The DZA Be Preachin' If anyone does a google search for "Biodiesel", they're probably going to stumble across The National Biodiesel Board website, The Journey To Forever website, and a number of other websites dedicated to homebrewing biodiesel. These sites are all fine and good, but I for one am not going to be making biodiesel in a meth-lab fashion in my garage, for the sole reason of rebelling against establishment or any other leftist hippy reason. I want to persue the manufacture of biodiesel and alternative fuels mostly for economic gain. When I say "economic gain", I mean that not only on a personal level, but on a national level as well. Biodiesel is all well and good for the environment. It's much cleaner than petroleum based diesel, it's biodegradable, and manufacturing it is also more efficient than petrodiesel when done correctly. The biggest selling point, which might be realized sometime in the near future, is it's ability to escalate the United States economy to a level maybe never before seen. Biodiesel keeps American dollars in America. The entire United States economy can run on biodiesel with no retooling whatsoever. Existing infrastructure will not need to be changed to run on this fuel. New jobs will be created and an oil embargo or boycott will have little to no effect on our economy. Biodiesel also has the advantage of being a very distributed industry. For example, if a biodiesel facility in the midwest has an accident or is rendered disabled, energy prices will not be affected in any other region of production. There will be no more price gouging or nationwide energy shortages from a regional event. In european countries, the biodiesel movement is already engaged on a federal level. In France, at least 5 percent biodiesel blends are mandated at fuel pumps. In the Black Forest region of Germany, B100 is mandated in all road and off road applications. All diesel vehicles manufactured in europe, like Fiats, Renaults, Citroens, BMWs, Mercedes Benzes, and Volkswagens are all warrentied to run on at least B20, some even up to B100. Interestingly enough, the same models those manufacturers sell in the US are usually not warrantied, and if they are, it's only up to B20 at the most. There's one main reason that Biodiesel is mainstream in the rest of the world and it's not in the US.


Price.


Biodiesel in Europe is usually cheaper at the pumps than petrodiesel. If that was the case in the US, we would be sucking down B100 as fast as we could produce it. The current manufacturing practice in this industry is to take virgin vegetable oil, usually soybean, and process it from there. There are around 3 billion gallons of waste vegetable oil and animal fats just thrown out every year in the US. That's a whole lotta biodiesel to be made. There is no measurable difference between biodiesel produced from virgin oil and biodiesel produced from waste oil. The only difference between the two products is price. It costs much less to produce it from waste fats than to grow an entire crop, and the use it exclusively for fuel. Like I said before, the next year is going to be a very interesting one. If biodiesel can be made, distributed, and sold for less than petroleum diesel, even if the difference is a few pennies, people will buy it. Americans may be somewhate frightened of sacrificing their giant SUV's for a tiny diesel econobox that gets 80 MPG. I don't understand their fears. I think a Duramax in a Denali would be badass. I have personally driven a BMW X5 with a 3 liter Diesel engine. I noticed no difference between that and a gas version, other than the stump-pulling amounts of torque.

America will eventually catch on. It will not be a gradual change. Something catostrophic will happen and everyone will be forced to catch up to the rest of the world. Lives will be lost and billions, maybe even trillions of dollars will be spent trying to keep a grip on the lifestyle that has been slowly slipping away for the past few decades, but eventually, a change will come.

There's a revolution calling.  ¶ Posted By Anonymous 6:40 PM 1 comments

  So True   ¶ Posted By Anonymous 7:24 PM 0 comments

  When The Shit Hits The Fan With this upcoming Iranian situation, the decreasing oil production in US-occupied Iraq, as well as all our other compounding problems in the Middle East, the World is going to become a very interesting place in the next year. If Iran decides to cut off its oil exports to the US, I would not be surprised if a barrel of oil was trading at around 100 dollars or more on the market and a gallon of gasoline costs somewhere near 5-7 dollars, maybe more. Even if we decided to tap into the Alaskan Tundra for oil, it would still be expensive. Why? Oil from the Middle is cheap. That's why we're buying it from them instead of drilling it ourselves. It's cheaper to buy a barrel of oil from Iraq or Iran or Saudi Arabia than it is to find it, drill it, pump it out, and refine it in the United States. Alaska is not the only place where the US has oil reserves. I have spoken to many old commercial divers who have worked in the offshore oil business. Aside from the Gulf Of Mexico, there are about 300 drilled and capped wells off the Eastern Seaboard, from the south of Florida to the tip of Maine. This is also not a cheap alternative. It costs even more to produce oil and natural gas from offshore wells than it does to produce it from land based ones. Our energy may even be more expensive than Western Europe, where a gallon of gasoline costs around 5 dollars a gallon. Western Europe's prices, however will be less affected by the Iranian Oil Bourse than ours, mostly due to the fact that they have a large quantity of offshore wells in the North Sea that they do not export from, for the most part. Europe's oil stays in Europe, and they don't really have to import any large percentage from the Middle East. It may be more expensive, but they are much less dependent on foreign oil than we are. In this current situation, Iran has our economy and our energy gorging way of life by the balls, even though we as a country will never realize it or admit it.


What do I plan on doing when energy prices are higher than me on a Saturday night? I currently own 2 Mercedes Benz 300Ds, diesel powered cars. I am also looking at buying another Diesel F-350, much newer and more efficient than the last one. I plan on buying a SVO conversion kit, like the one from Frybrid, to convert these vehicles to run efficiently on SVO/WVO. While the rest of the country is in the middle of an energy crisis, I'll be cruising around in a Mercedes or an F350 paying pennies for my fuel. Maybe if I really feel like being an asshole, I'll lean out the window and announce to the world that I saw it coming while lines form at the gas stations.  ¶ Posted By Anonymous 7:11 PM 0 comments

  The Ominous Black Cloud Is Getting Closer... Here's another article I came across while cruising through the World Wide Wizzeb.



The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse

Abstract: the proposed Iranian Oil Bourse will accelerate the fall of the American Empire.

By Krassimir Petrov, Ph.D.

I. Economics of Empires

01/19/06 "Gold Eagle" -- -- A nation-state taxes its own citizens, while an empire taxes other nation-states. The history of empires, from Greek and Roman, to Ottoman and British, teaches that the economic foundation of every single empire is the taxation of other nations. The imperial ability to tax has always rested on a better and stronger economy, and as a consequence, a better and stronger military. One part of the subject taxes went to improve the living standards of the empire; the other part went to strengthen the military dominance necessary to enforce the collection of those taxes.

Historically, taxing the subject state has been in various forms-usually gold and silver, where those were considered money, but also slaves, soldiers, crops, cattle, or other agricultural and natural resources, whatever economic goods the empire demanded and the subject-state could deliver. Historically, imperial taxation has always been direct: the subject state handed over the economic goods directly to the empire.

For the first time in history, in the twentieth century, America was able to tax the world indirectly, through inflation. It did not enforce the direct payment of taxes like all of its predecessor empires did, but distributed instead its own fiat currency, the U.S. Dollar, to other nations in exchange for goods with the intended consequence of inflating and devaluing those dollars and paying back later each dollar with less economic goods-the difference capturing the U.S. imperial tax. Here is how this happened.

Early in the 20th century, the U.S. economy began to dominate the world economy. The U.S. dollar was tied to gold, so that the value of the dollar neither increased, nor decreased, but remained the same amount of gold. The Great Depression, with its preceding inflation from 1921 to 1929 and its subsequent ballooning government deficits, had substantially increased the amount of currency in circulation, and thus rendered the backing of U.S. dollars by gold impossible. This led Roosevelt to decouple the dollar from gold in 1932. Up to this point, the U.S. may have well dominated the world economy, but from an economic point of view, it was not an empire. The fixed value of the dollar did not allow the Americans to extract economic benefits from other countries by supplying them with dollars convertible to gold.

