1. How many litres is 0.108 cubic metres?
2. Does the fact that you were two orders of magnitude wrong in your
calculation wreck your arguments about bioethanol?
3. If not, why not?

and finally, for a bonus point:

4. How many types of ozone can you get in one litre?

Maybe you can explain why food prices are going up and also proove that the
desire for bioethanol is having no influence? :)

In article newsfe6-gui.ntli.net>, Tommy
says...

Easy. Due to various events throughout the world such as floods,
hurricanes, droughts and wars, there has been a large loss in harvest
yields this year worldwide.

Hell, even in this country we lost virtually an entire harvest of most
crops in the floods last June and it's only the ability to import food
that's reduced the impact. Certainly around where I live, most wheat,
oat, barley, corn, pea and root vegetable crops were destroyed. Similar
story in Lincolnshire with the brussel sprouts and cabbages etc.

"Tommy" lapt.colm> wrote

Because fuel prices have gone up. Not that Doug would be able to understand
that, he is on record as saying "I don't drive so fuel price rises hardly
affect me at all".

On 28 Apr, 11:13, "Tommy" lapt.colm> wrote:

The increased use of bioethanol may well be contributing to the
increase in food prices. I don't know one way or the other. However,
Duhg has now decided that bioethanol = *a bad thing* per se. I, on
the other hand, see nothing wrong with producing bioethanol from waste
products, such as the side products from sugar production. If Doug
was right that 1 ton of sugar beet produces only 1.08 litres of
ethanol, I would agree with him that such production would be
negligible at best. However, given that 1 ton of beet produces 108
litres of ethanol, such an argument is unsustainable. I am therefore
waiting for Dung to explain why his dismissal of ethanol production
from sugar waste is not a load of old Bollen.

I'd like the experts here explain why we all go to the seaside and enjoy the
"ozone", and yet its also deadly?

Is that the explanation of the 2 sorts? :)

So one more question

Why is it that the most vocal complainers about the cost of fuel,
profiteering etc are also the ones who tell us that the cost will not make
them reduce their usage of same ?

In article newsfe3-win.ntli.net>, Tommy says...

Despite being born and living in a seaside resort for nearly 3 decades,
I can honestly say that I have never heard anyone say they went to the
seaside to enjoy the ozone.

Are you trying to outdo Doug in the fuckwittery stakes today?

In article newsfe3-win.ntli.net>, Tommy says...

Because they have no other option.

Conor wrote:

You mean they're too stupid to buy a car that uses less fuel?