On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:43:34 -0400, George george@least wrote:
Nope, I'm certainly not responding to what you _think_ you wrote, but rather
what you wrote.

You Wrote:
Nuke and Coal don't help make a vehicle go down the road, at least
not yet. The infrastructure isn't there for electric cars, and the
culture isn't ready for same either. Too much change at once,
y'see.

I merely pointed out that heat and coal have been making fuel suitable for
vehicles for a long time.

Ah, I see. Since you didn't, you know, include that context, I didn't
know that that was what you were talking to.

The problem with coal gasification (I'm familiar with it; my grandfather
was a chemical engineer in a coal gas plant in Milwaukee for decades -
google "Milwaukee Solvay" and my last name for confirmation). The thing
is, that's (a) just transforming one fuel into another, and (b) not something
that will run in unmodified vehicles of today. Contrast this to biodiesel
and/or gasoline/alcohol blends, where the same people can fill their same
cars at the same stations using the same pumps, with a product that is at
least partially domestically produced. Changing too much of consumer's
pattern at once is going to result in a technology not being widely adopted.
This is why hydrogen cars continue not to happen, but why hibrid/electrics
are more viable and available.

You're a couple centuries behind in your knowledge of synfuels.
http://www.zetatalk.com/energy/tengy11a.htm

Even the same fuel the culture is used to.

How does coal gas work in a current unmodified automobile? Where can
I fill up on it today? Use that chemical energy for something it's more
suited for; stationary applications. It's not a good fit for wide
mobile distribution and point-of-use combustion.

Not to mention IG Farben and the boys over there in Berlin making petrol
for
Messerschmitts.

Further, I didn't attribute "feed the children" to you. It's a stock
liberal phrase.

I wouldn't know, not being one.

And a better use for land than growing and blowing it
through a tailpipe, even though ****CAUTION NEW INFORMATION*** the park
service vehicles they're fuelling with grease from fast food frycookers
hereabout do have an intriguing smell. ***END NEW INFORMATION***

First of all, your attitude is getting in the way of presenting your
point, which I'm _still_ not sure what the hell it is. Secondly, I am
very familiar with the current state of biodiesel and the various sources
from which it can be obtained.

As far as "feeding the children" with my land, if that's what your point
is saying I should be doing (rather than growing soybeans for oil, or letting
it sit in the Clinton-era contracts to lay fallow rather than farm), well,
I guess that's a choice I get to make. Once those contracts expire, I can
either choose to continue to grow the trees on it, or to do whatever else
is economically feasable, and/or technically interesting and or possible with
it.

Are your dyslexic or just dyspeptic?

Yawn. I'm sure if you have an actual point and/or value to add to this
conversation, you could do better than whatever that was. Couple of
questions: are you disagreeing that the arabs don't like us? Do you agree
or disagree that it is preferable to spend money supporting USA'n farmers,
as compared to sending that same money to people in arabic countries?

If you agree that the local farmers are more deserving than the people who
want to kill us, then would you agree that a solution which improves both
aspects of that equation would be one to pursue?

Dave Hinz