Economically, the American Empire was born with Bretton Woods in 1945. The U.S. dollar was not fully convertible to gold, but was made convertible to gold only to foreign governments. This established the dollar as the reserve currency of the world. It was possible, because during WWII, the United States had supplied its allies with provisions, demanding gold as payment, thus accumulating significant portion of the world's gold. An Empire would not have been possible if, following the Bretton Woods arrangement, the dollar supply was kept limited and within the availability of gold, so as to fully exchange back dollars for gold. However, the guns-and-butter policy of the 1960's was an imperial one: the dollar supply was relentlessly increased to finance Vietnam and LBJ's Great Society. Most of those dollars were handed over to foreigners in exchange for economic goods, without the prospect of buying them back at the same value. The increase in dollar holdings of foreigners via persistent U.S. trade deficits was tantamount to a tax-the classical inflation tax that a country imposes on its own citizens, this time around an inflation tax that U.S. imposed on rest of the world.

When in 1970-1971 foreigners demanded payment for their dollars in gold, The U.S. Government defaulted on its payment on August 15, 1971. While the popular spin told the story of "severing the link between the dollar and gold", in reality the denial to pay back in gold was an act of bankruptcy by the U.S. Government. Essentially, the U.S. declared itself an Empire. It had extracted an enormous amount of economic goods from the rest of the world, with no intention or ability to return those goods, and the world was powerless to respond- the world was taxed and it could not do anything about it.

From that point on, to sustain the American Empire and to continue to tax the rest of the world, the United States had to force the world to continue to accept ever-depreciating dollars in exchange for economic goods and to have the world hold more and more of those depreciating dollars. It had to give the world an economic reason to hold them, and that reason was oil.

In 1971, as it became clearer and clearer that the U.S Government would not be able to buy back its dollars in gold, it made in 1972-73 an iron-clad arrangement with Saudi Arabia to support the power of the House of Saud in exchange for accepting only U.S. dollars for its oil. The rest of OPEC was to follow suit and also accept only dollars. Because the world had to buy oil from the Arab oil countries, it had the reason to hold dollars as payment for oil. Because the world needed ever increasing quantities of oil at ever increasing oil prices, the world's demand for dollars could only increase. Even though dollars could no longer be exchanged for gold, they were now exchangeable for oil.

The economic essence of this arrangement was that the dollar was now backed by oil. As long as that was the case, the world had to accumulate increasing amounts of dollars, because they needed those dollars to buy oil. As long as the dollar was the only acceptable payment for oil, its dominance in the world was assured, and the American Empire could continue to tax the rest of the world. If, for any reason, the dollar lost its oil backing, the American Empire would cease to exist. Thus, Imperial survival dictated that oil be sold only for dollars. It also dictated that oil reserves were spread around various sovereign states that weren't strong enough, politically or militarily, to demand payment for oil in something else. If someone demanded a different payment, he had to be convinced, either by political pressure or military means, to change his mind.

The man that actually did demand Euro for his oil was Saddam Hussein in 2000. At first, his demand was met with ridicule, later with neglect, but as it became clearer that he meant business, political pressure was exerted to change his mind. When other countries, like Iran, wanted payment in other currencies, most notably Euro and Yen, the danger to the dollar was clear and present, and a punitive action was in order. Bush's Shock-and-Awe in Iraq was not about Saddam's nuclear capabilities, about defending human rights, about spreading democracy, or even about seizing oil fields; it was about defending the dollar, ergo the American Empire. It was about setting an example that anyone who demanded payment in currencies other than U.S. Dollars would be likewise punished.

Many have criticized Bush for staging the war in Iraq in order to seize Iraqi oil fields. However, those critics can't explain why Bush would want to seize those fields-he could simply print dollars for nothing and use them to get all the oil in the world that he needs. He must have had some other reason to invade Iraq.

History teaches that an empire should go to war for one of two reasons: (1) to defend itself or (2) benefit from war; if not, as Paul Kennedy illustrates in his magisterial The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, a military overstretch will drain its economic resources and precipitate its collapse. Economically speaking, in order for an empire to initiate and conduct a war, its benefits must outweigh its military and social costs. Benefits from Iraqi oil fields are hardly worth the long-term, multi-year military cost. Instead, Bush must have gone into Iraq to defend his Empire. Indeed, this is the case: two months after the United States invaded Iraq, the Oil for Food Program was terminated, the Iraqi Euro accounts were switched back to dollars, and oil was sold once again only for U.S. dollars. No longer could the world buy oil from Iraq with Euro. Global dollar supremacy was once again restored. Bush descended victoriously from a fighter jet and declared the mission accomplished-he had successfully defended the U.S. dollar, and thus the American Empire.

II. Iranian Oil Bourse

The Iranian government has finally developed the ultimate "nuclear" weapon that can swiftly destroy the financial system underpinning the American Empire. That weapon is the Iranian Oil Bourse slated to open in March 2006. It will be based on a euro-oil-trading mechanism that naturally implies payment for oil in Euro. In economic terms, this represents a much greater threat to the hegemony of the dollar than Saddam's, because it will allow anyone willing either to buy or to sell oil for Euro to transact on the exchange, thus circumventing the U.S. dollar altogether. If so, then it is likely that almost everyone will eagerly adopt this euro oil system:

The Europeans will not have to buy and hold dollars in order to secure their payment for oil, but would instead pay with their own currencies. The adoption of the euro for oil transactions will provide the European currency with a reserve status that will benefit the European at the expense of the Americans.
The Chinese and the Japanese will be especially eager to adopt the new exchange, because it will allow them to drastically lower their enormous dollar reserves and diversify with Euros, thus protecting themselves against the depreciation of the dollar. One portion of their dollars they will still want to hold onto; a second portion of their dollar holdings they may decide to dump outright; a third portion of their dollars they will decide to use up for future payments without replenishing those dollar holdings, but building up instead their euro reserves.
The Russians have inherent economic interest in adopting the Euro - the bulk of their trade is with European countries, with oil-exporting countries, with China, and with Japan. Adoption of the Euro will immediately take care of the first two blocs, and will over time facilitate trade with China and Japan. Also, the Russians seemingly detest holding depreciating dollars, for they have recently found a new religion with gold. Russians have also revived their nationalism, and if embracing the Euro will stab the Americans, they will gladly do it and smugly watch the Americans bleed.
The Arab oil-exporting countries will eagerly adopt the Euro as a means of diversifying against rising mountains of depreciating dollars. Just like the Russians, their trade is mostly with European countries, and therefore will prefer the European currency both for its stability and for avoiding currency risk, not to mention their jihad against the Infidel Enemy.
Only the British will find themselves between a rock and a hard place. They have had a strategic partnership with the U.S. forever, but have also had their natural pull from Europe. So far, they have had many reasons to stick with the winner. However, when they see their century-old partner falling, will they firmly stand behind him or will they deliver the coup de grace? Still, we should not forget that currently the two leading oil exchanges are the New York's NYMEX and the London's International Petroleum Exchange (IPE), even though both of them are effectively owned by the Americans. It seems more likely that the British will have to go down with the sinking ship, for otherwise they will be shooting themselves in the foot by hurting their own London IPE interests. It is here noteworthy that for all the rhetoric about the reasons for the surviving British Pound, the British most likely did not adopt the Euro namely because the Americans must have pressured them not to: otherwise the London IPE would have had to switch to Euros, thus mortally wounding the dollar and their strategic partner.

