Avatar Posted by beamcdee Aug 5 2008 10:45 PM (http://carnewsbypatti.blogspot.com)| Add this link to... |
Category: Business Tags: autos  reviews 
And that means business is blossoming for Fray and her Three-year-old business Eco-Limo, which comprises a fleet of 14 cars all of which are either “hybrid” gas/electricity or run on bio-fuels.
Avatar Posted by livekit Jul 5 2008 12:25 PM (http://www.automotive-site.info)| Add this link to... |
Category: Family Tags: alcoholic beverages alternative fuels bio fuels carbon dioxide crops fossil fuel usage 
Fuel Alternatives - Ethanol : As people look to fuel alternatives, one of the considerations is ethanol. There are many types of bio-fuels out there (that is, fuels that don't rely on
Avatar Posted by paul2006 Nov 13 2007 05:32 AM (http://www.pjstar.com)| Add this link to... |
Category: Family Tags: Autos 
LoveCraft Bio-Fuels in Los Angeles has converted more than 1400 autos to run on vegetable oil by installing a system of heaters, pumps and filters. ...
Avatar Posted by surigrand Nov 13 2007 02:22 AM (http://www.huffingtonpost.com)| Add this link to... |
Category: Health Tags:
Metaphorically speaking that is what the New York Times has done. Blamed high oil prices on those consumers in Maine who will be near bankruptcy paying their fuel bills this winter, and all the rest of us, you, me, and everyone else out there both here and abroad. In a totally bizarre article appearing in last Friday's New York Times "Rapidly Rising Global Demand For Oil Is Provoking New Energy Crisis," it is we, the consumers of energy who are solely to blame for what the NYTimes is defining as "the world headed toward its third energy shock in a generation." The producers and refiners of crude oil, the oil industry, a compliant government are all innocent as lambs in this NYTimes propaganda piece that could have been written (was it?) by the PR departments of the best and brightest of the oil companies, the American Petroleum Institute, or OPEC flaks. High price of oil? Well let's not mention the supply side, because it could be embarrassing, especially with OPEC keeping literally millions of barrels of oil off the market in order create artificially induced inventory draw downs pushing prices ever higher. No mention of the manipulation of the commodity markets, especially the ongoing investigations by the CFTC and the congressional hearings scheduled "to examine the role of speculation in recent record oil prices" by Senator Carl Levin's permanent sub--committee on investigations. Then the nonsense continues. We are told that oil prices are up 56% this year. Really? In mid January the price of crude touched $49.90 a barrel. The march to the recent $98/barrel brings the increase to nearly 100 percent in less than a year's time, an incredible jump for such a core commodity. But then the article goes on to inform us incorrectly hat the price of crude oil has jumped 365 percent in the last decade. Wrong again! The price of oil some ten years ago was under $11 a barrel (yes, let me spell it out, that's eleven!) which comes to an increase this past decade not of 365 percent, but over 900%!! Perhaps they have no calculators at the New York Times, only dictionaries. And while oil was marching to these stratospheric levels, the article makes no mention of the International Energy Agencies recent biting condemnation of the ongoing manipulation of the supply side of the oil price equation. Referring to the oil exporters from OPEC to Russia, "It is clear, the greater the increase in the call of oil and gas the more likely it will be that they will seek a higher rent from their exports and to impose higher prices by deferring investment and constraining production". To back up its argumentation the article quotes extensively the wizened observations of the Energy Policy Research Foundation of Washington, an organization largely funded by the oil industry and always at the ready to give malleable reporters sound bites (as in "This is the world's first demand-led oil shock") supportive of the oil patch pitch. So much for objective reporting. But that's not all. Not to be outdone the article introduces two observations that have become the hackneyed saws of the oil industry and their comrades in arms. First, feeling our pain the article assuages us by informing us that the price of oil has not yet reached the inflation adjusted peak touched during the Iranian Revolution in 1980 of $101.70/bbl. Hey up there in Maine, everyone feel better now? This point of reference has become a staple of New York Times reporting on oil prices. That the argumentation is ludicrous is clear when one compares the price of oil to that other bellwether of economic activity and inflation, namely gold. At he same time, 1980, the price of gold touched $860 an ounce. Today, the price is slightly over $800 an ounce. Were the same parameters applicable to gold, its price today it would be quoted at $2,000 an ounce. All of which simply underlines that the oil patch and their friends will propagandize anything that gives the appearance of absolution but is basically meaningless. And then, quite unbelievably for a paper of purported seriousness the article trots out that tired line, that even at today's prices, oil is cheaper than imported bottled water. As though the economy of the nation would come to a screeching halt without access to Evian, Perrier or Pellegrino. Perhaps not known to the editors of the NY Times, but the rest of us do have access to free tap water which is supplied by our municipalities at costs to them not very different from those of ten years ago. Perhaps there is a lesson here, when it comes to pumping oil from the nation's public lands. But wait, its not over yet. While predicting significant increases in oil demand by 2030, and in lockstep with the industry's major concern, the growth of alternative fuels, the article has ominous words of warning. To each of us, to policy makers, to investors thinking of making commitments to solar power, wind power, bio-fuels, thermal power, hydro power, tidal power, nuclear power, coal conversion, flex fuel vehicles, electric powered cars, rail and mass transportation investment the message is stop, stop, stop! The NYTimes is telling us by innuendo, don't you understand the danger, and the risk to the investments you are making? The article continues, "Economic slowdowns in China and the United States...would probably send prices tumbling...it happened a mere decade ago after the Asian financial crisis ... global oil prices fell to $10". So now that you understand the risk, put those plans away, because if you don't the oil industry may not reach that wondrous state of nirvana predicted for them by 2030. The Gray Lady should be ashamed of herself, or at the very least help pay for the fuel bills in Maine this winter. Raymond J. Learsy is the author of the updated version, "Over a Barrel: Breaking Oil's Grip On Our Future"
Avatar Posted by rojimbo Nov 10 2007 07:49 PM (http://fastwallpapers.com)| Add this link to... |
Category: Family Tags: sports car green fuel efficient big oil 
These are our favorite "green" sports cars. Some get awesome gas mileage while smoking the competition, and others use advanced bio-fuels to get higher performance over their gas-guzzling brethren. Big Oil doesn't like any of them, because they all mean one thing: if you buy them, Big Oil makes less money.
