And we are rapidly consuming a non-renewable resource, increasing our dependency on foreign countries for oil and driving oil companies to widen their quest for it to the deep waters off Africa and South America while pleading to "drill, baby, drill" everywhere else they are allowed.

This, in turn, endangers our seal life, our coastlines, and the health of everyone who lives near or visits our beaches and /or eats seafood.

They say we burn about 16 million gallons of gasoline an hour. And it is sure to increase. Go ahead. Do the math.

Considering the obvious consequences of continuing down this road, our government mandated a greater use of renewable fuels. So we took about 20% of our corn crop and nearly 15% of our soybeans and converted them to bio-fuels. Of course, this was good for corn growers, who are already subsidized. Increased demand resulted in higher prices for grain, which hiked food prices.

Siphoning off a giant portion of our major export crops also has a negative effect on our overall economy. Such exports to Russian and other countries traditionally offset a large portion of our imports, improving our balance of trade.

While our current crop of bio-fuels might reduce the necessity to buy foreign oil, the net reduction in air pollutants is near zero. Giant, liquid fuel burning tractors must be used to cultivate the land, fertilize, harvest. The crops must then be transported and processed and distributed, all of which requires fuel.

This would be the same if we focused more on other crops, such as sugar cane and sugar beets.

Another issue is land use. Due to population growth, residential and commercial development has been eroding U.S. farmland for decades. Today, there is nearly as much land devoted to playing golf as to growing corn, for example. What is the best utilization of this land, feeding people or vehicles?

Scientists and Ecologists, such as David Tillman of the University of Minnesota, are exploring many other alternatives to edible crops. How about waste, garbage? What's the cost of gathering it, culling out the useful and converting it to fuel?

Sawdust and other woods? Would that lead to cutting down trees that are important in countering carbon monoxide in earth's atmosphere?

Volkswagen even has a car that runs on –dare we say - human waste. How popular will that be?

How about using degraded land to harvest prairie grass and other crops that need no fertilizer or watering? Then there's all that Algae in the Oceans.

The problem with these alternatives is that they are either far out into the future or it is too expensive to convert t o energy. In testing are concepts such as plasma-torch technologies to turn just about anything, including garbage, into fuel more efficiently.

In addition to all these considerations, bio-diesel and ethanol tend to cost more than gasoline today. And consumers remain the ultimate decision makers as to what they'll be driving.

Now how does the all-electric car compare to the other alternatives, especially hybrids?

First of all, hybrids while not running in electric mode, still burn gasoline or bio-fuels. This gives them the advantage of greater range over currently available all-electrics, but they are still polluting and costing significant money at the pump.

Will all-electric soon become a viable alternative?

Much depends on emerging battery technologies to enable drivers to travel up to 500 miles on a single charge. That's usually about as far as one wants to drive in a day, and it looks like that is going to be possible. Martin Eberhard, founder of Tesla Motors and currently EV engineer at Volkswagen's Palo Alto California Electronics Research Lab, predicts we'll have batteries with a single charge range of 500 miles within the nest 10 years. It's said the Audi e-Tran, with 3.4 amp-hi cells has a range of close to 300 miles Toyota has an electric fuel cell hybrid, the FCHD-adv that is supposed to have a range of 500 miles.

The current state-of-the-art lithium-ion battery is continually being improved. But there is one draw-back. Lithium, the same that is used in your laptop and cell phone is found mostly in Bolivia. Will we become as dependent on countries with lithium as we are on foreign companies for oil?

Another more pressing concern some people have is that the recharging of vehicles is going to raise the cost of electricity and cause power companies to increase pollutants from burning fossil fuels. They might also be consuming more oil.

Well, first of all, most of the re-charging is likely to take place at night versus peak hours. This is advantageous revenue for utilities because they are unlikely to need additional generation plants or to buy extra power from other utilities to meet this new demand.

Second, is it better to have pollution rising from some 300 million cars throughout the U.S. or to have it under better control at 1500 strategically located power plants?

Third, as we look into the future, isn't it more feasible for electric utility companies to take advantage of emerging technologies? Like wind, solar, natural gas, cleaner coal, etc.?