At any rate, no matter what the British decide, should the Iranian Oil Bourse accelerate, the interests that matter-those of Europeans, Chinese, Japanese, Russians, and Arabs-will eagerly adopt the Euro, thus sealing the fate of the dollar. Americans cannot allow this to happen, and if necessary, will use a vast array of strategies to halt or hobble the operation's exchange:

Sabotaging the Exchange-this could be a computer virus, network, communications, or server attack, various server security breaches, or a 9-11-type attack on main and backup facilities.
Coup d'état-this is by far the best long-term strategy available to the Americans.
Negotiating Acceptable Terms & Limitations-this is another excellent solution to the Americans. Of course, a government coup is clearly the preferred strategy, for it will ensure that the exchange does not operate at all and does not threaten American interests. However, if an attempted sabotage or coup d'etat fails, then negotiation is clearly the second-best available option.
Joint U.N. War Resolution-this will be, no doubt, hard to secure given the interests of all other member-states of the Security Council. Feverish rhetoric about Iranians developing nuclear weapons undoubtedly serves to prepare this course of action.
Unilateral Nuclear Strike-this is a terrible strategic choice for all the reasons associated with the next strategy, the Unilateral Total War. The Americans will likely use Israel to do their dirty nuclear job.
Unilateral Total War-this is obviously the worst strategic choice. First, the U.S. military resources have been already depleted with two wars. Secondly, the Americans will further alienate other powerful nations. Third, major dollar-holding countries may decide to quietly retaliate by dumping their own mountains of dollars, thus preventing the U.S. from further financing its militant ambitions. Finally, Iran has strategic alliances with other powerful nations that may trigger their involvement in war; Iran reputedly has such alliance with China, India, and Russia, known as the Shanghai Cooperative Group, a.k.a. Shanghai Coop and a separate pact with Syria.

Whatever the strategic choice, from a purely economic point of view, should the Iranian Oil Bourse gain momentum, it will be eagerly embraced by major economic powers and will precipitate the demise of the dollar. The collapsing dollar will dramatically accelerate U.S. inflation and will pressure upward U.S. long-term interest rates. At this point, the Fed will find itself between Scylla and Charybdis-between deflation and hyperinflation-it will be forced fast either to take its "classical medicine" by deflating, whereby it raises interest rates, thus inducing a major economic depression, a collapse in real estate, and an implosion in bond, stock, and derivative markets, with a total financial collapse, or alternatively, to take the Weimar way out by inflating, whereby it pegs the long-bond yield, raises the Helicopters and drowns the financial system in liquidity, bailing out numerous LTCMs and hyperinflating the economy.

The Austrian theory of money, credit, and business cycles teaches us that there is no in-between Scylla and Charybdis. Sooner or later, the monetary system must swing one way or the other, forcing the Fed to make its choice. No doubt, Commander-in-Chief Ben Bernanke, a renowned scholar of the Great Depression and an adept Black Hawk pilot, will choose inflation. Helicopter Ben, oblivious to Rothbard's America's Great Depression, has nonetheless mastered the lessons of the Great Depression and the annihilating power of deflations. The Maestro has taught him the panacea of every single financial problem-to inflate, come hell or high water. He has even taught the Japanese his own ingenious unconventional ways to battle the deflationary liquidity trap. Like his mentor, he has dreamed of battling a Kondratieff Winter. To avoid deflation, he will resort to the printing presses; he will recall all helicopters from the 800 overseas U.S. military bases; and, if necessary, he will monetize everything in sight. His ultimate accomplishment will be the hyperinflationary destruction of the American currency and from its ashes will rise the next reserve currency of the world-that barbarous relic called gold.

About the Author: Krassimir Petrov (Krassimir_Petrov@hotmail.com) has received his Ph. D. in economics from the Ohio State University and currently teaches Macroeconomics, International Finance, and Econometrics at the American University in Bulgaria. He is looking for a career in Dubai or the U. A. E.  ¶ Posted By Anonymous 7:06 PM 0 comments

  Impending Doom Here's an article that I recieved through my Journey To Forever Biofuel Mailing List.


Petrodollar Warfare: Dollars, Euros and the Upcoming Iranian Oil Bourse

"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran
is simply ridiculous...Having said that, all options are on the
table."
-- President George W. Bush, February 2005

By William R. Clark

08/08/05 "MM" -- -- Contemporary warfare has traditionally involved
underlying conflicts regarding economics and resources. Today these
intertwined conflicts also involve international currencies, and thus
increased complexity. Current geopolitical tensions between the
United States and Iran extend beyond the publicly stated concerns
regarding Iran's nuclear intentions, and likely include a proposed
Iranian "petroeuro" system for oil trade. Similar to the Iraq war,
military operations against Iran relate to the macroeconomics of
'petrodollar recycling' and the unpublicized but real challenge to
U.S. dollar supremacy from the euro as an alternative oil transaction
currency.

It is now obvious the invasion of Iraq had less to do with any threat
from Saddam's long-gone WMD program and certainly less to do to do
with fighting International terrorism than it has to do with gaining
strategic control over Iraq's hydrocarbon reserves and in doing so
maintain the U.S. dollar as the monopoly currency for the critical
international oil market. Throughout 2004 information provided by
former administration insiders revealed the Bush/Cheney
administration entered into office with the intention of toppling
Saddam.[1][2] Candidly stated, 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' was a war
designed to install a pro-U.S. government in Iraq, establish multiple
U.S military bases before the onset of global Peak Oil, and to
reconvert Iraq back to petrodollars while hoping to thwart further
OPEC momentum towards the euro as an alternative oil transaction
currency ( i.e. "petroeuro").[3] However, subsequent geopolitical
events have exposed neoconservative strategy as fundamentally flawed,
with Iran moving towards a petroeuro system for international oil
trades, while Russia evaluates this option with the European Union.

In 2003 the global community witnessed a combination of petrodollar
warfare and oil depletion warfare. The majority of the world's
governments - especially the E.U., Russia and China - were not amused
- and neither are the U.S. soldiers who are currently stationed
inside a hostile Iraq. In 2002 I wrote an award-winning online essay
that asserted Saddam Hussein sealed his fate when he announced on
September 2000 that Iraq was no longer going to accept dollars for
oil being sold under the UN's Oil-for-Food program, and decided to
switch to the euro as Iraq's oil export currency.[4] Indeed, my
original pre-war hypothesis was validated in a Financial Times
article dated June 5, 2003, which confirmed Iraqi oil sales returning
to the international markets were once again denominated in U.S.
dollars - not euros.

The tender, for which bids are due by June 10, switches the
transaction back to dollars -- the international currency of oil
sales - despite the greenback's recent fall in value. Saddam Hussein
in 2000 insisted Iraq's oil be sold for euros, a political move, but
one that improved Iraq's recent earnings thanks to the rise in the
value of the euro against the dollar. [5]

The Bush administration implemented this currency transition despite
the adverse impact on profits from Iraqi's export oil sales.[6] (In
mid-2003 the euro was valued approx. 13% higher than the dollar, and
thus significantly impacted the ability of future oil proceeds to
rebuild Iraq's infrastructure). Not surprisingly, this detail has
never been mentioned in the five U.S. major media conglomerates who
control 90% of information flow in the U.S., but confirmation of this
vital fact provides insight into one of the crucial - yet overlooked
- rationales for 2003 the Iraq war.

