New usenet group proposal: sci.energy.biofuel.*

[[email protected]]

Howdy,

There has been a lot of Interest in biofuels spread out over many
different groups lately. As a subscriber to this group, I hope you'll
assist me in creating a proper set of forums for these topics.

sci.energy.biofuel.* is a new hierarchy that is being discussed in
news.groups.proposals.

Please support this initiative by posting a few positive words to the
current thread.

Thanks in advance!

[Bob Kuykendall]

Isn't that one already covered by sci.net.energy.sink?

[Sevenhundred Elves]

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 08:37:21 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:

>Howdy,
>
>There has been a lot of Interest in biofuels spread out over many
>different groups lately. As a subscriber to this group, I hope you'll
>assist me in creating a proper set of forums for these topics.
>
>sci.energy.biofuel.* is a new hierarchy that is being discussed in
>news.groups.proposals.
>
>Please support this initiative by posting a few positive words to the
>current thread.
>
>Thanks in advance!

I'm against it. I'm not dead set against it like I'll vigorously
oppose it, but I do think sci.energy is large enough to contain
discussions of biofuel, and I have a hunch that most posters to
sci.energy find biofuels interesting at the moment and like to discuss
them right here. But if there was a separate newsgroup for biofuels
only, I'm not sure I'd find it interesting enough to seek it out. Too
narrow, you see. If you had proposed something at least a little
broader, like "sci.energy.fuel" I would have been more positive.
Comparisons of fossil fuels and biofuel are interesting, but a name
like "sci.energy.biofuel" might not attract those who would take a
stand against biofuel, thus discussions would be one-sided.

Fuel is still very much on topic for sci.energy.

S.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 24, 6:37 am, Sevenhundred Elves >
wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 08:37:21 -0700 (PDT), "
>
> > wrote:
> >Howdy,
>
> >There has been a lot of Interest in biofuels spread out over many
> >different groups lately. As a subscriber to this group, I hope you'll
> >assist me in creating a proper set of forums for these topics.
>
> >sci.energy.biofuel.* is a new hierarchy that is being discussed in
> >news.groups.proposals.
>
> >Please support this initiative by posting a few positive words to the
> >current thread.
>
> >Thanks in advance!
>
> I'm against it. I'm not dead set against it like I'll vigorously
> oppose it, but I do think sci.energy is large enough to contain
> discussions of biofuel, and I have a hunch that most posters to
> sci.energy find biofuels interesting at the moment and like to discuss
> them right here. But if there was a separate newsgroup for biofuels
> only, I'm not sure I'd find it interesting enough to seek it out. Too
> narrow, you see. If you had proposed something at least a little
> broader, like "sci.energy.fuel" I would have been more positive.
> Comparisons of fossil fuels and biofuel are interesting, but a name
> like "sci.energy.biofuel" might not attract those who would take a
> stand against biofuel, thus discussions would be one-sided.
>
> Fuel is still very much on topic for sci.energy.
>
> S.

The hierarchy included groups for engineering chemistry, advocacy, and
agriculture. The charters were intended to provide a location for
collaboration for these disciplines as they relate to biofuels, not a
place to discuss fuel in general. So discussing an engine, or
titration, or soil chemistry would be on topic, but the good/bad of
biofuels would have definitely been off topic.

But it is a moot point. The big-8 board has quashed the initiative.

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Everyone talks about our terrible dependency on oil -- foreign and
otherwise -- but hardly anyone mentions what it is. Fossil fuel, all
right, but whose fossils? Mostly tiny plants called diatoms, but quite
possibly a few Barney-like creatures went into the mix, like
Stegosaurus, Brontosaurus and other giant reptiles that shared the
Jurassic period with all those diatoms. What we are burning in our cars
and keeping our homes warm or cool with is, in other words, a highly
processed version of corpse juice.

....

I say to my fellow humans: It's time to stop feeding off the dead and
grow up! I don't know about food, but I have a plan for achieving fuel
self-suffiency in less time than it takes to say "Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge." The idea came to me from reports of the growing crime
of French fry oil theft: certain desperate individuals are stealing
restaurants' discarded cooking oil, which can then be used to fuel cars.
So the idea is, Why not could skip the French fry phase and harvest
high-energy hydrocarbons right from ourselves?

I'm talking about liposuction, of course, and it's a mystery to me why
it hasn't occurred to any of those geniuses who are constantly opining
about fuel prices on MSNBC. The average liposuction removes about half a
gallon of liquid fat, which may not seem like much. But think of the
vast reserves our nation is literally sitting on! Thirty percent of
Americans are obese, or about 90 million individuals or 45 million
gallons of easily available fat -- not from dead diatoms but from our
very own bellies and butts.

....

