For some reason a reference to the McGyan process came into my "inbox" again this week. Brian Kohn, the young student whose inquiries prompted the research that led to the process being created, was seen on television station, WCCO (in the "Twin Cities", I gather) being interviewed with all of his cohorts (Arlin Gyberg, his faculty adviser, Clayton McNeff, a former student of Gyberg, and Ben Yan) in the McGyan biodiesel process. A note of this sighting appeared in a discussion forum, with a link to the article (and web video of the news item). Now, Brian's enthusiasm is understandable, but apparently his understanding of the chemical structure of oily substances is still somewhat incomplete. The television station can be forgiven, one presumes, for not having the technical resources to verify (or even to doubt the Kohn lad's claim), but when he exclaimed that their zirconium catalysed process, "can turn anything into biodiesel" even he recognized that was an exaggeration, and qualified it as, "Well, any oil."

Although it is true that a vast number of oils from vegetables and animal fats are based in the "fatty acid" structure which allows the catalyst to break and the methanol or ethanol to "esterify", not all oils can be turned into "Fatty Acid Methyl Esters" (F.A.M.E. better known as "biodiesel"). The CBS news station's video called Clayton McNeff a, "world authority on the chemical element zirconium" (yes, the same stuff in this imiatation "diamond" rings called "cubic zirconium") which is the catalyst in the McGyan process, and that element plus a little heat and pressure eliminates the need for the sodium hydroxide catalyst usually used in the biodiesel esterification process according to other descriptions I have read. However, there are a lot of other structures, including potentially useful ones for the biosynthetic diesel market that are still out there, so don't abandon your chemical engineering studies just yet. There are still discoveries to be made, and at least one of them is likely to be a key to the bioderivation of future fuels.

I mentioned last week that I might be attending a conference in New York in mid-June this year. June rapidly approaching, I am not sure if my schedule will permit, but I found an "interesting fact" in the brochure the Renewable Energy Finance Forum sent to me. In it they said: "Over 20,000MW of wind power was installed worldwide in 2007 (bringing global installed capacity to 94,112MW) and the US is at the

forefront of those countries driving forward the industry. The US alone accounted for 5,244MW installed in 2007 and predictions are that the US will become the world leader in wind energy by 2009." This is, in itself , encouraging news, especially as the whole fiasco of biodiesel feedstock costs nearly equaling, or even exceeding biodiesel sale prices seems to have nearly brought that area to a grinding halt of its rapid expansions. However, what I am not seeing, and I wish I could see more, is distributed generation from these wind turbine resources. It is understandable and at least partially unavoidable that to bring us renewable hydro-electric power it has to come from a point where it is economical to build a hydro dam. But there are millions of places all over this earth where there is sufficient wind to generate electricity and no great reason to have to transmit their output for hundreds of miles to market.

However, I am creating a distraction from my point, which is that with over 650 "players" expected to attend, the Renewable Energy Finance Forum at the Waldorf-Astoria (301 Park Avenue,

New York, NY 10022-6897) is definitely the place to be starting with the June 17th evening welcoming reception until the conference closes, June 19th, 2008. I'm going to just "cut'n'paste" a little from their brochure. I trust you can find their website online, but since I don't have the online address for their brochure, I'm just going to put a copy of it on my own website at http://daochienergy.com/ for your convenience.

Here are some of the highlights I copied from that brochure.

Expert speaker panel featuring 40+ industry leading investors, developers and lenders

