Book Review: Flight Behavior

I recently read the novel Flight Behavior by Barbara Kingsolver, a book about climate change. When I first began reading the book I had no intentions of doing a review, but as I got deeper into the book, and the characters voiced their opinions, about media in general, my intentions changed.

The premise of the book is that millions of monarch butterflies migrate to a rural area in Tennessee for the winter instead of going to their usual location in Mexico. After they are Flight Behaviordiscovered by Dellarobia on her family’s land, and the media gets involved with a news story, people from around the world begin showing up including a scientist. The next several months the scientist, Dr. Ovid Byron, and his team attempt to ascertain why the monarch butterflies wintered in Tennessee.

There have been discussions in the media and scientific journals about how monarchs are decreasing in population. While some believe the cause is climate change, others believe it is the use of pesticides and some believe it is a combination of both. For example, Andre Leu, IFOAM President and author of The Myths of Safe Pesticides, quotes in his book, “Herbicide-resistant plants….have increased the use of glyphosate, which kills all other plants including milkweed, the only type of plant that monarch butterflies use for laying their eggs.” The author cites that milkweed has declined by 60 percent and monarchs in the U.S. that winter in the forests of Mexico has dropped from 1 billion in 1997 to 33.5 million. The milkweed fact above was mentioned in Flight Behavior.

I”m not going to use this space to debate climate change; rather, I’m going to use this space to discuss the role of media in the conversation. Today, media is quoting “experts” about climate change (and other issues) that are in fact not experts at all. Where are the credible scientists and researchers who are doing the work around climate change in this conversation?

Many scientists do not like how they are portrayed in and by the media. Reporters often spend more time being skeptical about the facts being delivered by a respected scientist then they do when speaking to a person who uses social media to get his/her word out effectively but has no basis in training or education to be discussing the scientific merits of an issue. (In other words, scientists don’t speak sexy talk).

Dellarobia and her husband Cub, give us an example: “Here’s the thing,” she said. “Why would we believe Johnny Midgeon about something scientific, and not the scientists?” Continue reading

Wind Energy Faces Challenges

According to a new paper, “Challenges for Wind Energy’s Future,” although a negligible player in electricity generation, wind energy comes at an exorbitant taxpayer expense. In addition, the report finds that the wind industry faces several likely “insurmountable” challenges to becoming a dependable part of America’s energy portfolio.

Author Merrill Matthews, Ph.D., discusses in the paper that while wind itself may be free, the IPI Ideas Challenges for Wind Energyprice to harness it as a source of renewable energy is not. Matthews reports that wind energy accounted for only 4 percent of total U.S. electricity generation in 2013, but cost taxpayers a what he calls a staggering $2 billion—a vastly disproportionate tax subsidy as compared to other energy producing industries.

Matthews says it was admitted even by investor Warren Buffett that the wind energy industry would not exist without tax breaks, and the market for it has only been sustained because of government mandates.

  • In addition to its expense, writes Matthews, wind energy’s other key challenges include:
  • It’s unreliable and may not be available during peak usage;
  • It’s shown to be environmentally harmful, for example causing half a million annual bird deaths; and
  • It’s losing favor as a priority with the public.

“The quest for an economy driven by a clean, abundant and affordable renewable energy remains an unfulfilled dream—though not for a lack of lobbying, a supportive media, and lots of government money,” writes Matthews. “Wind energy’s marginal success has come at a huge taxpayer and ratepayer cost. The public’s willingness to continue to pour billions of dollars into wind energy, through higher taxes or rates, appears to be coming to a close.”

Oklahoma Institutes “Sun” Tariff

The Oklahoma legislature has passed a bill that institutes a tax on the sun and wind (distributed generation). Beginning November 1, 2014, residents who use solar or wind energy and want to connect their renewable energy to the grid, must begin paying a “solar surcharge” to utilities for the privilege. The bill was signed into law on April 21 (notably one day before Earth Day and during Earth Week) by Governor Mary Fallin. Existing solar arrays and wind turbines and any projected commissioned by October 31, 2014 will be grandfathered in at existing connection charges.home-solar-panel-install-dallas-north-carolina-solar-energy-usa

The bill was passed with virtually no opposition and was supported by the state’s major electric utilities who said they need the surcharge to recover some of the infrastructure costs to send excess electricity safely from distributed generation back to the grid, especially for those customers who don’t have the money to do this safely. The bill drew opposition from solar and wind advocates as well as environmentalists.