(The Nation) This column was written by Barbara Ehrenreich.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/24/opinion/main4205088.shtml

[[email protected]]

On Jun 24, 10:23 pm, cavelamb himself > wrote:
> Everyone talks about our terrible dependency on oil -- foreign and
> otherwise -- but hardly anyone mentions what it is. Fossil fuel, all
> right, but whose fossils? Mostly tiny plants called diatoms, but quite
> possibly a few Barney-like creatures went into the mix, like
> Stegosaurus, Brontosaurus and other giant reptiles that shared the
> Jurassic period with all those diatoms. What we are burning in our cars
> and keeping our homes warm or cool with is, in other words, a highly
> processed version of corpse juice.
>
> ...
>
> I say to my fellow humans: It's time to stop feeding off the dead and
> grow up! I don't know about food, but I have a plan for achieving fuel
> self-suffiency in less time than it takes to say "Arctic National
> Wildlife Refuge." The idea came to me from reports of the growing crime
> of French fry oil theft: certain desperate individuals are stealing
> restaurants' discarded cooking oil, which can then be used to fuel cars.
> So the idea is, Why not could skip the French fry phase and harvest
> high-energy hydrocarbons right from ourselves?
>
> I'm talking about liposuction, of course, and it's a mystery to me why
> it hasn't occurred to any of those geniuses who are constantly opining
> about fuel prices on MSNBC. The average liposuction removes about half a
> gallon of liquid fat, which may not seem like much. But think of the
> vast reserves our nation is literally sitting on! Thirty percent of
> Americans are obese, or about 90 million individuals or 45 million
> gallons of easily available fat -- not from dead diatoms but from our
> very own bellies and butts.
>
> ...
>
> (The Nation) This column was written by Barbara Ehrenreich.
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/24/opinion/main4205088.shtml

The FDA would lever allow it. Sucking fat out of peoples asses would
put great
hazard to them being stabbed in the brain with the hose.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 24, 8:23 pm, cavelamb himself > wrote:
> Everyone talks about our terrible dependency on oil -- foreign and
> otherwise -- but hardly anyone mentions what it is. Fossil fuel, all
> right, but whose fossils? Mostly tiny plants called diatoms, but quite
> possibly a few Barney-like creatures went into the mix, like
> Stegosaurus, Brontosaurus and other giant reptiles that shared the
> Jurassic period with all those diatoms. What we are burning in our cars
> and keeping our homes warm or cool with is, in other words, a highly
> processed version of corpse juice.

I wonder about that. Just how many dead dinosaurs did it take
to create the gazillions of barrels of known oil reserves (or whatever
the big number is)?
Around ten years ago some scientists in the Ukraine tested a
theory that's been bouncing around awhile that says that oil can be
formed deep in the earth by heat and pressure as a reaction between
water and limestone. Those Ukrainians did that: they mixed water and
dolomite (limestone) and subjected it to terrific pressure and heated
it, and got something pretty close to crude oil out of it. Limestone,
I know, is made up of diatoms' skeletons.

As far as biofuel goes, I'm willing to donate some belly fat if
I can get a tankful of gas out of it. Or we could distill some of the
baloney from alternative energy group discussions and get almost
unlimited fuel.

Dan

[Rob Dekker]

"cavelamb himself" > wrote in message ...
....
>
> I'm talking about liposuction, of course, and it's a mystery to me why it hasn't occurred to any of those geniuses who are
> constantly opining about fuel prices on MSNBC. The average liposuction removes about half a gallon of liquid fat, which may not
> seem like much. But think of the vast reserves our nation is literally sitting on! Thirty percent of Americans are obese, or about
> 90 million individuals or 45 million gallons of easily available fat -- not from dead diatoms but from our very own bellies and
> butts.

Cute.
Unfortunately, in the US, 45 million gallons is burned in less time than it took you to write the posting.

[Eric Gisin]

> wrote in message
...
> On Jun 24, 6:37 am, Sevenhundred Elves >
> wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 08:37:21 -0700 (PDT), "
>>
>> >There has been a lot of Interest in biofuels spread out over many
>> >different groups lately. As a subscriber to this group, I hope you'll
>> >assist me in creating a proper set of forums for these topics.
>>
>> >sci.energy.biofuel.* is a new hierarchy that is being discussed in
>> >news.groups.proposals.
>>
Why the hell do you need more than one ****ing group?

>> >Please support this initiative by posting a few positive words to the
>> >current thread.
>>
**** off and die.

>> >Thanks in advance!
>>
>> I'm against it. I'm not dead set against it like I'll vigorously
>> oppose it, but I do think sci.energy is large enough to contain
>> discussions of biofuel, and I have a hunch that most posters to
>> sci.energy find biofuels interesting at the moment and like to discuss
>> them right here. But if there was a separate newsgroup for biofuels
>> only, I'm not sure I'd find it interesting enough to seek it out. Too
>> narrow, you see. If you had proposed something at least a little
>> broader, like "sci.energy.fuel" I would have been more positive.
>> Comparisons of fossil fuels and biofuel are interesting, but a name
>> like "sci.energy.biofuel" might not attract those who would take a
>> stand against biofuel, thus discussions would be one-sided.
>>
>> Fuel is still very much on topic for sci.energy.
>
> The hierarchy included groups for engineering chemistry, advocacy, and
> agriculture. The charters were intended to provide a location for
> collaboration for these disciplines as they relate to biofuels, not a
> place to discuss fuel in general. So discussing an engine, or
> titration, or soil chemistry would be on topic, but the good/bad of
> biofuels would have definitely been off topic.
>
If you want a hierarchy, here's a logical one:
sci.energy
.fuel
..bio
..hydrogen
..fossil
..water-lunatics

> But it is a moot point. The big-8 board has quashed the initiative.
>
Good for them.