Coskata: GM's ethanol future

Vinod Khosla partners with Rick Wagoner and GM

GM hasn't announced any new hybrid vehicles today, although Rick Wagoner announced today that there would in the near future be a press release on the Saturn Vue plug-in hybrid.

Nonetheless, GM did make another very interesting announcement. GM is partnering with Vinod Khosla'sCoskata, a company that believes it is ready to take ethanol to the next level, cellulosic ethanol and leave grain based ethanol in the past.

Hybrid vehicles dissed by Energy Bill?

$100 million per year for hybrids and electrics?

At first glance one might think the proposed energy bill coming out of Congress includes some great incentives for advanced technologies, such as hybrid cars, plug-in hybrid vehicles and electric cars, but if compared to corn-based ethanol, the numbers are pathetically low. Finish.....

Flex-fuel credit all but guaranteed

Corn is a political force

The House and Senate are close to approving a CAFE bill calling for 35 mpg by 2020 and, even though ethanol causes more harm than good, ethanol credits will be extended.

"We're very close to a deal," U.S. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Lansing, said in an interview Wednesday. "The bumper sticker aspects of the bill may not be significantly altered, but we are providing enough flexibility and practicality to make this achievable."

In other words, enough loopholes will exist that this legislation will, ultimately, accomplish little in terms of either foreign oil dependency or global warming. By 2020, there will be many more cars on the road and many more drivers which will significantly increase energy consumption.

CAFE is not the answer.

Lithium: The secret weapon of the auto industry?

Bob Lutz stands next to the Volt at its debut at NAIAS

"Lithium battery technology is being husbanded in Japan. It's like a secret weapon," GM's Bob Lutz recently told reporters at a meeting of the Western Automotive Journalists association. Thus, many Japanese companies would not bid on the battery contract for the Chevy Volt.

Mr. Lutz also criticized the U.S. government for not being as aggressive as the the Japanese government with advanced batteries. Of course, maybe the government could criticize GM and US automakers for not being as aggressive as Japanese automakers on hybrid cars.

In addition to slamming the government, Lutz also attacked CAFE, calling a gas tax a more sensible approach to reducing fuel consumption. Also, even though Lutz defended ethanol, he did admit that corn-based ethanol has some problems and he stated that cellulosic ethanol was needed.

WAKE UP Congress: Study shows hybrids better than E85

Time to move ethanol subsidies to hybrids and clean diesels?

Rising oil prices coupled with concerns about global climate change are driving debate about which fuels and engines should be used to power the 17 million new cars and trucks sold each year. Advanced diesel and hybrid technologies show very well in this study, in terms of benefits to the individual and society overall. E85 simply doesn’t provide the same benefits.

—John Graham, senior author and dean of the Pardee RAND Graduate School (more)

Just more confirmation of the crappy job that Congress is doing?

Study-after-study continues to question corn-based ethanol, yet Congress provides billions of dollars to subsidize corn-based ethanol. On the other, buyers of Toyota's hybrid vehicles - vehicles that can greatly benefit society - no longer qualify for tax credits?

When is the corny Congress going to start doing the right thing, instead of the earmarked, pork-barreled, lobbyist-influenced thing?

Rick Wagoner's biofuel credibility

Rick Wagoner and Bob Lutz shake hands at the Volt debut

So, Rick Wagoner wants to push the focus of Congress from fuel economy to biofuels? He his a master of such distractions - he helped make Congress believe in fuel cell vehicles, rather than hybrids, plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles for many years.

Kudos, Rick.

Nonetheless, many disagree with Rick's biofuel's assessment.

--> Finish: Rick Wagoner's biofuel credibility

Hybrids and Biofuels: Forget the Politicians?

Does it really matter which Party is in control?

If you ask me, competition works better than politicians. I'm not saying competition works perfectly, but it works better than a bunch of rich, special interest-funded partisan politicians.

Consequently, I've been very bothered that Congress has not extended Toyota's hybrid tax credits - something both Republicans and Democrats have ignored. Yet, in the last couple of years, both parties have talked considerably about energy dependence, especially foreign oil dependence and/or global warming. Yet, very little has been accomplished to alleviate these problems.

Obviously, the task is not simple. Still, it seems to me that the quickest way to make automakers deal with fuel efficiency is simple competition. Force them to act or risk losing customers.

Thus, the more success Toyota has selling hybrid vehicles, the more pressure there is.....Finish Hybrids and Biofuels: Forget the Politicians.

Poor fuel economy - It's the consumers, stupid?

Yesterday, the director of the EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Margo Oge, told a crowd at SAE that automakers and energy companies needed to work together to achieve increased fuel economy and reduced emissions. Immediately, disagreement came from every direction, according to the DetroitNews. Is it hydrogen, is it ethanol, is it fuel cells, is it cleaner gasoline, is it hybrid cars?

While there was little consensus on any sort of answer to creating better fuel economy and reducing emissions, there was some consensus regarding consumers and their role in this conundrum. Typically, consumers want the cheapest fuel - regardless of emissions, regardless of foreign oil dependency - and consumers quickly tend to choose performance over fuel economy.

"The challenge we face is that a vast majority of our customers choose fuel based on cost and convenience even over concerns such as greenhouse gases," Shell Oil Vice President for Fuel Development Darran Messem said.

Steve Plotkin, transportation energy analyst at Argonne National Laboratory, added "Americans have chosen performance over efficiency for years," as he suggested that the government will have to mandate some standards.

I say forget mandates, let's do a gas tax. It makes consumers take action that will require a fuel economy-driven reaction from automakers. Ultimately, if consumers aren't part of the solution, then the problem will only get bigger.