The Oklahoma Corporation Commission is now tasked with establishing a separate customer class and monthly surcharge, or tariff for distributed generation customers. The new tariffs would start by the end of 2015.

So in other words, complements of the “sun tax” customers now have to pay extra to generate their own electricity from renewable resources – the exact opposite of what adding solar or wind to your home is supposed to do. In keeping with the theme of the sun and wind, this is not a bright idea but rather a blustery idea.

Editorial from Father of Ethanol

merle-andersonThe man who is known as the “Father of Ethanol” in the United States is still busy advocating for the industry at the well-seasoned age of 93.

Merle Anderson, one of the founding members of the American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE), just recently penned an excellent editorial for the Grand Forks Herald about his favorite subject and his observations are just as sharp as ever when it comes to the fuel he has been promoting for decades. Here’s some excerpts his letter entitled “Government ‘myths’ limit ethanol’s full use” that he wrote with input from his friend and fellow ethanol advocate Orrie Swayze from Watertown, S.D.:

First, we must remember that Henry Ford favored E30 for his Model T. After that, what could go wrong, did go wrong as government teamed with oil, and — in a joint effort to keep ethanol out of gasoline markets — created misleading myths that E30 was illegal and would ruin engines…

Merle debunks several of those myths, including that higher ethanol blends void car warranties and that gas station pumps are unable to handle higher blends such as E30. “I really chuckle at that one, because standard gas station pumps were the only pumps available when E85 was introduced nearly 20 years ago, and they still are safely pumping E85.”

Merle concludes – My dream is every American and all of agriculture — including our sugar beet industry — would have access to an ethanol market that is not limited by EPA and big oil’s nonsense or the ethanol blend wall that has been in place since the first Model T was built.

Read Merle Anderson’s entire editorial here
.

Keep Our Tax Breaks: We Only Make $93B in Profit

Dear Congress,

Please keep our millions of dollars in tax breaks in place. We only make $93 billion in collective profit per year. This is not enough money to operate our businesses and overcharge our customers. We’re sure you will make the right decision.

Yours truly,

Big Oil

This is what a letter to Congress might look like from Big Oil who according to a report from the Center for American Progress, made a combined profit of $93 billion in 2013. The total is for five big oil companies: BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil and Shell. Despite this ridiculous amount of revenue (these companies made $177,000 per minute), they are fighting to keep their tax breaks in addition to lobbying to lift the crude oil export ban.

The five Big Oil Brothers actually increased total production in 2013 most due to BP and ConocoPhillips in essence single handedly doubling production. Although production went up, profits went down because it is becoming more expensive to extract oil. It is this change that is causing the oil industry to argue they need their tax breaks to continue.

What is staggering is that the $93 billion profit is down nearly 27 percent from 2012. In addition to higher cost of production, the average price of gasoline in 2012 was 16 cents less per gallon than the previous year.

It would not be surprising, write Daniel Weiss and Miranda Peterson, both with Center for American Progress, “if the big five oil companies use their 2013 decline in profits as another excuse to pressure Congress to retain their $2.4 billion-per-year tax breaks. The largest of these special provisions, they write, allows these companies to qualify for the “limitation on section 199 deduction attributable to oil, natural gas, or primary products, which will cost taxpayers $14.4 billion over 10 years. This according to the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. This particular tax break was enacted in 2004 and was designed to encourage manufacturing to remain in the United States rather than move overseas. It was not meant to apply to oil and natural gas production since the oil and gas fields cannot be moved to another nation. Continue reading

Opinion: EPA Putting Carrot Behind Biodiesel’s Back

KotrbaAs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers its proposal to cut down on the amount of biofuels to be blended into the Nation’s fuel supply, biodiesel makers are still scratching their heads trying to figure out why their green fuel is even being considered. In this piece in Biodiesel Magazine, Ron Kotrba makes the case that when it comes to trying to entice renewable energy production, it seems the EPA has moved the carrot from in front to behind biodiesel… making it move backwards.

[W]hen EPA proposed stalling biodiesel growth and slashing advanced biofuel targets under this year’s [Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS)] volume requirements—remember biodiesel is the only commercially available U.S. advanced biofuel to break the billion-gallon mark, and it has done so three years in a row now—investors and producers alike wondered how could they do this, and why?

Opponents to RFS and biodiesel often use the argument, “If biodiesel is such a great fuel, then why must the government require its use?” I believe the answer to this is quite obvious. Without government intervention in the form of gradually increasing mandates, biodiesel would remain locked out of the mainstream petroleum transportation fuels market because every percent of fossil diesel fuel that biodiesel displaces is lost profit for the wealthiest, most powerful corporations in the world.