The must attend conference for the renewable energy industry

Revised program featuring a new session on Carbon Finance

Keynote speakers from BP Alternative Energy and Boeing Capital Corporation

Plus: Discover the future of Renewable Energy finance in our "Thought Leader Session"

featuring Joseph Stanislaw and David Sandalow

Issue-led debate on the industry´s most important subjects,

from raising finance, policy drivers, industry consolidation,

and carbon finance opportunities for the renewable energy

markets in the US

The reputation of REFF-Wall Street is built on attracting the

most senior individuals in financing and investment for the

renewable energy sphere. People who control budgets,

devise strategy and give you opportunities to forge new

business relationships with top financiers and investors,

regulators, project developers and technology providers

who are driving this important industry forward

You can hear from, and network with, some of the most

visionary and experienced experts in this field, providing

you with essential insights, pragmatic advice and the

benefit of their experiences in achieving successful

financing of renewable energy projects

Enhanced networking opportunities including our

Networking Breakfast, Receptions and Lunches

Nancy C. Floyd, Founder and Managing Director,

Nth Power

Kenneth R. Locklin, Director, Clean Energy Group

Michael D. Ware, Managing Director, Good Energies Inc

Michael Liebreich, Chief Executive Officer,

New Energy Finance

John Cavalier, Managing Partner,

Hudson Clean Energy Partners

Since time is running short, I'll include telephone contact numbers here:

Telephone: (UK) +44 20 7779 8196 or (US) +800 437 9997

Their website is at http://www.reff-wallstreet.com

My copy of their brochure is at http://daochienergy.com/ or http://daochienergy.com/reff-wallstreet2008brochure.pdf for your convenience. (The brochure contains a registration form. Refund date of May 16th is already past. Sorry.)

In political debate let's call a spade a spade. Now if you want to interpret that as some kind of racist remark you are welcome to your "opinion", but while I chose that phrase to be intentionally provocative, it was meant strictly (and only) in the traditional sense of naming a thing for what it is, and not by some other characterization. The problem I am referring to this week, not that it is exclusive to this week by any means, is that "journalists" (or perhaps I should say "so-called journalists") are becoming so interpretive of what they see and hear that one can hardly trust that they are reporting on anything factual any more. Lies, repeated, do not make them more true, but that does not mean that it doesn't get easier to make people believe them.

Senator Hilary Clinton is being hounded for a remark about campaigns for the Democratic Party Presidential nomination going on into the month of June being commonplace in the past. Her references were to "my husband" and to "Bobby Kennedy". When reaching back a little deeper into the past, she chose to hang her reference on an event that those of us who were alive at the time have firmly burned into our consciousness, and was so momentous that it has become standard material for high school history classes. Senator Robert (Bobby) Kennedy was giving a campaign speech at a Los Angeles hotel the night he was assasinated in June.

Now it may be true that Senator Clinton chose this event to underscore to the journalists (the "editorial board" of a newpaper, in what was, on the surface at least, a private meeting) that "unexpected events can change the course of history" in thoroughly unanticipated ways. She could have chosen another late occurance in the history of Democratic Party Presidential primaries, when Senator Gary Hart's daliance with a young lady (complete with accompanying pictures on his boat) ended his bid for the presidency despite his frontrunner status prior to this revelation. Such a reference might also have been appropriate in light of Senator Clinton's current situation as the second leading candidate, but would have been inappropriately seen as casting aspersions on the character of her opponent. Now, suddenly she is beened called down for "predicting" an attack, or worse, on Senator Obama. The reactions have been implying that she was believed to be "hoping" for a (successful?) assassination attempt on him, or even suggesting that someone who supports her might want to think about this course of action. The times when the king's remarks of "who will rid me of this troublesome priest" referring to Thomas Becket prompted an assassination are, one might hope, far in the past. Indeed, it is Senator Obama and Senator McCain that should be moaning that phrase these days.

Let's bring a little sanity to these discussions by not trying so hard to read something controversial into a perfectly reasonable remark. The Huffington Post web site quotes Robert Kennedy Jr. (Robert Kennedy's own son) as saying, "It is clear from the context that Hillary was invoking a familiar political circumstance in order to support her decision to stay in the race through June." The same quote was also carryed at The Democratic Daily.com on the web.