Fuel efficiency: GM just can't compete?

Are flex-fuel lies killing GM?

GM's Bob Lutz is claiming that President Bush's plans to increase automobile fuel efficiency could raise the cost of automobiles by $5000.00, according to the DetroitNews. Rather than increase fuel efficiency, Lutz claims increased availability of ethanol is a better solution.

I'm so tired of hearing about GM's ethanol plans. First, GM is using cheap flex-fuel technology as a loophole to violate CAFE. As a result GM can't even meet the CAFE laws created 20 years ago, let alone more stringent rules. Consequently, GM is using legal loopholes to avoid paying massive fines, while increasing America's foreign oil dependency more than should be allowed by law. Second, corn-based ethanol is not a good solution to resolving America's energy problems. Third, GM is an automaker, not an energy company, so focus on automotive technology.

While Toyota achieves record months of sales significantly helped by hybrid cars, such as the Prius, GM has yet to sell one full hybrid vehicle. Why? Why can't GM realize that fuel efficiency is becoming ever more a critical aspect of automobile manufacturing survival - possibly and probably the key to the automotive future?

The good 'ole days of gas-guzzling land yachts are over. Deal with it.

Democrats suck: Why no Toyota hybrid tax credits? (Does America suck?)

Is leaving Iraq a solution or a distraction?

While Democrats keep beating the Leave Iraq drum, they continue to do little to resolve the problem that eventually pushed America into Iraq in the first place: oil. While there isn't anything that can be done to immediately end foreign oil dependency, there are small actions that create strong messages that could result in real action. Extending Toyota's tax credits is one such action.

Besides, Toyota deserves the extension. Hybrid cars, plug-in hybrid vehicles - these vehicles wouldn't even be on the world's radar if not for Toyota. Even today, the Big 3 - led by GM - can't get off the ethanol crazy train. Fortunately, even the mainstream media are finally starting to address the truth about flex-fuel vehicles and corn-based ethanol - its a scam (See BW).

--> Finish Democrats suck: Why no Toyota hybrid tax credits

U.S. automakers: Too focused on fuels rather than on fuel efficiency

Shouldn't automakers be more focused on fuel efficiency, rather than on alternative fuels?

I hate being critical of the biofuel movement, but it is simply a fact that corn-based ethanol is just not a very good bio-fuel. Moreover, there are plenty of questions still left unresolved regarding bio-fuels, especially until cellulosic ethanol is economically achieved.

For example, if we triple or quadruple ethanol consumption, how much will food prices increase? Also, considering that water is more and more labeled as the next oil, is it wise to use so much of this precious resource to fuel our vehicles via water-greedy corn? Furthermore, will global warming affect our ability to produce many bio-fuels? And that's just for starters.

Finish Fuels rather than fuel efficiency

Energy Security and Global Warming: What GM is doing

Is GM about more than just the Hummer?

When it comes the environment and global warming, GM is the favored whipping boy in the automotive sector, but is such a view of GM accurate? Just because GM isn't the leading developer of hybrid cars, does that mean they are not an environmental leader? According to GM's VP of Environment and Energy, Beth Lowery, that view is not correct and she is letting people know about it on the Fast Lane Blog.

Finish Energy Security and Global Warming

The 'Admiral' calls 20 percent U.S. gas reduction impossible

Eric Bolling, known as the Admiral on CNBC's Fast Money, was on Morning Call this morning talking about oil prices. Consequently, he was asked about the President's State of the Union Speech and whether a 20 percent reduction in U.S. gasoline production was possible. He adamantly exclaimed that it was not possible, that ethanol would ultimately have little effect on gasoline consumption, and that the U.S. would be lucky if it could maintain its current gasoline consumption - rather than increase it as the U.S. seems to do year after year. Scary.

While Bolling might be correct, and based on his success he's hard to argue against, I think the U.S. must try. More important, I think it is desperately vital that the U.S. and consumers realize that alternative fuels, other than possibly hydrogen, are not going to be the answer. Fuel efficient technology, namely hybrid vehicles that can evolve into plug-in hybrid vehicles are absolutely critical.

I think it's even more evidence we need a gas-tax to clean energy tax credit policy.

State of the Union and Energy Independence: Power to the People!

Power to the people, not the corporations!

Energy independence is supposed to be an important part of the President's State of the Union speech tonight. So, when it comes to energy independence, where should the government place its tax incentive focus? Should it be on alternative fuels such as ethanol, bio-diesel, clean diesel and hydrogen? Should it be on advanced technologies such as hybrid vehicles, lithium-ion batteries, and fuel cells?

I say forget fuel. Forget ethanol. Ethanol already receives an incredulous amount of tax subsidies and is in danger of turning into a pork-barrel legislator's dream.

I say focus on hybrid vehicles, electric vehicles and lithium-ion battery technology. Let's invest in the kinds of technologies that can practically wipe out the need for any liquid fuel in just the next decade.

Of course not everyone will agree on the approach. Consequently, I say try to give the power to the people, and let's make the people accountable for their choices.

Yesterday, I suggested a gas tax. Why not make gas more expensive while using the gas tax revenue to reward consumers whom buy more fuel efficient technologies? Also, make that tax 85% less for E85, for example - let consumers reap the benefit of buying a flex-fuel vehicle if it works for them. Why should automakers receive CAFE credits - a tax saving loophole - for selling E85 functionality that is never used by the majority of consumers? In addition, empower the flex-fuel user to save even far more with a flex-fuel hybrid vehicle.

I say give the power to the people! It's fair, it's competitive, it's responsible.

