Replies

No. That is not what I mean. Obviously you do not know.

Please enlighten me. I would welcome the discussion.

Do you know the difference between fact and hypothesis? You don't refute one with the other.

I would suggest that facts are a valuable tool for refuting poorly developed hypothesis.

I have read many threads in which people raise and develop hypothetical arguements against ethanol. Some of them may have been addressed. Nevertheless, due primarily to geopolitical factors of our trade balance and irresponsible dictators, a decision was made to ramp up ethanol and get off foreign oil. At this point, it is much more germane to look at what is actually going on. It is a race against the clock, the ticking time bomb of Chavez and Ahmenijad.

Maybe because dems want this issue, the coverage has been poor, but I have spent some time looking into it. It appears that our actual demand for oil has declined in the US by 5% since last September. Ethanol doubled last year and is set to double again this year, as are ethanol stations. Some Republican governors (Pataki, Bush, Indiana) appear to be working on this in addition to the energy bill finally passed by the Congress.

GM and Ford are both retooling to produce a very different fleet of American cars including hybrids, flex fuel, and hydrogen for the military which has a goal of reducing gas by 75%.

Every change brings new problems with it. At this point, I think the discussion could properly move from hypothetical to actual. There are 5 m flex cars on the road and more every day. There may be 1/2m hybrids. There is a protype hydrogen truck at Ft. Belvoir. As Jim Woolsey, who spearheads this thing, has said. "The Wright Brothers have flown." We have moved out of the research phase to implementation.