Obviously some of us have differing standards of what is "reasonable". Or at least, that seems obvious to me when I hear National Public Radio columnist Tom Gjelten calling Senator Obama's willingness to meet with unfriendly foreign leaders "foolish". Senator Obama originally stood by his statement from the early debates, saying this was part of his "new style" of government. Tom Gjelten says that Senator Obama is backing away from this "foolish" position and enunciating a more nuanced set of positions with respect to specific situations, including specific "preconditions". I am less than thrilled that Senator Obama seems determined to mollify various factions that want reassurances that 'under no circumstances' would the candidate violate their sanctified and immoveable positions on certain precondition factors. This whole discussion came up again, in part, at least, because of Senator Obama's speech to the Cuban American National Association in Florida this week. Reportedly he offered them assurances that discussions with the Cuban government would only happen when it was an opportunity to advance the interests of the United States, though during the debate in July of 2007 he pointed out, "that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous." It does seem only reasonable to refine the broad principle of willingness to meet with foreign leaders, friendly or not, with regard to specific circumstances. But what I found upsetting about the characterization of his original statement was that no one on the Washington Week on PBS panel had any objections to it being called "foolish."

McCain calls him "naive" on this point. He says Obama's Cuban position displays, "reckless judgement" and that he is "pandering on trade [with Cuba]". Although I do not agree with the existing embargo on trade myself, Senator Obama actually says he will stand by the embargo at present, but does want to loosen restrictions on Cuban Americans traveling to Cuba to visit relatives, and open up limitations on transfer of funds (even though the Cuban government imposes a surtax) to families in Cuba. It seems like carrying a grudge against Raul Castro's brother Fidel is more important to the Republicans than a recognition that the rise of a large and prosperous middle class is the great tide that washes away the reason and foundation for the existence of a communist state. I can't know if that is one of the factors being considered by Senator Obama's campaign advisors or not, but at least it appears that they may have been paying attention and that their "new style of government" which includes openness to previously closed diplomatic options would allow for the possibility.

The "landslide" wins by Senator Clinton in at least a couple of primaries gives some credence to the possibility that racial prejudice might be a factor in voting decisions if Senator Obama is the Democratic Presidential Nominee. Kentucky and West Virginia are not exactly bellweather states when it comes to enlightened positions on race relations, and both are filled with the less educated constituents that tend to favor Senator Clinton in any case. But there is growing support for the "dream ticket," of Obama + Clinton. California Senator Diane Feinstein was quoted on This Week with George Stephanopolous as saying, "... there is logic in combining these constituencies." In a panel discussion on Meet The Press with Tim Russert on NBC, Ruth Kerns Goodwin, an "old friend" of former President Lydon Baines Johnson, remarked on Senator Obama's pointing to President Abraham Lincoln's tactic of filling his cabinet with those who had run against him during his campaign. She said that LBJ would have worded it in his own style as, "Better to have them in the tent, pissing out, than outside the tent, pissing in." [The punctuation is my own, but that's an actual QUOTE from the New York Times, October 31, 1971, from LBJ in reference to J. Edgar Hoover, although the actual quote said "him" instead of "them".]

If you haven't already seen it, and judging from the box office reports, not many have, I recommend that you rush out and rent the DVD or Kinky Boots. The plot summary from the Internet Movie Database (IMDB.com) sums up the story economically as, "A drag queen comes to the rescue of a man who, after inheriting his father's shoe factory, needs to diversify his product if he wants to keep the business afloat." That summary, however, doesn't begin to convey the delightful, playful sense of humor, the touching if merely standard love story, the honest treatment of issues, or even the fact that this whole movie was "inspired by" a true story of how an English shoe business was saved from bankruptcy by adapting to serve a "kinky" specialty market. Roger Ebert's original review of the film has high praise for the leading character, "Lola", played by Chiwetel Ejiofor (don't ask me to pronounce it, I'm still working on Djimon Hounsou from 11 years ago, but both of them are truly impressive actors), although strictly speaking Joel Edgerton, as Charlie, the factory owner is the romantic lead. My favorite though, was Sarah-Jane Potts the "plucky" factory worker who believes in Charlie even when he doesn't believe in himself. What a smile! Okay, I grant that it is rather formulaic, but charming nonetheless. This 2005 release is worth a look, or even a second look if you have seen it before.

Love,

Stafford "Doc" Williamson

http://daochienergy.com/