Automotive News World Congress: Need National Energy Policy

It seems the need for a National Energy Policy was a hot topic at the Automotive News World Congress according to the DetroitNews. Unfortunately, what that energy policy should be was far from unanimous. Of course GM lobbied for biofuels, plus some help with batteries. Chrysler lobbied for hydrogen. Ford, well, Ford's reported comments surprised me the most. Nancy Gioia, director of sustainable mobility technologies and hybrid vehicle programs at Ford told the DetroitNews, "hydrogen is one of the most promising long-term solutions -- one that she said will require a national commitment comparable to the one required to put a man on the moon.

At the same time, Gioia pointed out that hydrogen is not a panacea. She said it takes a great deal of energy to extract hydrogen -- energy that might be better utilized by other technologies like plug-in hybrids."

Forget the ethanol pipeline and choose flex-fuel plug-in hybrids

Where are the flex-fuel hybrid vehicles, such as this Saab flex-fuel hybrid? Even better, how about flex-fuel plug-in hybrid vehicles? Wouldn't they be the perfect foreign oil dependency fighters? Yet, with plug-in hybrid vehicles - a technology just a couple of years away from mass-production reality -the far majority of Americans would almost never need to fill up with any liquid fuel for their daily commute. Yet, our electricity needs would increase significantly.

So, why is the ethanol industry seeking an ethanol pipeline (more)? Why not just convert ethanol into electricity? Wouldn't that be easier, even cheaper, than transporting ethanol throughout the U.S.?

Explosive growth in the incredibly highly subsidized corn-based ethanol industry only makes sense for those whom stand to reap billions in subsidized profit. Until cellulosic ethanol proves its cost-effectiveness, America should spend far more of its resources on advanced technologies, such as lithium-ion batteries, composite materials, and fuel cells - technologies that can essentially end the need for any liquid fuel for automotive transportation in the first place.

Climate change demands fuel efficiency, not ethanol

"The most direct impact of climate change will be on China's grain production," deputy director of the National Climate Center, Luo Yong told the Science Times newspaper.

What about America's grain production? Is America some how immune?

Global warming and climate change are almost assuredly going to result in massive natural disasters, droughts and severe weather swings that could destroy entire crops for years or even decades. What condition would the U.S. be in if our food and fuel crops were wiped out by a climate change disaster, even if just for one year? How can you fight global warming if you don't have any grain to convert to fuel? How many people would starve?

Isn't it time to accept the serious possibility that going green by going yellow might be impossible and even harmful?

Technology provides the possibility of producing automobiles, even SUVs, that are 75 percent more fuel efficient than today based on Today's technology - not on fuel cells nor the hydrogen economy.

Carbon-fiber plug-in hybrid vehicles would enable the far majority of Americans to use only electricity to power their vehicles almost ALL of the time. Still, in an emergency, such hybrids could still use ethanol, gasoline, diesel, hydrogen etc. if electricity was not available.

Isn't it time to set aside political pork and payoffs? Isn't it time to get serious?

Democrats ready to give more subsidies to biofuels

Already, ethanol is an incredibly subsidized product, as is the corn from which most ethanol is derived. Yet, the profit margins for ethanol producers are actually greater than oil profit margins. For many, this isn't a problem because of the belief than ethanol is more green than petroleum, or that ethanol helps reduce foreign oil dependency. Many Democrats in Congress also have the same belief and those Democrats are preparing to roll back tax subsidies for oil companies and use them for biofuels according to the Detroit News.

Still no word, however, on whether Congress is going to do anything to promote hybrid vehicles, including plug-in hybrid vehicles.

Hoping for a smart green revolution from Congress

There has been much buzz in the media regarding how the Democratic control of Congress is going to help the green revolution. While there is no doubt that Democrats will pass more 'green' legislation than the previous Republican Congress, there is still much cause for concern. For example, "The politics surrounding environmental issues have proved hard to predict, largely because the potential economic impact of stronger regulation tends to scramble partisan loyalties. Democrats from auto-making states, for example, have fought efforts to mandate stricter miles-per-gallon rules for vehicles." (more)

Currently, the top buzz words coming from the Democratic agenda have largely been focused on global warming and alternative fuels, especially ethanol.

Obviously, global warming is an important issue, but when there are studies that indicate that far more global warming pollution is caused by the livestock industry than all the emissions from all forms of transportation combined, one has to take pause. Of course we should make cleaner automobiles; however, why is the smaller problem the center of all the global warming attention?

Even worse, it seems the Democratic preferred answer to global warming is ethanol. First, corn-based ethanol is not very environmentally friendly. Yes, it might be more environmentally friendly than petroleum, but is it enough more? Without doubt, I say no. Second, ethanol is also seen as a way to protect American automobile jobs, but at what cost? I simply don't see how E85 Hummers, Expeditions and Nitros are really an answer to global warming, foreign oil dependency or American jobs - at least in the long term.

Over the last several decades, almost every single advance in fuel efficiency has only produced heavier and more powerful vehicles - resulting in greater foreign oil dependency and pollution. In order for America to truly fight global warming and foreign oil dependency, while protecting American jobs, very advanced technology will be required - as fast as possible.

The entire American automobile psyche must evolve.

Of course, ethanol can help, particularly if it is used to top off a flex-fuel plug-in hybrid vehicle that only needs a few gallons of liquid fuel every month - if ever. Yet, I have heard very little coming out of the Democratic camp regarding hybrid cars and real world legislation.

If America takes the slow road to advanced hybrid technology, Toyota won't. Hyundai probably won't either. And if you make it profitable for American automakers to make E85 guzzlers, then you can expect to wait far longer for American automakers to focus on flex-fuel plug-in hybrids.