Avatar Posted by Roys Nov 9 2007 01:22 AM (http://www.quirkynews.co.uk)| Add this link to... |
Category: Family Tags: sports engine 
Eco One, which runs only on bio-fuels and bio-lubricants, can reach a staggering top speed of 150 mph and has a weight to power ratio to match a Ferrari Enzo.
Avatar Posted by footballne Oct 29 2007 02:22 AM (http://mittleidermethodgarden.blogspot.com)| Add this link to... |
Category: Family Tags:
The following recap is taken from a study published by the HarvardUniversity School of Business. Titled Food Security and the Church ofJesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, it was published September 25,2007 as N9-507-068. They were trying to determine if the LDS Churchhad some answers that others could learn from. A copy of the articleis posted in the Files section, for anyone who cares to read it.The problems it identifies are very real, and should help everyonerealize that the days of cheap food are behind us. In addition toeverything listed below is the greatly increased cost of allfertilizers, and the removal from the market of the best nitrogenfertilizer. This alone is already substantially increasing our foodcosts.Inventories of Food Staples Are Declining – US grain supplies at 57days, or a 34 year low. Zimbabwe is at 2 days' supply. US foodsurpluses no longer exist!Forty countries are suffering food shortages already.Agriculture consumes 93% of available water.Factors putting world food supplies at risk or increasing costsinclude:Global Warming – More than 20% of viable crop land will be gone by2050. By 2050 1/6th of the world's grain production will be lostjust between Pakistan and Bangladesh. Other locations will sufferproduction losses on a smaller scale. Total impact could be 40-50%reduction in viable crop land.Natural Disasters – Hurricane Katrina caused over $1 billion in croplosses. Disease – Mad Cow, Bird Flu, and the Chinese Pig Virus that killed 1million pigs. Bio-Terrorist Attack – The potential impact from dangerousmicroorganisms getting into the food supply is considered to beextreme. Imported food accounts for 260# per person per year,with only 1% inspected by FDA.Population Growth – 80 million people born each year – The USpopulation will double by 2050.Increased Meat Consumption – In the EU more grains are used to feedanimals than people.Reduced Bee Population – "The biggest threat to the US food supply"according to one USDA official. 1/4th of our diet comes from plantspollinated by bees.Ethanol Production – Land devoted to bio-fuel production increased48% from 2006 to 2007. 1/6th of all agricultural land is projectedto be used for ethanol by 2009.Reduced Available Land – Agricultural land is fast being reduced byconversion to meat production, bio-fuels, and homes.Available Land Prices Increasing – increased value of crops droveprices up 14% in 2007.Food Contamination – Food-borne diseases kill 5000 and sicken76,000,000 yearly.Increased Meat Consumption – Within 10 years the world's people willeat 25% more poultry, 30% more beef, and 50% more pork.Water Scarcity from many factors including more people, more meatconsumption, and more bio-fuel production – 25 gallons of water willgrow 1# of wheat, 2,500 gallons are required per 1# meat.Shortages & Price Increases – Before WW II 1/3rd of familyincome was spent on food. In developing countries it is the same orworse today. In America 1/10th of income was spent on food in2006, but now is increasing quickly. Vegetable oil inventories are down – due to ethanol production.Low milk inventories have caused dramatically higher milk and cheeseprices due to fewer farms and feed stocks being used for ethanolproduction.http://www.foodforeveryone.org http://www.Howtoorganicgarden.com
Avatar Posted by popo Oct 21 2007 02:22 AM (http://www.huffingtonpost.com)| Add this link to... |
Category: Health Tags:
How do you drive a stake through the heart of an industry that doesn't have one? And how do you open the last door on a technological revolution that could stop global warming and give us true energy independence? Those are the big questions being asked by respected rock musicians Bonnie Raitt, Jackson Browne and Graham Nash in a critical return of committed anit-nuclear activism that could make a big difference. As you read this Nash, Browne and Raitt are headed to Capitol Hill, rounding up support to beat back an attempt by the atomic power industry to grab a blank check loan guarantee for building who-knows-how-many new atomic reactors. The industry has been a rotting corpse for thirty years and now, suddenly, on the brink of a revolution in renewable energy, it's baaaaaaack for one last stab at the Apocalypse. Starting in the mid 1970s, these three and a host of their fellow musicians sang for a long series of benefits that raised awareness about energy and the environment and helped stop atomic power in its tracks. The biggest of their concerts were the five legendary No Nukes shows they did in Madison Square Garden in September, 1979. Some 90,000 paying customers came to