John Rumm wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 13:19:08 -0800 (PST), misterroy wrote:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5690196.ece

any thoughts?

"... delighted researchers, who said it was proving as efficient as fossil
fuel while emitting less than half as much carbon dioxide."

Now that's a neat trick, I guess they really mean "less than half as much
*fossil* carbon dioxide".

Yup, that set my bull**** detector ringing as well!

While not a bad idea, it strikes me there is only a limited amount of
the stuff to go about about.

yes, but we can at least now use it for one more thing. OTOH I'd
question the value of that one more thing, since currently its used in
animal feed.


NT