Ultimately, American automakers and American consumers have to change dramatically, and that change will require significant help from the government. Hopefully, Congress will focus on the the future, not just today's political pork and paybacks.

Auto Alliance Change in Leadership: Good or Bad?

Dave McCurdy, a conservative Democrat, will take over the leadership position of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. Now that Democrats are taking over Congress, one might expect huge changes in fuel efficiency and global warming pollution. But should we?

"The Auto Alliance made a fine choice in hiring Dave McCurdy as its president," U.S. Rep. John Dingell, D-Dearborn, said in a statement. "His integrity is unquestioned, his political instincts are sound, and his exceptional judgment will serve the Alliance remarkably well." (more)

McCurdy, a conservative Democrat, and Dingell, a protectionist Democrat unwilling to risk any union jobs in the auto industry in the name of fuel efficiency, will probably be a perfect match. They will make a lot of noise, but not accomplish much, at least regarding fuel efficiency. They will, however, make those invested in ethanol very rich.

Is global warming the MAIN reason to oppose ethanol

O.K., global warming isn't the main reason to oppose ethanol, however, global warming is the main reason to oppose ethanol as the solution to both foreign oil dependency and global warming gases. How can we put all our eggs in the alternative fuels basket when the same scientists warning the world about global warming also claim that today's global warming is going to lead to extreme weather, such as mini-ice ages, extreme droughts, massive hurricanes, flooding, etc, etc.? All of these conditions could wipe out the entire grain belt of the U.S. - our energy supply (not to mention our food supply) - for a year, for a decade, for a millennium.

While there is nothing wrong with pursuing alternative fuels, they cannot be pursued at the expense of efficiency.

Today, hybrid cars offer the greatest tool for efficiency. In addition, hybrids can utilize any alternative fuel developed. Most important, however, creating lighter vehicles with plug-in hybrid technology could easily increase fuel efficiency by more than 50%, even as much as 75% if carbon fibers, instead of steel, were used to build automobiles.

In the short term, alternative fuels are a distraction - an excuse - enabling automakers to continue to build more and more inefficient vehicles. 'Yes, it's a 12 mpg Hummer, but it uses flex-fuel' is neither the answer to energy dependence nor to global warming.

Global Warming and Foreign Oil Dependency: Do you really need any more reasons to go hybrid?

Around ninety percent of Europeans believe that humans are causing global warming.

Do you agree?

If you do, then you realize how important it is that humans start taking much more responsibility for their contribution to global warming. One of the biggest impacts humans can have on global warming, especially in the U.S., is to reduce their automobile fuel consumption.

On the other hand, perhaps you are not yet ready to buy into global warming?

O.K., well what about foreign oil dependency? How do you feel about funding terrorism against the U.S.? How do you feel about putting an important aspect of the American economy into the hands of leaders of countries where the majority of their populations see America as an evil empire?

Regardless of whether you are concerned more about foreign oil dependency, or about global warming, isn't it time for a revolution against oil consumption?

While many are now clamoring for E85 and other forms of ethanol to address this problem, I think E85 is nothing short of a boondoggle, unless flex-fuel vehicles become significantly more fuel efficient.

Flex-fuel hybrids, for example, are an excellent idea.

On the other hand, flex-fuel Hummers aren't such a great idea. If we all drive flex-fuel Hummers or similarly sized gas-guzzlers, then we'll need all the ethanol we can make just to catch up with our increased fuel consumption.

Ethanol can be helpful, but it won't offer help much without significant gains in fuel efficiency.

Current hybrid cars offer nice gains in fuel efficiency today, but the real advantage of hybrids is their potential. In just another generation of technology - available in just a few years - average hybrid vehicles might achieve 100 mpg.

In the Southern half of the U.S. solar powered garages could power - theoretically - all of the fuel needs of these hybrids.

In the Midwest, home grown ethanol could be a good fuel for hybrids, but also for power plants that plug-in hybrids could plug into for clean electric fuel.

Perhaps in other areas, natural gas, hydrogen or even wind power makes me sense. Regardless, hybrids are able to utilize any of these fuels.

Flexible, adaptable and powerful hybrid technology offers a revolutionary tool to fight global warming and foreign oil dependency.

Invest in the future, make your next vehicle a hybrid vehicle.

Detroit must "think anew"

Last week I questioned an editorial by the Detroit News regarding fuel economy because of its complacency, and it's inability to foresee and realize that change must be realized by American automakers. Today, however, Daniel Howes of the Detroit News is singing my tune, telling politicians to give up the blame game while also telling Michigan and the Big 3 that it's time to change.

"The only questions are how and how quickly. Not, why us? Nor who's to blame for tampering with what U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow likes to call "our way of life" -- as if Detroit's automakers, their unions and others are immune to the laws of supply and demand. They aren't, no matter how freely some politicians may be willing to manipulate reality to suggest otherwise."

"Apologies to Sen. Stabenow, but "our way of life" is strangling Michigan because it was never designed to adapt to a changing world, much less accept that the economy and competition would change."

Evolution is often driven by small constant changes. Toyota, for example, is driven by small constant changes focused on increasing efficiency. This process, or Kaizen, led Toyota to hybrid cars - a new platform to increase efficiency. Inevitably the efficiency potential of hybrids has barely been tapped. Moreover, hybrids are adaptable to flex-fuel, hydrogen, gasoline, diesel, biodiesel, or even electricity, and they can lead to advanced batteries and fuel cell development.

Ultimately, hybrids exude change and flexibility. Today's hybrids are gasoline-electric, but tomorrow's might be flex-fuel plug-in hybrids and not long after that they might by hydrogen hybrids, or plug-in fuel cell hybrid vehicles. Hybrid technology is changing rapidly, adapting to the future.