For those who oppose RFS, for whatever reason, put the shoe on the other foot for a moment. You own a small business. Times are tough, particularly when competing with the local Big Box store with discount prices. The local government commits to its hometown small businesses by providing welcomed tax relief and special deductions that foster small business growth, keeping the mom-and-pop stores competitive in pricing and market opportunity. You, as a small business owner, invest in growing your business, as a result of these long-term commitments from your local government. Then, one day, without good reason, long before the tax breaks were targeted for sunset but just as their legislative intents were beginning to be realized, the council rescinds the tax breaks and you, as a small business owner, are left high and dry with your funds tied up in future growth based on a long-term commitment from your local government. Now what?

Kotrba goes on to counter the argument that if biodiesel was so good, it wouldn’t need government support. He points out that petroleum companies receive more than a half a trillion dollars in government subsidies. Plus, he says that while Big Oil might argue that the energy environment has changed since the RFS was enacted in 2007, one thing has not changed: oil is a finite resource, and one day we are going to run out.

Wind Tax Credit Set to Expire

The wind energy tax credit is set to expire tomorrow and unlike last year, there has been virtually no noise from the wind energy industry on the need to save the Production Tax Credit (PTC). In January 2013 Congress extended the tax credit for one year but single wind turbine Photo Joanna Schroederstructured the credit different in the past. Could this be the reason there has been all but silence from the industry on its expiration?

Heading in the the third and fourth quarters of 2012 wind supporters claimed that if the tax credit expired, the industry would all but halt. However this argument has not been heard this year.

While speculation, it could be because when the tax credit was restructured for 2013, it said that a project only has to be in construction by the end of 2013, not completed to qualify for the PTC. But it wasn’t until September of 2013 that the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) released rules that defined a project “in construction” if the project developer has incurred 5 percent of the total capital costs. In addition, the IRS guidelines also stipulate that all the wind turbines for a project must be delivered to the project site by April 15, 2014 and the wind farm must be in operation by December 31, 2015.

Under this structure, the wind industry should remain strong through 2015 and this past month, many companies have announced their wind farm projects have entered the “construction phase”.

According to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), during the forth quarter at least 27 requests for proposals were issued with an estimated 4,175 MW of new wind energy to be generation upon completed. Looking further ahead, reports AWEA, 5,600 MW of new wind projects have secured long-term contracts, and another 1,900 MW have received state regulatory approval.

Screen Shot 2013-12-30 at 12.33.55 PMSo how is 2013 shaping up for the wind industry? AWEA reports that American wind energy will finish 2013 with strong momentum for installations in the new year according to the U.S. Wind Industry Third Quarter 2013 Market Report. The industry experienced a painful slowdown at the beginning of 2013 as result of the scheduled expiration of the federal wind energy PTC at the end of 2012, but has now rebounded. However, says AWEA, lack of certainty over federal tax policies continues to keep wind energy from reaching its full potential in the United States. Continue reading

Book Review – Ruminations on the Distortion of Oil

I recently finished reading the book, “Ruminations on the Distortion of Oil Prices & Crony Capitalism,” by Raymond J. Learsy. The book was a historical review of his writings dealing with Big Oil and why oil prices are so high. In other words, “an overview of…our enslavement to oil and the money inextricably tied to it.”

Ruminations-Book-CoverA former commodity trader, Learsy noted that oil prices are gamed and have little to do with market discipline of supply and demand. He explains in the book how commodity markets work (you really have no idea until you read the book and listen to his interview). In fact, Learsy writes that “This administration [Obama administration] has a profound lack of understanding of how oil markets function.” He also says there is no real oversight by our government over the oil industry or over the workings of the OPEC Cartel (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries).

He notes that no global industry is wealthier than the oil industry and the countries that produce the oil. He explains that the oil industry and traders play the commodity market in a way that maximizes the price for oil. He said that a barrel of oil should not be hovering around $100. Rather, according to the CEO of Exxon/Mobil Rex Tillerson who stated during Congressional testimony in 2011, speculation was adding $30 to $40 to the price of each barrel.

“Six hundred million dollars a day is going from consumers to oil interests each day. This is money that is being stolen out of consumers’ pockets everyday,” said Learsy.

He also points out that in President Obama’s diversified energy strategy, natural gas is not included. Today he explains the U.S. has an abundance of affordable natural gas that is being burned off because there are not enough pipelines to transport it.