Concerning Iran, recent articles have revealed active Pentagon
planning for operations against its suspected nuclear facilities.
While the publicly stated reasons for any such overt action will be
premised as a consequence of Iran's nuclear ambitions, there are
again unspoken macroeconomic drivers underlying the second stage of
petrodollar warfare - Iran's upcoming oil bourse. (The word bourse
refers to a stock exchange for securities trading, and is derived
from the French stock exchange in Paris, the Federation
Internationale des Bourses de Valeurs.)

In essence, Iran is about to commit a far greater "offense" than
Saddam Hussein's conversion to the euro for Iraq's oil exports in the
fall of 2000. Beginning in March 2006, the Tehran government has
plans to begin competing with New York's NYMEX and London's IPE with
respect to international oil trades - using a euro-based
international oil-trading mechanism.[7] The proposed Iranian oil
bourse signifies that without some sort of US intervention, the euro
is going to establish a firm foothold in the international oil trade.
Given U.S. debt levels and the stated neoconservative project of U.S.
global domination, Tehran's objective constitutes an obvious
encroachment on dollar supremacy in the crucial international oil
market.

From the autumn of 2004 through August 2005, numerous leaks by
concerned Pentagon employees have revealed that the neoconservatives
in Washington are quietly - but actively - planning for a possible
attack against Iran. In September 2004 Newsweek reported:

Deep in the Pentagon, admirals and generals are updating plans for
possible U.S. military action in Syria and Iran. The Defense
Department unit responsible for military planning for the two
troublesome countries is "busier than ever," an administration
official says. Some Bush advisers characterize the work as merely an
effort to revise routine plans the Pentagon maintains for all
contingencies in light of the Iraq war. More skittish bureaucrats say
the updates are accompanied by a revived campaign by administration
conservatives and neocons for more hard-line U.S. policies toward the
countries?'

?administration hawks are pinning their hopes on regime change in
Tehran - by covert means, preferably, but by force of arms if
necessary. Papers on the idea have circulated inside the
administration, mostly labeled "draft" or "working draft" to evade
congressional subpoena powers and the Freedom of Information Act.
Informed sources say the memos echo the administration's abortive
Iraq strategy: oust the existing regime, swiftly install a pro-U.S.
government in its place (extracting the new regime's promise to
renounce any nuclear ambitions) and get out. This daredevil scheme
horrifies U.S. military leaders, and there's no evidence that it has
won any backers at the cabinet level. [8]

Indeed, there are good reasons for U.S. military commanders to be
'horrified' at the prospects of attacking Iran. In the December 2004
issue of the Atlantic Monthly, James Fallows reported that numerous
high-level war-gaming sessions had recently been completed by Sam
Gardiner, a retired Air Force colonel who has run war games at the
National War College for the past two decades.[9] Col. Gardiner
summarized the outcome of these war games with this statement, "After
all this effort, I am left with two simple sentences for
policymakers: You have no military solution for the issues of Iran.
And you have to make diplomacy work." Despite Col. Gardiner's
warnings, yet another story appeared in early 2005 that reiterated
this administration's intentions towards Iran. Investigative reporter
Seymour Hersh's article in The New Yorker included interviews with
various high-level U.S. intelligence sources. Hersh wrote:

In my interviews [with former high-level intelligence officials], I
was repeatedly told that the next strategic target was Iran. Everyone
is saying, 'You can't be serious about targeting Iran. Look at Iraq,'
the former [CIA] intelligence official told me. But the [Bush
administration officials] say, 'We've got some lessons learned - not
militarily, but how we did it politically. We're not going to rely on
agency pissants.' No loose ends, and that's why the C.I.A. is out of
there. [10]

The most recent, and by far the most troubling, was an article in The
American Conservative by intelligence analyst Philip Giraldi. His
article, "In Case of Emergency, Nuke Iran," suggested the
resurrection of active U.S. military planning against Iran - but with
the shocking disclosure that in the event of another 9/11-type
terrorist attack on U.S. soil, Vice President Dick Cheney's office
wants the Pentagon to be prepared to launch a potential tactical
nuclear attack on Iran - even if the Iranian government was not
involved with any such terrorist attack against the U.S.:

The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick
Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command
(STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in
response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States.
The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both
conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more
than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected
nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are
hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by
conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of
Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved
in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several
senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly
appalled at the implications of what they are doing - that Iran is
being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack - but no one is
prepared to damage his career by posing any objections. [11]

Why would the Vice President instruct the U.S. military to prepare
plans for what could likely be an unprovoked nuclear attack against
Iran? Setting aside the grave moral implications for a moment, it is
remarkable to note that during the same week this "nuke Iran" article
appeared, the Washington Post reported that the most recent National
Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of Iran's nuclear program revealed that,
"Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient
for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five
years."[12] This article carefully noted this assessment was a
"consensus among U.S. intelligence agencies, [and in] contrast with
forceful public statements by the White House." The question remains,
Why would the Vice President advocate a possible tactical nuclear
attack against Iran in the event of another major terrorist attack
against the U.S. - even if Tehran was innocent of involvement?

Perhaps one of the answers relates to the same obfuscated reasons why
the U.S. launched an unprovoked invasion to topple the Iraq
government - macroeconomics and the desperate desire to maintain U.S.
economic supremacy. In essence, petrodollar hegemony is eroding,
which will ultimately force the U.S. to significantly change its
current tax, debt, trade, and energy policies, all of which are
severely unbalanced. World oil production is reportedly "flat out,"
and yet the neoconservatives are apparently willing to undertake huge
strategic and tactical risks in the Persian Gulf. Why? Quite simply -
their stated goal is U.S. global domination - at any cost.

To date, one of the more difficult technical obstacles concerning a
euro-based oil transaction trading system is the lack of a
euro-denominated oil pricing standard, or oil 'marker' as it is
referred to in the industry. The three current oil markers are U.S.
dollar denominated, which include the West Texas Intermediate crude
(WTI), Norway Brent crude, and the UAE Dubai crude. However, since
the summer of 2003 Iran has required payments in the euro currency
for its European and Asian/ACU exports - although the oil pricing
these trades was still denominated in the dollar.[13]

Therefore a potentially significant news story was reported in June
2004 announcing Iran's intentions to create of an Iranian oil bourse.
This announcement portended competition would arise between the
Iranian oil bourse and London's International Petroleum Exchange
(IPE), as well as the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX). [Both the
IPE and NYMEX are owned by U.S. consortium, and operated by an
Atlanta-based corporation, IntercontinentalExchange, Inc.]

The macroeconomic implications of a successful Iranian bourse are
noteworthy. Considering that in mid-2003 Iran switched its oil
payments from E.U. and ACU customers to the euro, and thus it is
logical to assume the proposed Iranian bourse will usher in a fourth
crude oil marker - denominated in the euro currency. This event would
remove the main technical obstacle for a broad-based petroeuro system
for international oil trades. From a purely economic and monetary
perspective, a petroeuro system is a logical development given that
the European Union imports more oil from OPEC producers than does the
U.S., and the E.U. accounted for 45% of exports sold to the Middle
East. (Following the May 2004 enlargement, this percentage likely
increased).

Despite the complete absence of coverage from the five U.S. corporate
media conglomerates, these foreign news stories suggest one of the
Federal Reserve's nightmares may begin to unfold in the spring of
2006, when it appears that international buyers will have a choice of
buying a barrel of oil for $60 dollars on the NYMEX and IPE - or
purchase a barrel of oil for ?45 - ?50 euros via the Iranian Bourse.
This assumes the euro maintains its current 20-25% appreciated value
relative to the dollar - and assumes that some sort of US
"intervention" is not launched against Iran. The upcoming bourse will
introduce petrodollar versus petroeuro currency hedging, and
fundamentally new dynamics to the biggest market in the world -
global oil and gas trades. In essence, the U.S. will no longer be
able to effortlessly expand credit via U.S. Treasury bills, and the
dollar's demand/liquidity value will fall.