Today, Democrats and the Big 3 appear very close to becoming fixated upon ethanol, a fuel which requires little change for the Big 3. Ultimately, ethanol won't really make the Big 3 any more adaptable, and it just might lead to another decade of complacency. Alternative fuels can help America, but not enough. Only significantly more fuel efficient automobiles can lead to real change.

Detroit must "think anew", and ethanol just isn't new enough.

Big 3 CEOs and President conclude meeting

The meeting between the President and the CEO's of the Big Three has ended. I watched a short post-meeting interview the Big 3 CEO's gave, which focused on three issues: ethanol, trade policy and healthcare. Overall currency issues dominated the question and answer session, followed by healthcare; however, GM's Rick Wagoner opened the interview with the statement that the Big 3 were ready to offer 50% of their vehicles as flex-fuel vehicles by 2012. It seemed obvious that Wagoner was trying to hammer home the point that the Big was doing their part (Of course you have to believe that E85 alone is a game changer for the industry) to counter the President's previous 'build relevant vehicles' statement.

All three CEO's said the meeting went extremely well. While Wagoner admitted that the President didn't agree with every point made by the Big 3, Ford's CEO Alan Mulally added that he was very impressed with President's knowledge of the issues and the quality of the dialogue while also noting that he felt the Bush administration was a "very supportive administration" - almost countering the pre-meeting politicking by Michigan Democrats.

Although Wagoner hogged the mic., I was very impressed with Mulally's optimism when he did speak. Mulally concluded the interview by answering a question that the auto industry did not expect a government bailout, and that the industry needed to do a lot more to build more fuel efficient vehicles that consumers want.

Democrats appear ready to focus on alternative fuels as answer to foreign oil dependency

As I stated earlier today, when it comes to foreign oil dependency, don't expect any real change from Democrats. Rep. John Dingell, whom will become chairmen of House Energy and Commerce Committee in January, has been a strong proponent against increased CAFE standards and he appears to see E85 and alternative fuels as the main solution to foreign oil dependency. (more)

Hopefully, Democrats will extend a few crumbs towards hybrid cars and plug-in hybrid cars, but that might offend the UAW too much, so don't expect any new tax credits for hybrids.

This is the big change America voted for? Excuse me for not being overly excited. When push comes to shove, politicians are just politicians and Democrats aren't really much better than Republicans.

It all comes down to the people. Politicians don't lead revolutions, people do, and voting for Democrats is no revolution.

Some interesting quotes

"In recent years, attempts to increase fuel economy standards have been met with broad bipartisan opposition and we're hopeful that that opposition continues," said Charles Territo, a spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.

"Energy policy and fuel economy standards for the past 20 years have been a bipartisan failure," said David Friedman, research director for the Union of Concerned Scientists' Clean Vehicles Program. "The next year will tell us a lot about how serious people are."

Stop the Madness: Hybrid Vehicles Not E85!!!!!!!

Last year ethanol producers received subsidies and tax incentives worth more than $5 billion dollars, and those subsidies will probably be much higher next year. Yet, even with those subsidies ethanol isn't cost effective unless gas prices are close to $3.00 per gallon.

So, is ethanol worth the price?

Supporters of ethanol claim that all this investment in ethanol for automobiles will eventually lead to better ways of producing ethanol, such as cellulosic ethanol.

I say it will simply lead to more flex-fuel Hummers and little decrease in foreign oil dependency. I say E85 is a feel-good way of accomplishing nothing, something both Democrats and Republicans love - talk, talk, talk, but do nothing.

Without raising the fuel efficiency of America's automobiles - significantly - America's demand for energy will continue to grow exponentially and it will outpace any reduction in foreign oil dependency produced by ethanol.

More important, even GM is now realizing the that the future of automobiles is probably electric. If this is true, then E85 simply becomes a distraction, even a boondoggle to those ends, at least for American automakers and the American economy.

Today, hybrid cars can increase fuel efficiency by 20 to 30 percent, which is a good start. Add advanced gasoline engines or clean diesel engines and fuel efficiency could be doubled - that's with just TODAY's technology.

But the real advantage of hybrids will be lithium batteries, and the ability to utilize electric power. Within 5 years it is quite possible that you could buy a $30,000 hybrid vehicle that might never have to be filled with fuel if you drive less than 40 miles per day, all it would need is a small electric charge at night.

Within 10 years a small fuel cell stack could be added to these plug-in hybrids and the majority of drivers might never need any other fuel than just a little occasional electricity. More important, all of this could happen much quicker if more incentives were provided for hybrid technology and lithium-ion technology.

Why not give those ethanol subsidies to consumers to purchase these vehicles? Ultimately, a change in consumer behavior is the quickest path to foreign oil dependence and a cleaner environment.

Yet, ethanol is the favored buzzword, the favored recipient of tax incentives and government subsidies.

In the past Honda has already claimed it believes electric cars are integral to the future, and Toyota's hybrid efforts make them a player in electric cars as well. Even GM says the future is electric. Consequently, it is imperative that American automakers lead the way into this automotive revolution, rather than sticking to flex-fuel Hummers and Mustangs.

America's focus should be that in 10 years every American vehicle produced is either fuel-free or that fuel is simply a backup. The technology will be there within 10 years. The Japanese will be there. Will America?

Still, I'm all for ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, as a fuel to produce electricity, just not as an automobile fuel. Ultimately, transporting ethanol simply makes no sense in a liquid form, but in an electric form it makes great sense.

Consequently, E85 could become a distraction, even a boondoggle if it takes the clean energy and foreign oil dependency spotlight, and early talk from many Democrats seems headed in that direction.