This book specifically focuses and on uncovering who is responsible for soaring gas prices. If you want to know as well, then read this book. It is available on Amazon.

Listen to my in-depth interview with Raymond Learsy. BTW – You will enjoy what Learsy would do if he were president for a day to fix the oil price situation. Interview with Author Raymond Learsy

Win a copy of Ruminations on the Distortions of Oil Prices & Crony Capitalism. Email me with the subject line “Ruminations Book Giveaway” by Tuesday, December 10, 2013. The winner will be announced in the DF newsletter on December 11th.

Opinion: Biodiesel’s Biggest Foe? US Government

KotrbaSo if you’re considering biodiesel opponents, you might think of the usual suspects led by Big Oil. But according to this piece by Ron Kotrba from Biodiesel Magazine, if you look at the history of the opposition, especially what has happened in the past week, the biggest roadblock to biodiesel could be the current U.S. government.

Then [Environmental Protection Agency]’s draft proposal was leaked in October, in which the agency proposed stalling the biomass-based diesel standard at 1.28 billion gallons and reducing the advanced biofuel target from the statutory requirement of 3.75 billion ethanol-equivalent gallons to 2.2 billion, and industry stakeholders wondered, could it be? Is this real? It didn’t make any sense. Some suggested the document was a fraud. Others suggested it was an old draft, perhaps not reflective of what EPA will actually propose. Others yet even speculated that EPA is intentionally attempting to squeeze out the small producers to simplify RIN tracking and accounting.

When the actual proposal came out last Friday, and it mirrored what the leaked draft indicated, you could literally feel the frustration and angst pour out of producers. I contacted several plants and stakeholders, and some of the things that were relayed to me were not fit for print, expressions that were wholly legitimate and understandable, but expletive. For industry reaction to the proposal, read my story here.

Isn’t it ironic that Big Oil’s own George W. Bush signs into law the legislation that sparks tremendous biodiesel industry growth, and the administration of Barrack Obama, the man who leveraged biodiesel so many times in his 2008 campaign, is attempting to crush it through this proposed RVO rule for 2014?

Kotrba encourages biodiesel producers and their allies not to play the victim, but send comments packed with facts to the EPA expressing their displeasure with the proposal. He concludes that there’s no good reason for this “backslide on biodiesel policy” when billions of dollars and tens of thousands of jobs, as well as a cleaner, more secure energy future are at stake

It isn’t right, and none of us should stand for it.

Angst Over AP Article Grows

Today was the official release of the Associated Press (AP) article, “The secret, dirty cost of Obama’s green power push,” and the ethanol industry is outraged at the way corn ethanol was portrayed and by how Iowa farmer and retired Methodist pastor Leroy Perkins says his quotes were misrepresented. With the ethanol industry’s outrage gaining momentum, the AP responded by saying “he was certainly aware” of the story’s focus and that “those who were in the interview with him remember it entirely differently.”

Quad County Ethanol Plant

Photo: Joanna Schroeder

“Maybe calling a Methodist pastor a liar is standard defense protocol for DC-based AP reporters, but in southern Iowa that’s an accusation we take very seriously,” said IRFA Executive Director Monte Shaw. “AP should own up to its poor reporting instead of doubling down on their misrepresentations. Just like the AP hit piece on ethanol, once again the AP doesn’t have its facts straight. IRFA contacted the others involved in the AP interviews in Wayne County and they stand behind Leroy. I doubt there is anyone not on AP’s payroll that remembers things their way.”

Also clearly upset by the article is the National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) whose members are corn farmers, many who grow and sell their corn crop to local ethanol plants.

“Today’s controversial story on corn ethanol and land use appears to simply be based on a complete misunderstanding of modern agriculture generally and the Conservation Reserve Program specifically, but unfortunately, the problem is much deeper,” said NCGA President Martin Barbre.

“It is discouraging that the Associated Press appears to be following a political agenda which clearly targets our only renewable alternative to imported petroleum. Even the headline is a colorful but inaccurate indictment. – ‘The secret, dirty cost of Obama’s green power push.’ Secret? There are no secrets in how land is used, as their own reporting shows. Acres are tracked, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture guarantees a high level of transparency. No, these watch words ‘secret’ and ‘dirty’ show clearly that the reporters were sensationalizing the issue to a high degree, which is conduct unbecoming a true journalist,” he continued.