It is unclear at the time of writing if this project will be
successful, or could it prompt overt or covert U.S. interventions -
thereby signaling the second phase of petrodollar warfare in the
Middle East. Regardless of the potential U.S. response to an Iranian
petroeuro system, the emergence of an oil exchange market in the
Middle East is not entirely surprising given the domestic peaking and
decline of oil exports in the U.S. and U.K, in comparison to the
remaining oil reserves in Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. What we are
witnessing is a battle for oil currency supremacy. If Iran's oil
bourse becomes a successful alternative for international oil trades,
it would challenge the hegemony currently enjoyed by the financial
centers in both London (IPE) and New York (NYMEX), a factor not
overlooked in the following (UK) Guardian article:

Iran is to launch an oil trading market for Middle East and Opec
producers that could threaten the supremacy of London's International
Petroleum Exchange.

?Some industry experts have warned the Iranians and other OPEC
producers that western exchanges are controlled by big financial and
oil corporations, which have a vested interest in market volatility.
[emphasis added]

The IPE, bought in 2001 by a consortium that includes BP, Goldman
Sachs and Morgan Stanley, was unwilling to discuss the Iranian move
yesterday. "We would not have any comment to make on it at this
stage," said an IPE spokeswoman. [14]

During an important speech in April 2002, Mr. Javad Yarjani, an OPEC
executive, described three pivotal events that would facilitate an
OPEC transition to euros.[15] He stated this would be based on (1) if
and when Norway's Brent crude is re-dominated in euros, (2) if and
when the U.K. adopts the euro, and (3) whether or not the euro gains
parity valuation relative to the dollar, and the EU's proposed
expansion plans were successful. Notably, both of the later two
criteria have transpired: the euro's valuation has been above the
dollar since late 2002, and the euro-based E.U. enlarged in May 2004
from 12 to 22 countries. Despite recent "no" votes by French and
Dutch voters regarding a common E.U. Constitution, from a
macroeconomic perspective, these domestic disagreements do no reduce
the euro currency's trajectory in the global financial markets - and
from Russia and OPEC's perspective - do not adversely impact momentum
towards a petroeuro. In the meantime, the U.K. remains uncomfortably
juxtaposed between the financial interests of the U.S. banking nexus
(New York/Washington) and the E.U. financial centers
(Paris/Frankfurt).

The most recent news reports indicate the oil bourse will start
trading on March 20, 2006, coinciding with the Iranian New Year.[16]
The implementation of the proposed Iranian oil Bourse - if successful
in utilizing the euro as its oil transaction currency standard -
essentially negates the previous two criteria as described by Mr.
Yarjani regarding the solidification of a petroeuro system for
international oil trades. It should also be noted that throughout
2003-2004 both Russia and China significantly increased their central
bank holdings of the euro, which appears to be a coordinated move to
facilitate the anticipated ascendance of the euro as a second World
Reserve Currency. [17] [18] China's announcement in July 2005 that is
was re-valuing the yuan/RNB was not nearly as important as its
decision to divorce itself form a U.S. dollar peg by moving towards a
"basket of currencies" - likely to include the yen, euro, and
dollar.[19] Additionally, the Chinese re-valuation immediately
lowered their monthly imported "oil bill" by 2%, given that oil
trades are still priced in dollars, but it is unclear how much longer
this monopoly arrangement will last.

Furthermore, the geopolitical stakes for the Bush administration were
raised dramatically on October 28, 2004, when Iran and China signed a
huge oil and gas trade agreement (valued between $70 - $100 billion
dollars.) [20] It should also be noted that China currently receives
13% of its oil imports from Iran. In the aftermath of the Iraq
invasion, the U.S.-administered Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA)
nullified previous oil lease contracts from 1997-2002 that France,
Russia, China and other nations had established under the Saddam
regime. The nullification of these contracts worth a reported $1.1
trillion created political tensions between the U.S and the European
Union, Russia and China. The Chinese government may fear the same
fate awaits their oil investments in Iran if the U.S. were able to
attack and topple the Tehran government. Despite U.S. desires to
enforce petrodollar hegemony, the geopolitical risks of an attack on
Iran's nuclear facilities would surely create a serious crisis
between Washington and Beijing.

It is increasingly clear that a confrontation and possible war with
Iran may transpire during the second Bush term. Clearly, there are
numerous tactical risks regarding neoconservative strategy towards
Iran. First, unlike Iraq, Iran has a robust military capability.
Secondly, a repeat of any "Shock and Awe" tactics is not advisable
given that Iran has installed sophisticated anti-ship missiles on the
Island of Abu Musa, and therefore controls the critical Strait of
Hormuz - where all of the Persian Gulf bound oil tankers must
pass.[22] The immediate question for Americans? Will the
neoconservatives attempt to intervene covertly and/or overtly in Iran
during 2005 or 2006 in a desperate effort to prevent the initiation
of euro-denominated international crude oil sales? Commentators in
India are quite correct in their assessment that a U.S. intervention
in Iran is likely to prove disastrous for the United States, making
matters much worse regarding international terrorism, not to the
mention potential effects on the U.S. economy.

?If it [ U.S.] intervenes again, it is absolutely certain it will not
be able to improve the situation?There is a better way, as the
constructive engagement of Libya's Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has
shown...Iran is obviously a more complex case than Libya, because
power resides in the clergy, and Iran has not been entirely
transparent about its nuclear programme, but the sensible way is to
take it gently, and nudge it to moderation. Regime change will only
worsen global Islamist terror, and in any case, Saudi Arabia is a
fitter case for democratic intervention, if at all. [21]

A successful Iranian bourse will solidify the petroeuro as an
alternative oil transaction currency, and thereby end the
petrodollar's hegemonic status as the monopoly oil currency.
Therefore, a graduated approach is needed to avoid precipitous U.S.
economic dislocations. Multilateral compromise with the EU and OPEC
regarding oil currency is certainly preferable to an 'Operation
Iranian Freedom,' or perhaps another CIA-backed coup such as
operation "Ajax" from 1953. Despite the impressive power of the U.S.
military, and the ability of our intelligence agencies to facilitate
'interventions,' it would be perilous and possibly ruinous for the
U.S. to intervene in Iran given the dire situation in Iraq. The
Monterey Institute of International Studies warned of the possible
consequences of a preemptive attack on Iran's nuclear facilities:

An attack on Iranian nuclear facilities?could have various adverse
effects on U.S. interests in the Middle East and the world. Most
important, in the absence of evidence of an Iranian illegal nuclear
program, an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities by the U.S. or Israel
would be likely to strengthen Iran's international stature and reduce
the threat of international sanctions against Iran. [23]

Synopsis:

It is not yet clear if a U.S. military expedition will occur in a
desperate attempt to maintain petrodollar supremacy. Regardless of
the recent National Intelligence Estimate that down-played Iran's
potential nuclear weapons program, it appears increasingly likely the
Bush administration may use the specter of nuclear weapon
proliferation as a pretext for an intervention, similar to the fears
invoked in the previous WMD campaign regarding Iraq. If recent
stories are correct regarding Cheney's plan to possibly use a another
9/11 terrorist attack as the pretext or casus belli for a U.S. aerial
attack against Iran, this would confirm the Bush administration is
prepared to undertake a desperate military strategy to thwart Iran's
nuclear ambitions, while simultaneously attempting to prevent the
Iranian oil Bourse from initiating a euro-based system for oil trades.