The future is now. If we don't dare to dream, we just might wake up to a nightmare. New automotive technology, not alternative fuels, should be the priority for America, and the majority of our tax incentives and subsidies should be given to consumers to buy this new technology.

Foreign oil dependency makes America stronger!

Do you think foreign oil dependency makes America stronger? In today's world, isn't that a stupid question?

Yet, it seems many Americans either believe that cheap foreign oil is good for America or that it poses little threat to America's National Security. Otherwise, how can the continued purchasing of gas-guzzlers be justified? How can the lack of hybrid vehicles from 2 out of 3 of Detroit's automakers be explained?

I often criticize GM for its lack of leadership in fighting foreign oil dependency. Does my criticism stem from my perpetual hate of anything GM? Absolutely not. It stems from the immense power GM has to take a leadership role in fighting oil dependency coupled with GM's refusal to do so.

Ultimately, I would gladly buy a GM hybrid vehicle - as long as it was a full hybrid vehicle. Unfortunately, GM just doesn't have any full hybrid vehicles available yet.

Why?

Well, just a few years ago important GM executives, such as Bob Lutz, publicly ridiculed hybrid vehicles and those automakers investing in them, which is particularly offensive since billions of taxpayer dollars were given to Detroit to develop similar vehicles back in the 90s.

Sure, GM has been claiming the future will be fuel cell vehicles, but they've been saying this for decades and they might be saying it a few more decades before it is a reality. Still, everything that can be done to fight oil dependency today, needs to be done today.

Quite simply, today, the hybrid vehicle is the best course of action in the war on oil dependency. The hybrid powertrain by itself is already efficient and will become even far more efficient. More important, however, the hybrid powertrain enables the integration of clean diesel, flex-fuel, electricity, hydrogen and fuel cells into the same powertrain.

Today's technology, such as a clean diesel hybrid, could produce vehicles that are 50 percent more efficient than today's vehicles. What are we waiting for? Too expensive? No way! There are enough subsidies already being wasted on big oil and other pork barrel legislation to provide the tax incentives needed for consumers to make clean diesel hybrids cost effective.

But, clean diesel hybrids are just one slice of the potential hybrid pie. In areas where ethanol makes sense, flex-fuel hybrids could be built. Add plug-in technology to both diesel hybrids and flex-fuel hybrids and you might only have to fill up on trips greater than 40 miles.

Imagine only filling your vehicle up a couple of times per year.

In the Southwest, such plug-in hybrids could make solar power far more cost-effective, enabling homeowners the ability to power their homes and their automobiles. Imagine never paying an electricity bill nor to fuel your automobiles. How's that for fighting global warming?

Of course these vehicles could also eventually develop into hydrogen powered hybrid vehicles, or fuel cell hybrid vehicles, but foreign oil dependency could be ended without either of these innovations. We don't have to wait for the holy grail, fuel cells. We just have to start demanding action right now.

To be fair, it's not as if GM is evil and Toyota is a saint. Neither automaker is doing enough. Nonetheless, considering the trends of the last few decades, such as previous oil embargoes, Katrina, global warming, and 9/11 isn't it finally time to say enough is enough?

And I say, it's especially time for GM, the most important automaker in America and one of the most important American companies, not to just act, but to take the lead. GM has the kind of loyal following to buy these war-effort vehicles and the political power to force the government to assist with subsidies and tax incentives for these war-effort vehicles.

Instead of using that billion dollar GM marketing budget to market gas-guzzlers, market the fight against the war on foreign oil dependency and global warming. It's our GM hybrid vehicle, it's our national security.

I don't think there is a company that could do more for America than GM if GM began to look at foreign oil dependency and global warming as a war, a war that GM was leading the battle against at ALL costs - even bankruptcy. That is simply a battle that GM would not and could not lose today.

Bob Lutz has admitted that GM could have taken a FRACTION of their YEARLY marketing budget to develop a hybrid to rival the Toyota Prius. Yet, they willfully continue to chose to spend that money marketing gas-guzzling - even AFTER 9/11. Stop!

Before 9/11 most Americans had their heads buried in the sand regarding the consequences of America's addiction to oil. Sometimes when something is so good, it's just better not to ask questions. After 9/11, however, there is no excuse not to act. Now America needs GM to do the right thing more than ever.

If 9/11, Katrina, Iraq and all the threats about global warming are not enough to get America to realize it is time to change, what will it take? Would the deaths of 10,000 or 100,000 citizens be enough? Do we need a third world war, or the loss of a major city, such as New York? Would that finally be enough?

Then again foreign oil dependency has nothing to do with 9/11, Iraq or global warming, right? Foreign oil dependency makes America stronger!

Over $5 billion in 2006 to subsidize ethanol as hybrid tax credits run out

"A recent study conducted by the Swiss-based group called Global Subsidies Initiative revealed the total cost of the tax breaks and subsidies that go into U.S. production of ethanol to be in the whopping range of $5.1 to $6.8 billion for 2006." (more)

While I'd rather use my tax dollars to subsidize American industries, such as ethanol producers, rather than foreign oil companies, I'd rather subsidize hybrid cars and other clean vehicle technologies more than ethanol. Give GM and Ford $5 billion per year to perfect hybrid cars, plug-in hybrid vehicles, fuel cell hybrid vehicles and electric vehicles.

If lighter materials and smarter automobile designs were coupled with next generation batteries, fuel cells and hybrid technology, the U.S. could easily end foreign oil dependency. Sure it would be expensive, but not too expensive if we simply made better use of current tax subsidies - Not by adding new ones.

Another reason alternative fuels are not enough? Go hybrid!