the landmark events, followed by 200,000 at a free rally in Battery Park City. A major motion picture followed, along with a triple album that went platinum. John Hall, one of the organizers of Musicians United for Safe Energy (MUSE), which staged the shows, is now a US Congressman from New York. The Battery Park City site hosts Solaire, a pioneer solar housing development. Since then there've been no nuke reactor orders in the US---until a few weeks ago. Using global warming as a cover, the industry is now lining up to build more of these massive power plants all over the world. Problem is: nobody wants to invest in them. In the 50 years since the first commercial plant opened at Shippingport, Pennsylvania in 1957, atomic power has distinguished itself as what Forbes Magazine has said is "the largest managerial disaster in business history." The reactors have been everything their critics warned: dirty, dangerous, expensive, unreliable and unsustainable. The radioactive waste they produce is the ultimate killing machine. The dump being built for them in Nevada can't open for a decade---if ever---and has 80% opposition from the people around it. Since 9/11, it's also become clear that these nukes are all potential terrorist targets.The first jet that flew into the World Trade Center went directly over the Indian Point reactor complex, 45 miles north. Had it dived down a minute early, casualties could still be mounting into the hundreds of thousands. The radioactive property damage would have been incalculable. Problem is: something similar could be happening as you read this. There is no way to protect a nuke reactor from a terror attack. No wonder the industry can't get private disaster insurance, and has relied since 1957 on the government to limit its liability in case of just such a catastrophe. For all their hype about improved safety, the new reactors are demanding the same taxpayer-financed coverage---which could stretch the program to a century and beyond. But there is a way to get our energy cheaply and cleanly. The nuke industry is now claiming their reactors can help solve the global warming problem. But in fact they dump huge quantities of excess heat into the air and water, and the process of mining, milling and enriching nuclear fuel is an enormous consumer of fossil fuels. Better to look at what's happening with green power. After its "alternative" beginnings, wind power and its renewable cohorts have boomed into a multi-billion-dollar global bonanza. Returns on wind farms are strong and steady, with investment capital lining up to jump in. Production costs for solar cells and bio-fuels are plummeting, while profits soar. New breakthroughs in ocean-based thermal, wave and current energies are increasingly promising. Meanwhile, the payback for increased efficiency and conservation is higher than ever. A dollar invested in streamlining energy consumption can save ten times the energy as a dollar invested in a nuke can produce. All of which could be good news for our ecology and economy. But the reactor industry has plenty of money for buying media and the Congress. Its lead Senator, Pete Domenici of New Mexico, has slipped into the Energy Bill a sentence offering his sponsors a blank check to get government guarantees to anyone who wants to invest in a nuke. And thus the return of Nash, Browne and Raitt to the anti-nuke trenches. They've issued a music video with a retake of Stephen Stills's classic "For What It's Worth" and launched a web site at www.NukeFree.org to gather signatures to stop this bailout. Tuesday they'll hold the first of what will likely become a long series of public events, this one a DC press conference. They most likely will have some 100,000 signatures to present to Congress, gathered in a scant few weeks. The fight over these guarantees and the return of nuke power in general promises to be a long one. But they've already won once. With the groundswell of support for real solutions to global warming, the threat of the horrors of 9/11, and the rapid rise of the renewable energy industry, it could happen again. Since 1979, it's a become a lot easier to be green, and the technology for making it even moreso has definitely come of age. Harvey Wasserman is editor of www.nukefree.org, and author of SOLARTOPIA: OUR GREEN-POWERED EARTH, A.D. 2030.
Avatar Posted by fineztzboi Oct 17 2007 02:22 AM (http://feeds.treehugger.com)| Add this link to... |
Category: Family Tags:
Virgin boss, Richard Branson, has announced that not only will his company begin producing bio-fuels, but that he is going to test them out on one of his own 747s. Would you want to be on this maiden flight? Speaking to the Mortgage Bankers Association, of all things, he said that by the start of next decade his company will be producing their own bio-fuels for use in buses, trains and cars. "Early next year we will fly one of our 747s without passengers with one of the fuels that we have developed," said Branson. Branson has previously mentioned cellulosic ethanol as one potenti...