However, as members of the U.N. Security Council; China, Russia and
E.U. nations such as France and Germany would likely veto any
U.S.-sponsored U.N. Security Resolution calling the use of force
without solid proof of Iranian culpability in a major terrorist
attack. A unilateral U.S. military strike on Iran would isolate the
U.S. government in the eyes of the world community, and it is
conceivable that such an overt action could provoke other
industrialized nations to strategically abandon the dollar en masse.
Indeed, such an event would create pressure for OPEC or Russia to
move towards a petroeuro system in an effort to cripple the U.S.
economy and its global military presence. I refer to this in my book
as the "rogue nation hypothesis."

While central bankers throughout the world community would be
extremely reluctant to 'dump the dollar,' the reasons for any such
drastic reaction are likely straightforward from their perspective -
the global community is dependent on the oil and gas energy supplies
found in the Persian Gulf. Hence, industrialized nations would likely
move in tandem on the currency exchange markets in an effort to
thwart the neoconservatives from pursuing their desperate strategy of
dominating the world's largest hydrocarbon energy supply. Any such
efforts that resulted in a dollar currency crisis would be undertaken
- not to cripple the U.S. dollar and economy as punishment towards
the American people per se - but rather to thwart further unilateral
warfare and its potentially destructive effects on the critical oil
production and shipping infrastructure in the Persian Gulf. Barring a
U.S. attack, it appears imminent that Iran's euro-denominated oil
bourse will open in March 2006. Logically, the most appropriate U.S.
strategy is compromise with the E.U. and OPEC towards a dual-currency
system for international oil trades.

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be
dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.
War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and
taxes...known instruments for bringing the many under the domination
of the few?No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of
continual warfare.
-- James Madison, Political Observations, 1795

Footnotes:

[1]. Ron Suskind, The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White
House, and the Education of Paul O' Neill, Simon & Schuster
publishers (2004)

[2]. Richard A. Clarke, Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on
Terror, Free Press (2004)

[3]. William Clark, "Revisited - The Real Reasons for the Upcoming
War with Iraq: A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the
Unspoken Truth," January 2003 (updated January 2004)
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

[4]. Peter Philips, Censored 2004, The Top 25 Censored News Stories,
Seven Stories Press, (2003) General website for Project Censored:
http://www.projectcensored.org/
Story #19: U.S. Dollar vs. the Euro: Another Reason for the Invasion of Iraq
http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2004/19.html

[5]. Carol Hoyos and Kevin Morrison, "Iraq returns to the
international oil market," Financial Times, June 5, 2003

[6]. Faisal Islam, "Iraq nets handsome profit by dumping dollar for
euro," [UK] Guardian, February 16, 2003
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,896344,00.html

[7]. "Oil bourse closer to reality," IranMania.com, December 28,
2004. Also see: "Iran oil bourse wins authorization," Tehran Times,
July 26, 2005

[8]. "War-Gaming the Mullahs: The U.S. weighs the price of a
pre-emptive strike," Newsweek, September 27 issue, 2004.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6039135/site/newsweek/

[9]. James Fallows, 'Will Iran be Next?,' Atlantic Monthly, December
2004, pgs. 97 - 110

[10]. Seymour Hersh, "The Coming Wars," The New Yorker, January 24th
- 31st issue, 2005, pgs. 40-47 Posted online January 17, 2005.
Online: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact

[11]. Philip Giraldi, "In Case of Emergency, Nuke Iran," American
Conservative, August 1, 2005

[12]. Dafina Linzer, "Iran Is Judged 10 Years From Nuclear Bomb U.S.
Intelligence Review Contrasts With Administration Statements,"
Washington Post, August 2, 2005; Page A01

[13]. C. Shivkumar, "Iran offers oil to Asian union on easier terms,"
The Hindu Business Line (June 16, ` 2003).
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/bline/2003/06/17/stories/
2003061702380500.htm

[14]. Terry Macalister, "Iran takes on west's control of oil
trading," The [UK] Guardian, June 16, 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,1239644,00.html

[15]. "The Choice of Currency for the Denomination of the Oil Bill,"
Speech given by Javad Yarjani, Head of OPEC's Petroleum Market
Analysis Dept, on The International Role of the Euro (Invited by the
Spanish Minister of Economic Affairs during Spain's Presidency of the
EU) (April 14, 2002, Oviedo, Spain)
http://www.opec.org/NewsInfo/Speeches/sp2002/spAraqueSpainApr14.htm

[16]. "Iran's oil bourse expects to start by early 2006," Reuters,
October 5, 2004 http://www.iranoilgas.com

[17]. "Russia shifts to euro as foreign currency reserves soar," AFP,
June 9, 2003
http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/7214-3.cfm

[18]. "China to diversify foreign exchange reserves," China Business
Weekly, May 8, 2004
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-05/08/content_328744.htm

[19]. Richard S. Appel, "The Repercussions from the Yuan's
Revaluation," kitco.com, July 27, 2005
http://www.kitco.com/ind/appel/jul272005.html

[20]. China, Iran sign biggest oil & gas deal,' China Daily, October
31, 2004. Online: Online:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-10/31/content_387140.htm

[21]. "Terror & regime change: Any US invasion of Iran will have
terrible consequences," News Insight: Public Affairs Magazine, June
11, 2004
http://www.indiareacts.com/archivedebates/nat2.asp?recno=908&ctg=World

[22]. Analysis of Abu Musa Island, www.globalsecurity.org
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/abu-musa.htm

[23]. Sammy Salama and Karen Ruster, "A Preemptive Attack on Iran's
Nuclear Facilities: Possible Consequences," Monterry Institute of
International Studies, August 12, 2004 (updated September 9, 2004)
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/040812.htm

by courtesy & ? 2005 William R. Clark  ¶ Posted By Anonymous 6:58 PM 1 comments

  And You Thought WVO Was For Diesels..... I'm not even gonna describe it.



The Nerds should appreciate this one.


http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/01/09/strip_out_the_fans/  ¶ Posted By Anonymous 6:57 PM 0 comments

  Crazy Asians It looks like the Japanese have developed a method of manufacturing biodiesel using sugars instead of hydroxides as a catalyst. They claim an enormous decrease in production costs.  ¶ Posted By Anonymous 7:35 PM 0 comments

  BTL Time for another science lesson. There's an emerging technology called Biomass To Liquid, or BTL. It basically involves taking a whole bunch of biomass, like corn husks, wood chips, grass clippings, etc., heating it to around 600 degrees celcius in an anaerobic environment, taking the gas that is released, and pushing it through a catalyst to turn it into long chain hydrocarbons. The final product is a synthetic hydrocarbon that can be directly burned in a diesel engine, or it can be further refined to inprove cold flow characteristics. About 70% of the weight of the biomass is turned into product. A german company called Choren GmBH is currently the leader in this field. The process does not discriminate between virgin and waste material, so more could come from less, in a sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_to_liquid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer_Tropsch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synfuel  ¶ Posted By Anonymous 7:31 PM 2 comments

  PWNED!!!   ¶ Posted By james 7:42 AM 0 comments

  ISUZU:Isuzu D-MAX TOP ISUZU:Isuzu D-MAX TOP

YO, GM! Bring one of the THREE small diesels offered in this Colorado/Canyon clone over to this country! Dammit!