"Our whole farming system really contributes a lot to global warming, and it could be made to be much more sustainable," claims Francis Thicke, an organic dairy farmer from Fairfield, Iowa, who has a Ph.D. in soil fertility.

Thick also believes subsidies for farmers to grow corn and soybeans should end because of their global warming contribution. (more)

On the other hand, synergistic technologies, such as lithium batteries, fuel cells, and hybrid vehicles will soon create autos that might need very little fuel, regardless of whether it is oil, ethanol or hydrogen. By the end of the decade, new hybrid technology combined with next generation lithium batteries might easily achieve more than 70 mpg. Plug-in technology could be added to these hybrid vehicles and most urban drivers might rarely, if ever, need any fuel other than a little electricity. Additionally, adding small fuel cells might make such hybrids even more efficient, requiring even less fuel or electricity.

Sure it would be nice to fill these next generation hybrids with ethanol instead of gasoline, but the focus should be on as little fuel as possible. In fact, whether ethanol is every viable in America shouldn't even be a primary concern for Detroit's automakers. Making the most efficient vehicles possible, should be their only concern.

Go hybrid, Detroit, go hybrid.

Re: Direct Injection Ethanol Boosting

Yesterday, I briefly touched on a story about MIT's direct injection ethanol boosting system. I didn't cover the topic in any depth because I was annoyed by the anti-hybrid spin the article took. Anyway, if you want to check out an interesting discussion about direct injection ethanol boosting, check out Green Car Congress.

Flex-fuel? So what unless it's a flex-fuel hybrid vehicle?

"Injecting small quantities of ethanol into car engines at moments of peak demand -- such as accelerating sharply or climbing a steep hill -- could improve the fuel economy of gasoline engines by 20 percent to 30 percent, a scientist said on Wednesday." (more)

Such technology would probably cost about $1000.00 per vehicle and could be mass produced by 2011. The technology would also enable vehicles to use smaller engines.

Consequently, some are calling the technology a hybrid challenger. Why?

(Full Story)

Flex-fuel lies, foreign oil dependency and hybrid vehicle tax credits: Rate Congress

"A public advocacy group on Thursday said Ford Motor Co. has avoided as much as $135 million in fines by marketing vehicles that are supposed to run on the gas-ethanol mix E85 that don't work and accused the company of running misleading ads." (more)

Moreover, aside from the obvious, the fact is that for years the majority of flex-fuel vehicles sold by both Ford and GM have not ever filled up with E-85. Yet, each company has avoided millions and and millions in fines by selling these vehicles.

"Public Citizen and other environmental advocacy groups have long complained that automakers get credits to meet federal fuel economy regulations by building flexible-fuel vehicles that are hardly ever filled with E85, since it's available at just 900 of the country's 170,000 pumps."

So, Congress gives small business owners huge tax incentives to buy the worst gas-guzzlers, provides huge tax incentives to oil companies, enables the big three to avoid 100's of millions of dollars in fines for violating fuel economy regulations - increasing our foreign oil dependency, and limits tax credits for Toyota hybrid vehicles because they are too successful.

That sure sounds like the right path towards achieving energy independence.

Even the President says hybrids are possibly the most important way to change consumer behavior. Yet, Congress hasn't passed proposed legislation to provide small business tax incentives for buying hybrid cars or other fuel efficient vehicles, nor has Congress passed proposed legislation to extend hybrid vehicle tax credits.

Good work, ladies and gentlemen!

We live in a country that blames the President for quite a lot these days. Fair enough. Let's extend at least as much blame to the current - do nothing, partisanship is more important - Congress.

Flex fuel lies, foreign oil dependency and hybrid vehicle tax credits - Congress is failing America.

Russia puts Western oil 'supplies at risk'? Join the hybrid revolution.

"A former government adviser has warned it is "only a matter of time" before BP or Shell faces a bid from a Russian state-owned group such as Gazprom which could threaten western oil supplies. Professor Peter Odell, an energy economist, says ExxonMobil is also vulnerable to a Chinese takeover as the large UK and American stock-listed oil groups lose their influence in global markets." (more)

If it isn't OPEC seeking a bottom cap of $55.00 per barrel, it's China and Russia and state-owned oil companies threatening the price of gasoline.

Fortunately, Congress has passed tax incentives for hybrids that protect GM and Ford, rather than incentives that seek to achieve change as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, protectionism isn't what GM needs, it needs a good kick in the ass. GM's biggest problem these days, apparently, is a lack of Hummers according to Bob Lutz, not tax incentives for hybrids.

Hummers are far more important than foreign oil dependency.

Besides, what would ending foreign oil dependency accomplish anyway? A less complicated Middle East? Putting an important part of the American economy back in the hands of Americans?

Obviously, achieving oil dependency wouldn't be easy, it would require the kind of technological revolution which would create new jobs, new industries and new markets. What a waste!

The technology behind hybrid cars offers such a revolution. Hybrid technology can make any vehicle 20 - 30 percent more fuel efficient, today, whether that vehicle is fueled by gasoline, diesel, ethanol or even hydrogen. New software and new batteries will double the fuel efficiency of today's hybrids in just a few years. Then plug-in hybrids could also increase hybrid performance while creating an ideal platform for the introduction of small fuel cells into the automobile.

Unfortunately, hybrid production doesn't result in the huge profit margins many automakers covet - hybrid vehicles only make the world a better place. And Hummers, it seems, are much cooler than making a better world.

Gasoline and oil costs might drop in the short term, but the long term is filled with too many risks not to act as quickly as possible.

Cheaper gas and the death of hybrid cars?

Will cheaper gas lead to the death of hybrid cars?

