Rick Brandt wrote:

Here's part of the economics of the problem as I see it. Let's
hypothetically assume that gas prices stabilize for the long term at
2.75/g which I think most people would agree is more than reasonable
to live with (thinking long term now).

Given this hypothetical we can reduce the issue of lowering our
dependence on foreign oil to...

a) choosing something greener
b) not sending money to the middle east

Now let's hypothetically assume an alternative is discovered that is
perfect regarding points (a) and (b) but which costs 3.00/g. I think
the vast majority of people would be delighted to pay that difference
(roughly 8%) to accomplish the goals of (a) and (b).

On the contrary. I think about eight people on the planet would go for an 8%
increase in price to achieve these goals. But carry on.


Now of course this is so successful that the cost of foreign oil now
drops to an effective gasoline price of 2.00/g because we are no
longer buying so much of it. Now with a price difference of 50% you
are going to lose a lot of supporters to the alternative fuel. That
is how commodity pricing works in world markets. If you are a
significant consumer of a commodity and you reduce your usage then
the price drops and there will be tremendous pressure as a result of
that drop for consumption to go back up.
The only way I see us reducing our foreign oil consumption is if an
alternative is found that is so dramatically cheaper than FO that it
will still be cheaper when the inevitable price drop in FO occurs.

That's what fungible means.