Someone's gonna be the first to have a light-duty diesel pickup, and be glad they did. But it'll probably be Dodge since they have the almighty BENZ behind them.  ¶ Posted By james 7:27 AM 1 comments

  Starr Report Cover Page Starr Report Cover Page: "Referral to the United States House of Representatives
pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, � 595(c),
Submitted by the Office of the Independent Counsel,
September 9, 1998"

This has nothing to do with #2 heating oil but I figured I'd throw up a link to it for no particular reason.  ¶ Posted By james 7:03 AM 0 comments

  Audi World Site > Experience > R10 Audi World Site > Experience > R10: "AUDI AG is one step ahead of the opposition yet again: The inventor of ‘TDI’ will fight, as the world’s first automobile manufacturer, for overall victory with a diesel engine at the famous 24 Hours of Le Mans. The new Audi R10 is powered by a completely new 5.5-litre, twelve-cylinder bi-turbo TDI engine which is extremely economical and quiet."

Expanding on the DZAs earlier mention of this car.  ¶ Posted By james 6:54 AM 0 comments

  Flyin' Machine The CarterCopter - The first gyrocopter to break the Mu-1 barrier. This thing can take off vertically, fly 200mph, and land in a few hundred feet.

The best part? They are planning a Long-Range version which can theoretically fly around the world without refueling. How, you ask? Replace the Corvette engine with one that runs on diesel!

I actually saw one of these things fly... at Oshkosh, WI in 2002. Also, I got to try to fly it myself in their simulator (which was a Mac running X-Plane), but didn't get too far because it is tricky to learn and there was a long line.  ¶ Posted By james 6:41 AM 0 comments

  Biomass Here's an interesting article on Biomass and it's energy potential. When utilized in an efficient manner, Biomass has the potential to power the world with very little retooling of the energy or industrial infrastructure.  ¶ Posted By Anonymous 2:45 PM 0 comments

  WVO as a Fuel There seems to be a lot of talk these days of converting Diesel powered vehicles to run on Waste Vegetable Oil. This is an interesting concept, as the engine is being run on a minimally processed feedstock. I personally have run my 1990 F-350 on used peanut and canola oil.

I don't seeing it catching on in the mainstream alternative fuels market. It may catch on in the industrial sector, seeing as there are already dual fuel (One light fuel, one heavy fuel) applications like power generation and heat generation. The WVO conversion is a cute concept, one that involves multiple heated fuel tanks and some flipping of switches, but consumers are very lazy people. They don't want to run around collecting old fat from resturants and tweaking buttons while they're driving. They want their fuel ready to burn at a user-friendly gas station. In the long run, fuels like Biodiesel and SunDiesel are going to be the quickest, if not only, alternative fuels to catch on in the next few years.  ¶ Posted By Anonymous 6:33 PM 0 comments

  There's Nothing Like The Smell of Leather And Diesel Let's take a look to one of the many hidden treasures in the automotive and energy world:

The Mercedes Benz Diesel




Mercedes Benz introduced the world's first diesel powered car, the 260D, in 1936. Since then, Mercedes has produced an impeccable line of cars all in the diesel industry. When they introduced their 5 cylinder Indirect Injection Turbodiesel engine in the 1976 300D, the world was amazed at the reliability, economy, and overall pimp-ness of a diesel Benz. They are very quirky cars. They sound like no other diesel you have ever heard, they're built to german military specifications, and they get damn good gas mileage moving a 2.5 ton car.

Back in the middle of world war II, Mercedes Benz was under many production contracts from the german government. It had lots of free Jewish labor, so production was very high. Mercedes Benz cars were being produced in the same factory as the Mercedes Benz tanks, and Mercedes Benz howitzers, and so on. The cars were built extremely heavy and everything was overengineered. The design stuck all the way up the early 90's. I'd say the heyday of the car was probably the early 80's.


My 1984 300D, for example:


Currently has 288929 miles on it. Its running like new today.



If you want to be more classy, they also put the diesels in S Class cars.



P.I.M.P!!!!





These are great cars. They will last probaby asl long as you will if they are properly mainteined and you don't drive it into or off of something. They are cool, economical, and can run on alternative fuels with zero modifications.  ¶ Posted By Anonymous 3:09 PM 0 comments

  Oh, the madness Evidently, anyone with an internet connection can now view the SR-71 Blackbird Flight Manual.

The SR-71 is a badass plane. It's capable of a 100000 foot cruising altitude, and s sustained speed of Mach 3, which is about 2193 MPH. If I wanted to get from the Oxford Airport to the Worcester Airport, which are about 100 miles apart, it would take me about 2.73 minutes of flight time between the two at maximum speed. I'll add about 10 minutes on there for acceleration and deceleration. Looks like I could make a 100 mile trip in about 12 minutes. More interestingly, it runs on something called JP-7 fuel, which has some very similar characteristics to Biodiesel. It would be interesting to see if a supersonic reconnaissance jet can run on B100.


  ¶ Posted By Anonymous 5:31 PM 0 comments

  Any Colour You Like Here's a list of all diesel powered vehicles offered by car manufacturers. These are available all over the world, but only a very small number are offered for sale here in the states.


Alfa Romeo

* Alfa 147
* Alfa Sportwagon


AM General

* Hummer
* Hummer H1


Audi

* 80
* 90
* 100
* 4000
* 5000
* Allroad
* A2
* A3
* A4
* A6
* A8

Buick

* Century
* Electra
* LeSabre
* Regal
* Riviera

BMW

* 1 Series:

118D
120D

* 3 Series:

320D
330D

* 5 Series:

524TD
525D
530D
535D

* 7 Series:

730D
740D
745D

* X3
* X5


Cadillac

* DeVille
* Eldorado
* Fleetwood
* Seville

Chevrolet

* Bel Air
* Blazer
* C10 Pickup
* C1500 Pickup
* C20 Pickup
* C2500 Pickup
* C30 Pickup
* C3500 Pickup
* Caprice
* Celebrity
* Chevette
* El Camino
* E Series (2006)
* G20 Van
* G2500 Van
* G30 Van
* G3500 Van
* Impala
* K10 Pickup
* K1500 Pickup
* K20 Pickup
* K2500 Pickup
* K30 Pickup
* K3500 Pickup
* Kodiak (2005)
* Luv
* Malibu
* Monte Carlo
* P20 Van
* P30 Van
* R10 Pickup
* R20 Pickup
* R2500 Pickup
* R30 Pickup
* R3500 Pickup
* Silverado (2006)
* Suburban
* Tahoe
* V10 Pickup
* V30 Pickup
* V3500 Pickup

Chrysler
* Grand Voyager
* Pt Cruiser
* Voyager

Citroën
* Berlingo
* C1
* C2
* C3
* C4
* C5
* C8
* Xsara

DaimlerChrysler

* Smart (this is one of the most fucked up cars you will ever see)


Dodge

* Ram
* Sprinter



Fiat

* Ducato
* Idea
* Stilo
* MultiJet


Ford

* E-Series
* Escort (1984-1987)
* Excursion
* Fiesta
* Fusion
* Galaxy
* Lion VLE
* Mondeo
* Focus
* Focus C-Max
* Ranger
* Tempo (1984-1986)
* Ford Tourneo



International

* Scout II (1980)


GMC

* Savana (2006)
* Sierra (2005)
* TopKick (2005)



Honda

* CR-V
* Civic



Hyundai

* Elantra
* Getz
* Santa Fe
* Terracan
* Trajet
* Tucson



Jaguar

* S-Type
* X-Type
* XJ



Jeep

* Cherokee
* Cherokee Limited
* Grand Cherokee Laredo
* Grand Cherokee Limited
* Grand Cherokee Overland
* Liberty (2005)


