On Mar 21, 2:25 pm, aspasia wrote:
On 21 Mar 2007 06:00:40 -0700, wrote:



On Mar 21, 4:55 am, aspasia wrote:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 22:06:03 -0500, Jimbo wrote:
In article , aspasia
says...
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 12:29:35 -0500, "frank.logullo"
wrote:
[snip]
Politicians may speak well but are generally technically ignorant and can be
bought. A good example is the ethanol fuel business mess.

Frank

Yeah, that one is really hysterical.

Did anybody hear the "president" make his speech about switch-grass,
as a source for alternative auto fuel? I laffed till I like to bust.

First of all, he's as clueless about switchgrass as he is about
everything other than thumping his Bible.

Perhaps you should do a little reading:

http://healthandenergy.com/biofuels.htm

According to this report, switchgrass is about 7.6 times more
efficient than grain corn ethanol production. It's 30% cheaper for
space heating and produces about 90% less greenhouse gas than oil.
It grows readily in North America with very little effort. A recent
report that ran on the CBC suggests that, if 4% of Canada's arable
land was planted with switchgrass, that would be sufficient to
virtually eliminate oil as a heating fuel in that country. One acre
would be sufficient to heat the average Canadian home for a year.
(but what do Canadians know about heating a home?)

Your injudicious editing removed the pertinent part of my message,
which had to do with political motives for ignoring Hemp as an
excellent source of fuel oil.

If one were to count words, one would conclude that the pertinent part
of your message involved trashing the President, which would be
completely off topic. Apparently, you were given the benefit of the
doubt and your lead point was taken at face value.

It did NOT deal with comparing switchgrass and grain corn,
so your reply is irrelevant.

Go back and reread your post. You cited the President's ignorance of
switchgrass in the context of ethanol as an alternative auto fuel. It
was neither impertinent nor irrelevant until you were corrected.

WRT hemp as a motor fuel, at the risk of parrotting other posts here,
this is not a unique Bush thing. As far as I know, Clinton had a
similar allergic reaction to the subject, as did George H, Reagan,
Carter, etc. Do you hold that that was a result of Bush's inability
to deliver a speech? (that seems to have been another pertinent part
of your diatribe).

You are cherry picking.

Cherry picking? I addressed every point in your post!

The bottom line is that hemp is not being explored for alternative
fuel use for political reasons.

(You are quite right that I am trashing the "president" who has
brought tragedy upon this country and other parts of the world
by allowing himself to be dangled on the puppet-strings of
some very bad operators.)

But let's not lose track of the equation:

Hemp = cheap fuel.

Hemp may, indeed, be a cheap fuel -- but it's not the only cheap
fuel. And, given a choice, all else being equal, the choice with the
least amount of political baggage wins. That's reality. To suggest
otherwise exposes another agenda.

WRT losing track of the equation, *YOU* are the one who keeps going
off on a totally unrelated Bush bashing rant between every thought.
Try sticking with the topic - your credibility will thank you for it.