I've asked you and other TODers to find me a quote from a biofuel proponent who has stated that petroleum demand will decrease as result of biofuel usage.

That's what I gave you. You just wish to apply your own definition of demand in order to avoid the conclusion. I am pretty familiar with that tactic.

Do you know how the EIA, keeper of U.S. energy statistics, defines demand? Product supplied to the market. If gasoline supplied to the market went to zero, then demand went to zero. So I am really not interested in your special version of demand. Biofuels advocates are saying that biofuels are going to displace gasoline. You know, that whole 20 in 10 meme? So, the fact remains, no matter what your definition of "is" is.

You did not fulfill the request and the patronizing EIA comment is uncalled for.

Product supply and product demand are not the same -ECON 101- but since you’ve decided to 3rd party the EIAs definition as your own, are we to assume that during the Arab oil embargo when 1000’s of people were lined up in their cars at service stations that did not have gasoline to sell, that demand for gasoline did not exist?

“Biofuels advocates are saying that biofuels are going to displace gasoline.” – which has been the crux of my position all along.

Biofuel usage displaces gasonline usage. This is a measurable fact.

Biofuel usage does not, however, reduce gasoline demand. To erroneously infer otherwise and assign such inferences to participants in the biofuel sector is your own personal agenda.

Biofuel usage does not, however, reduce gasoline demand.

You are confusing fuel demand with gasoline demand. If I can put either ethanol or gasoline in my car, and I choose ethanol, then my gasoline demand went down. But my fuel demand did not.

And there was nothing patronizing about the EIA comment. I am just pointing out that my use of demand is exactly the same as theirs.

Syntec,

Yes he did fulfill the request. You are just posturing to avoid his clear answer. This is annoying.

ciao,
Bruce