Kia

* Carens
* Sportage
* Sorento


Land Rover

* Defender
* Discovery
* Freelander
* Range Rover


Lincoln

* Continental
* Mark VII


Mazda

* Mazda2
* Mazda3
* Mazda6
* MPV



Mercedes-Benz

* 170D
* 170Da
* 170Db
* 170Ds
* 180D
* 180Db
* 180Dc
* 190D
* 190D 2.2
* 190D 2.5
* 190D 2.5T
* 190Db
* 190Dc
* 200D
* 200TD
* 220D
* 240D/8
* 240D
* 240TD
* 240D Lang
* 250D
* 250TD
* 300CD
* 300d
* 300D
* 300D 2.5
* 300D 4MATIC
* 300D Lang
* 300SD
* 300SDL
* 300TD
* 300TD 4MATIC
* 350SD
* 350SDL
* C220D
* E220D
* E250 D Turbo
* E270D
* E300D
* E300D 4MATIC
* E300DT
* E320 CDI
* G300D
* ML350 (2006)
* ML500 (2006)



Mercury

* Lynx
* Topaz


Nissan

* Almera
* Primera
* Terrano
* X-Trail
* Sentra
* Maxima


Opel

* Astra
* Combo Tour
* Corsa
* Meriva
* Signum
* Vectra
* Vivaro



Peugeot

* 206
* 306
* 307
* 407
* 504
* 505
* 604
* 807
* 1007
* Boxer
* Partner


Renault

* Clio
* Grand Espace
* Grand Sc
* Kangoo
* Laguna
* Mégane
* Scénic



SAAB

* 9-3
* 9-5



Seat

* Altea
* Cordoba
* Ibiza
* Leon
* Toledo


Skoda

* Fabia
* Octavia
* Superb



Suzuki

* Grand Vitara

TATA

* Safari Dicor - SUV
* Victa - MUV
* Sumo - MUV
* Spacio - MUV
* Telcoline Pickup
* Ace
* 207DI Pickup
* 407 SFC Truck
* 709 SFC Truck
* 1512, 1613 Series of Trucks
* Novus



Toyota

* Avensis
* Camry
* Corolla
* Hiace
* Land Cruiser
* RAV4
* Yaris



Vauxhall

* Carlton


Volkswagen

* Bora
* Caddy
* Caravelle
* Golf (2000-2005)
* Jetta (2000-2005)
* Jetta Wagon (2000-2005)
* Lupo
* Multivan
* New Beetle (2000-2005)
* Passat (2004-2005)
* Passat Wagon (2004-2005)
* Phaeton
* Polo
* Rabbit
* Sharan
* Touareg (2004-2005)
* Touran
* Transporter
* Vanagon



Volvo

* S40
* S60
* S80
* V50
* V70
* XC70
* XC90


I've been to Europe and seen quite a few of these foreign diesels. They're usually equipped with manual transmissions, and some of them, like the Volkswagen Lupo, get around 80 MPG. A Civic Hybrid gets around 38 MPG. They also have no problem driving them around when it's cold out, and Diesel Fuel is cheaper than gasoline in Europe. In France, all diesel sold at the pumps is B5, according to a government mandate. The Black Forest region of Germany requires that all diesel engines run on B100. Pure Biodiesel is actually sold at the pumps.


Why is it taking this culture so long to see the light?  ¶ Posted By Anonymous 2:36 PM 1 comments

  Ain't Nuttin But A G Thang For those of you who see all diesels as sluggish, noisy, smokey torque machines, take a look at this.



The Alpina D10 Biturbo


It's more or less a BMW M5 with a three liter straight six diesel. The single turbocharger was replaced with twins.  ¶ Posted By Anonymous 2:15 PM 1 comments

  Wu Tang Clan Comin' At Ya
Everyone know that trucks and trains use diesel engines. But here are some other applications of diesel engines, some in places I would have never thought of:

According to Wikipedia:


Diesel is used in diesel engines, a type of internal combustion engine. Rudolf Diesel originally designed the diesel engine to use coal dust as a fuel, but oil proved more effective. Diesel engines are used in cars, trucks, motorcycles, boats and locomotives.

Packard diesel motors were used in aircraft as early as 1927, and Charles Lindbergh flew a Stinson SM1B with a Packard Diesel in 1928. A Packard diesel motor designed by L.M. Woolson was fitted to a Stinson X7654, and in 1929 it was flown 1000 km non-stop from Detroit to Langley, Virginia (near Washington, D.C.). In 1931, Walter Lees and Fredrick Brossy set the nonstop flight record flying a Bellanca powered by a Packard Diesel for 84h 32m.

The very first diesel-engine automobile trip was completed on January 6, 1930. The trip was from Indianapolis to New York City - a distance of nearly 800 miles (1300 km). This feat helped to prove the usefulness of the internal combustion engine. The following year Dave Evans drove his Cummins Diesel Special to a nonstop finish in the Indianapolis 500, the first time a car had completed the race without a pit stop. That car and a later Cummins Diesel Special are on display at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway Hall of Fame Museum.

Westport claims to have invented a process called Westport-Cycle with comparable efficiency using natural gas and petrodiesel.

Audi will fight for the overall win at the 24 Hours of Le Mans in 2006 with the Diesel-powered R10. This is the first time a maker has competed for the overall prize with a Diesel-fueled vehicle.


  ¶ Posted By Anonymous 11:36 AM 0 comments

  Shameless Plugging I stronlgly reccomend the book "From The Fryer To The Fuel Tank". It's supposed to be an alternative energy book, and it opens with all sorts of Big Oil propaganda and other hippie crap. They really seem to be down with converting their old V-Dubs and Benzes and BMW's to running on Waste Vegetable Oil. But it also has a plethora of info on Diesel Engines and the energy industry in general.


Also some other interesting links:

http://www.journeytoforever.org

http://www.greencarcongress.com

http://en.wikipedia.org  ¶ Posted By Anonymous 11:22 AM 0 comments

  i want one Check out this sick ass engine. It was used in ships and locomotives, and i guess it could probably drive a genset. It's a 18 cylinder, 36 piston, 3 crankshaft, two stroke diesel.  ¶ Posted By Anonymous 9:13 PM 0 comments

  Welcome to "The Diesel Corner" with The DZA Time for a science lesson. The Two stroke diesel engine is something most overlooked by the diesel community. To put it simply, the intake is moved from the cylinder head to the middle of the cylinder. There is no valve associated with the intake side, only the exhaust. They are simpler, and have no of the downsides that a gas two stroke has. The only problem with them is their increased level of pollutants. But with advancements such as high pressure common rail injection and electronics, this problem can be reduced. They run smoother and produce more power per crankshaft revolution than a four stroke diesel of the same size. Perhaps we'll see them more in the future.  ¶ Posted By Anonymous 9:12 PM 0 comments

  Improving on an already good concept Check out this design for a new diesel engine. It's a two cylinder, opposed piston, opposed crankshaft design. The design is usually found in large diesels (locomotive and ship size, usually made by Morse Fairbanks and Cooper Bessemer), but it has been compacted into a unit that weighs 275 lbs and produces 325 HP. Just think about that power to weight ratio. An engine like this in a hybrid car would attain a fuel economy of at least 120+ mpg.






P.S. Bradford Degen got laid  ¶ Posted By Anonymous 8:51 PM 0 comments

  You can suck all the dick you want with no fingers on your left hand Gentlemen......


BEHOLD!!!!



The worlds most powerful diesel engine.

It's made to fit in container ship, but i think i could shoehorn it in my mercedes with a little clever engineering.  ¶ Posted By Anonymous 8:32 PM 0 comments