To: Ichy Smith who wrote (180542 ) 9/25/2006 11:13:28 AM From: Keith Feral Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793850 I'm not really talking about emissions. I don't think using our food chain is a viable commercial approach to our dependence on crude oil. I was only talking about finding new sources of hydrocarbons from which we can produce gasoline and other distillates. If we drive a hybrid car running on gasoline from crude, we are getting better gas mileage. However, the driver is still dependent on crude. The market is doing a better job now by adding oil from syncrude via Canadian oil sands. The guy in the US filling up his SUV with gasoline from Canadian oil sands is no longer depending on crude oil from Saudi Arabia. I won't drive a hybrid at this point because of the engines. Realistically, they are not fast enough at this point. I'm sure that will begin to change as the overall concept of electricity in cars does a better job managing the vehicle. I'm just not that interested in the application of bio products since they need to be preserved for the food chain. However, if they want to cut the gasoline with ethanol or other biofuel equivalents to replace additives like mtbe, I am all for it. I'm pretty sure that I won't be pulling my car over to any restaraunts soon to beg for soybean oil so I can put it in my tank to drive home. Hence, I think energy policy has 2 points - dependence on crude oil and the environmental impact of gasoline. In my original post, I was only talking about the dependence on crude oil. I'll let the regulators worry about gasoline spec's - unleaded vs diesel, mtbe vs ethanol or other biodiesel products. If we can get reasonable fuel efficiency through hybrids adequate speed and power, it will become an inevitable standard. Maybe in 2010, I will be buying an A6 from Audi with a hybrid battery that makes better use of electricity to expand gas mileage. I certainly won't resist the technology when it's universal.