"In the case of reducing CO2 greate efficiency and lower fuel use might actually offset the increased cost of energy. The increase in energy security by using wind and fuel grown in America will have a huge positive impact as well."
I don't know what a "greate" is, but much of the rest of your two sentences is in great need of revision.
The first sentence is delusional in its optimism.
The second is perhaps more so, in that neither wind energy notr alcohol have any possibility of significant impact on America's energy needs. Burning corn for fuel will only raise the price of food.
Are you perchance a rancher hoping to use Green whackos to raise the price of beef? ;-)
(not sure what "notr" is)
I agree with the second half of your statement. I think it is ultimately a bad idea to have food and fuel be one and the same.
On the first half of your statement, I would wonder if you haven't had your head in the sand for since the 1970s. Windmills produce energy almost as cheaply as coal at around 3-5 cents/kwh at optimal conditions.
So you are way of on your information.
The major issue with wind is inconsistency, distance from market and ability to store it. These factors will and are being overcome everyday. Naturally they are very threatening to the power companies. For whom I would guess you are working and perhaps, given your spelling-police orientation, maybe for whom you are even writing propaganda and disinformation.
Essentially your statement says that since we cannot find alternatives and fossil fuels are by definition finite, our civilization is doomed. Amazing how to enviro-wacko left has taken the conservative mantle of optimism. I for one continue in the tradition on the conservative environmentalist and optimist about what can be achieved.
You my friend would have been warning Columbus that he would fall off the edge of the earth.