The best part about Wikipedia is that if a particular article is wrong or somehow lacking, it can be editted by readers. I enjoy that.

 

I at least provided a conjecture and guessing disclaimer on my post.

 

I assume you mean this site as to the excessive amount of conjecture in this thread? I've seen far more conjecture on the SciFi Channel's Battlestar Galactica site!

Aneil

 

Haha... I guess for this site that is the most conjecture I have seen. Of course, some of those "Real hybrid, fake hybrid" threads are full of it too...

Ethanol is not a viable answer at this moment in time and, yet, it is what people are pushing the most. I just do not understand the drive by GM and the Government to get vehicles to run on it. Yes, I admit, it lowers oil dependence by a small amount, but it's only a drop in the bucket compared to the reduction necessary.

If you notice, some states do not even have ethanol stations (according to Wikipedia! [which may be wrong]).

 

Here is a recent quote from the CEO of GM:

From Motor Trend, June 2006, p. 94: “Interview With Rick Wagoner”:

“His worst decision?
“”Axing the EV1 electric-car program and not putting the right resources into hybrids [ BSO italics]. It didn’t affect profitability, but it did affect image.””

It's clear from this that Mr. Wagoner supports clean technologies only to the extent that they affect GM's public image, and not due to any sincere environmental concern. GM and other US manufacturers will do all they can to kill truly innovative technologies because they threaten their existing production base. That is why they killed their own electric vehicle and have been pathetically late to the hybrid party.

GM supports ethanol because it's a cheap way to APPEAR to support clean vehicles while doing nothing substantial toward that goal.