“The fact is, farmers are doing a better job every day of meeting the duel challenges of productivity and sustainability. Land use per bushel is down 30 percent and soil loss is down 67 percent since 1980. Thanks to renewable corn ethanol, we’re using 465 million fewer barrels of oil each year. Thanks to corn ethanol, rural economies are improving. And, yes, the air is getting cleaner. We have no regrets about these outcomes,” added Barbre.

Many in the industry point out that “AP’s standards say they ‘abhor inaccuracies, carelessness, bias or distortions’ yet they say the article contains each of these things. In addition, the biofuels industry is calling foul for not having even one corn ethanol producer interviewed for the article, and there are nearly 40 operational ethanol plants in Iowa. Continue reading

OPEI Launches Look Before You Pump

The Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (OPEI) recently announced their new national ethanol education and consumer protection campaign, called ‘Look Before You Pump’. OPEI said the campaign cautions consumers against the use of E15 or higher ethanol blends in outdoor power equipment such as mowers, chain saws, snow throwers, generators and other small engine products.

E15 was approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for use for vehicles and light duty trucks manufactured in 2001 or newer and was not approved by the EPA for use in small engines or other vehicles. In addition, stations that sell E15 must be EPA-approved Look Before You Pumpand show the orange E15 label educating consumers about proper fuel use. Yet regardless of all the measures put into place by the EPA and all fuel retailers, organizations such as OPEI have insisted consumers are not smart enough to read labels and choose the appropriate fuel at the pump.

According to a recent OPEI/Harris Interactive study, the vast majority of Americans (71 percent) are “not at all sure” if it is illegal or legal to put high level ethanol gas (i.e., anything higher than 10 percent ethanol) into engines such as those in boats, mowers, chain saws, snow mobiles, generators and other engine products. However other E15 studies have shown that since E15 has been introduced into the fuel supply, no retailers have received any complaints.

“Although there is continued uncertainty in the renewable fuels market, one thing for certain is that the way consumers select and use fuel will be changing in the coming years,” said Kris Kiser, President and CEO of OPEI. “It is incumbent upon our industry to be proactive. We are cautioning American consumers and business owners whose livelihood depends on our equipment to be more mindful at the gas pump. Don’t assume that the gas you put in your car can still go in your mower, chain saw or generator.”

OPEI says its number one goal is to protect its consumers ad urges them to read their equipment operating manual before filling with gasoline to ensure they use the right fuel for that engine.

Biodiesel Industry Biggest Victim of RIN Fraud

KotrbaWhile taxpayers and investors are often talked about as the victims of the recent Renewable Identification Numbers (RIN) fraud cases, this opinion piece from Biodiesel Magazine writer Ron Kotrba makes the case that the biodiesel industry and those who play by the rules are the biggest victim of this crime.

It is those fine people, you, who make up a gross majority of the biodiesel industry, who suffer mostly. The stigma, the regulatory hoops through which you are now made to jump to maybe get a fair price on your RINs, the ammunition these fraudsters give Big Oil and legislators in the war to dismantle RFS, these are the biggest of wounds from the unnamed victims of biodiesel fraud.

In addition to calling out the e-Biofuels case, Kotrba goes on to chide the alleged frauders at FOGFuels who used their ill-gotten gains, not to keep a struggling company afloat, but to live lavish lifestyles with luxurious vacations. But he hopes the industry can shake this dark chapter.

The e-Biofuels investigation has been looming over the industry for a very long time, and it is good to finally see it progress to the point where charges have actually been filed. Will the publicity gained from the e-Biofuels case harm the biodiesel industry’s reputation even further, or since this case has been going on quietly for so long, will the culmination of charges filed allow the U.S. biodiesel industry to move forward with one less fraud case hanging over its head?

Now This Is Interesting…

Now this I find interesting. Yesterday I brought you the story about how Xcel Energy is taking aim at net metering, one of the most important tools to increase solar power adoption on homes. Yet the company is the top wind energy provider and has announced plans to expand its wind power production to “reduce customer costs, protect against rising and volatile fuel prices, and benefit the environment. Ironically, these are also benefits of solar power.

Yet I understand the dichotomy of support. For the most part, you can’t put a wind turbine on the roof of your home, although there are some up and coming home wind turbine technologies that would face the same challenges if changes were made to net metering regulations. The problem is simple – utility companies don’t make money on renewable energy projects that reduce bills or even provide enough power to sell excess energy to the grid. And the biggest threat to utilities’ bottom lines today is solar energy.

Here is another reason why wind is “good” for utilities. With the significant growth of the industry, prices are competitive and then there is the federal Production Tax Credit that was renewed just in the nick of time at the end of last year.

