I don't 
> have a number...
>
>
>> Steve Hovland
>> www.stevehovland.net
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:   Werbos, Dr. Paul J. [SMTP:paul.werbos at verizon.net]
>> Sent:   Monday, September 13, 2004 3:02 PM
>> To:     The new improved paleopsych list; 'The new improved 
>> paleopsych list'
>> Subject:        RE: [Paleopsych] Kerry and Armageddon
>>
>> At 06:17 AM 9/13/2004 -0700, Steve wrote:
>> >If GEM capability can be done as a retrofit,
>> >which I expect it can, then the whole fleet
>> >could be converted in less than the 15 years
>> >it takes to replace the fleet.  And it could
>> >be done on a crash basis.
>>
>> Sorry. Not technically viable.
>> (Have you ever tried replacing just one gasket?).
>>
>>
>>
>> >Steve Hovland
>> >www.stevehovland.net
>> >
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >paleopsych mailing list
>> >paleopsych at paleopsych.org
>> >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> paleopsych mailing list
>> paleopsych at paleopsych.org
>> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych
>> _______________________________________________
>> paleopsych mailing list
>> paleopsych at paleopsych.org
>> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> paleopsych mailing list
> paleopsych at paleopsych.org
> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych
>
>