On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 12:56:12 -0400, "Steve W."
wrote:

After looking at the forum all I see is folks saying He is evil and
wrong, NO REAL refuting of numbers using facts just bashing him because
they don't like him.

Hmm, I looked back and you are right, there is no real refutation
using numbers. Instead, they point out the flaws in methodology,
including:
*treating soy meal byproduct as waste
*assuming forests are clearcut to create new crop land to grow soy
*factoring the cost of food to feed farm workers (won't they be eating
anyway?)

These are big omissions, and don't even address the idea that ANY
bio-oil can be used, including waste oil, lard, palm, peanut,
canole/rapeseede (comon in Europe), algae (as had been mentioned
already in another post) . . . well, you get the idea.

Again, I'm no expert, but I see this as a major benefit. And, maybe
it was someone else who compared BD to perpetual motion, but whoever
it was overlooked that the energy is not pulled out of the air--no,
wait, it IS pulled out of the air, as it streams down from the sun.
Hard to figure how that is a cost to people or the planet.

k

ps, if you read in the thread "Cornell Study Bad for Biodiesel?" you
can find two different posts where user turbobiodiesel offers to send
the complete study to anyone interested. Maybe you should go straight
to the source and see for yourself.