XCEL ENERGY WIND GROWTH“Wind energy is a valuable, low-cost substitute for natural gas and other fuels right now,” said Ben Fowke, chairman, president and CEO of Xcel Energy in a press statement detailing their intentions for wind energy. “These projects will lower customer costs by at least $800 million over their lives and will provide a valuable hedge to rising and volatile fuel prices for well into the future.”

The company has submitted to state regulators throughout its service area proposals to purchase at least 1,500 megawatts of wind resources, a 30 percent increase in overall wind capacity. The wind power expansion, along with previous conservation, renewable energy and power plant improvement projects, according to the company, puts them on track to reduce its carbon emissions by 28 million tons, or more than 31 percent by 2020.

“These projects demonstrate how to do environmental leadership the right way,” Fowke continued. “Both economic and environmental benefits can and should be achieved.”

If the projects are approved, the company expects that more than 20 percent of its total energy mix will be supplied by wind. While this would be a great accomplishment that other utilities could and should follow, let’s hope other utilities don’t follow their lead on net metering – a move that could stall solar power adoption in the residential sector.

For Summer Fun, Rent an Alt Vehicle

This summer, Disneyland is promoting energy efficiency to those coming to their famous theme park. MPG Car Rental gives California visitors a chance to try out some alternative energy cars including the Prius, the Volkswagen TDi and the fully electric Tesla Model S, winner of the 2013 Motor Trend Car of the Year award.

The tie-in to green cars and Disneyland? The park has expanded its Cars Land and completed a replica or Radiator Springs, the fictional town from Disney’s hit 2006 film Cars. Visitors will be able to interact with the cars via a racing simulator that uses the technology of Epcot’s Test Track.

Cars 2 imageFor eco-conscious parents and individuals, the hysteria over cars provides an excellent opportunity to teach their children the importance of hybrid technology, electric technology and biofuels. In fact, Cars 2, the 2011 sequel to the original film of which I am a fan, features a plot in which unscrupulous big oil investors attempt to thwart the use of biofuels (both ethanol and biodiesel) in order to secure future profits. While much of this may fly over the heads of the youngest children, older kids are likely to be intrigued by the message.

So parents, whether you are visiting Southern California or somewhere else in the good ol U.S. of A. bring the movie’s message to the road by renting an alternative fueled vehicle this summer.

 

My Hybrid Rocks!

Joannas C-Max HybridI broke down a few weeks ago and bought a new car. After test driving and researching all the options out there, I landed on the new Ford C-Max Hybrid. The estimated miles per gallon is 47 both highway and in town and I was getting such great gas mileage that after the first two weeks I thought maybe the gas gauge was broken (it was not). I opted to forgo the “plug-in” option because, frankly, I have no where to plug in (hint for more mid-sized cities to start adopting charging stations). Oh, and I liked driving the C-Max better than the Volt and the Prius and my hybrid beat out the Prius in all the biggie car publications.

I was going to call Brad Harrison with Charles Gabus Ford who spent hours having to listen to me talk about the pros and cons of all sorts of vehicles (flex-fuel, electric vehicles, fuel cell, etc.) but I thought he might not realize I was joking. Although he was a great sport Charles Gabus Ford Teamabout selling a car to someone who writes about alternative vehicles (and drives them) every day. Thanks Brad.

The car is fun to drive, has great get up and go, is quiet, so quiet in fact when you are idling you think you’ve stalled, and is approved for the use of E15, 15 percent ethanol, 85 percent gasoline, which I will begin using once it makes its way to my hometown. It’s sporty and I’ve found that when I park places (especially at the gas station) people ask me how I like my car. My answer: My hybrid rocks! (see below for confirmation).

I took my hybrid on its first road trip to the Fuel Ethanol Workshop in St. Louis, Missouri MyHybridRocksand when I finally filled her up, had 500 miles for the tank. Take that big oil! I see why they are constantly attacking the biofuels industry – with better fuel economy, more fuel choices at the pump mixed with hybrids and all electric vehicles, they are going to have to strategize about how to diversify their companies in the new green age. Or how about this – the renewable energy companies could take their place and some day we’ll be telling our kids about the days when Big Oil was king. Bye-bye- king, the queen is taking the throne.

But I digress as I often do when I’m excited. So now that I am a hybrid owner, I feel I’m entitled to tell Ford (and the other autos) how to make my car just a bit better. Please make your next hybrid E85 compatible (85 percent ethanol/15 percent gasoline). Then we’d really be driving!