Currently, gas prices are down some 30 cents and could even reach $2.00 by Thanksgiving. Additionally, the Toyota Prius hybrid, the best-selling hybrid vehicle by far, will soon only qualify for half its current tax deduction.

Of course the reduced tax deduction won't just affect the Prius, but all Toyota hybrids. So, how will this affect Toyota hybrid vehicle sales?

Obviously, cheaper gas and less incentives probably aren't going to lead to greater Toyota hybrid sales.

Still, I think hybrid sales will march on, but without tax incentives Toyota sales will almost certainly take a hit. Then again, I don't think Toyota expected such interest in hybrids in the first place - at least not this soon.

Nonetheless, considering the billions given to oil companies, farmers and ethanol producers, its a shame more tax credits aren't available for Toyota hybrids. If GM or Ford were the leading hybrid producer, would tax credits still be running out?

$2.00 Gas: The Calm Before the Storm?

There is a very good chance that by Thanksgiving, gas prices could land near $2.50. If things go real well, we might even see $2.00 gas. (more)

Is this a good thing? Ironically, I say it's a better thing for oil companies, than for consumers - at least in the long run.

Over the last several decades, whenever gas prices recede, gas consumption increases. Will this time be any different? As gas prices drop, so to will interest in hybrid cars, in ethanol, in clean diesel, etc. - so to will America's interest in ending foreign oil dependency.

Let's face it, most Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck. Can we really blame them for taking the cheaper path?

Of course, is it really cheaper? Even cheap gasoline prices in America still lead to huge profits in the hands of governments that not only HATE America, but that fund terrorism against America. Then there is the cost of enforcement. How much does our military presence in the Gulf cost - even when we aren't fighting wars in Iraq? Wouldn't a foreign-oil dependency-ending technological revolution be cheaper than this enforcement?

Of course, there is nothing like the status quo!

Thus, will Detroit finally step up to the plate and, regardless of gasoline prices, strive for the end of foreign oil dependency?

Unfortunately, I doubt it. Like many Americans, Detroit is going to do whatever is most profitable - at least in the short term.

Still, $2.00 gas won't last. There will be hurricanes in the Gulf again - maybe not this year, maybe not next year, but soon. China and India will keep exponentially increasing their oil demand, and Middle East tensions will get much worse before they truly improve.

The world now believes that oil is one of America's biggest Achille's Heals. While alternative fuels such as ethanol can help, only advanced automotive technologies can save America in the long run.

Will America have the wisdom and the vision to prepare for the future, or will we fall into our fat, lazy, apathetic and complacent ways? The next surge in gasoline prices might not just destroy the American auto industry, but the American economy as well.

As consumers, as citizens, we must make sure that we keep pressure on automakers and on government officials. Inevitably, few issues in our lives will have greater impact on our lives than foreign oil dependency. We can either let this addiction turn into a bigger crisis, or we can turn it into a revolutionary opportunity.

Which side are you on?

E85 versus hybrid cars, AGAIN!

I have not been a big fan of E85 or Flex-fuel vehicles. If you are a consumer that has such a vehicle, and regularly fills up with E85, I applaud you. However, I DO NOT applaud either GM or Ford for flex fuel technology. For many years this technology was simply used to violate CAFE, and I seriously doubt that a line of Flex Fuel Hummers or Tahoes is really going to help the world.

If GM was installing this inexpensive technology in all vehicles, especially their small cars, I'd be a little more supportive. Nonetheless, the potential of ethanol driven from cellulose is definitely worth further investigation.

Still, I do not believe ethanol offers anywhere near a complete solution to America's oil and/or fuel problems.

For decades, the idea of a war for clean water has been gaining steam and even the Pentagon has alluded to such a possibility. Further, a new report by the WWF environmental organization, for example, warns that many First World cities are already facing serious water shortages and the problem is only expected to get worse -much worse - and significant blame belongs to agriculture. (more)

In the very near future, clean water could be worth more than oil, yet vast amounts of water will be required to irrigate and process our ethanol crops. And, what about the pollution from chemical fertilizers and other pesticides that will run off into our ever more important aquifers, lakes and rivers? Is it really worth it?

Certainly, ethanol is an interesting resource to explore, but if automotive companies only focus on fuel, rather than significantly better designed and significantly more fuel efficient vehicles, such as hybrid cars, ethanol addiction could easily lead to as many problems as foreign oil dependency.

Obama's gas guzzling hypocrisy

Illinois Senator Barack Obama told an audience that gas-guzzling was a major problem for the U.S. and that higher mileage hybrid cars and other fuel efficient technologies were the solution. Of course, Mr. Obama left in a GMC Envoy. According to his press secretary, "The vehicle senator obama travels in while in illinois is a Flexible Fuel Vehicle (FFV), which can run on e85, a blended fuel made of 85 percent ethanol. So he in fact was practicing what he preached at the town hall meeting in Metropolis yesterday when he said we must drive fewer gas-guzzling vehicles." (more)

Keyword in that sentence is can. Since there are hardly any E85 stations in Chicago, where Mr. Obama resides in Illinois, are we to believe that Mr. Obama regularly fuels his flex fuel vehicle with E85? Without E85, isn't Mr. Obama gas guzzling? Also, since E85 is in such limited supply, isn't all fuel-guzzling bad?

Plug-in hybrid cars not ready for prime time?

I love the idea of plug-in hybrid cars, but I've long believed that plug-in hybrid cars are not ready for prime time. California's current electrical grid, for example, simply could not tolerate millions of cars plugging in at this time. Then there are environmental concerns and high costs.

In reality, even standard hybrid cars aren't yet ready for prime time, but they are close. Until there is a $15,000 hybrid vehicle, mass market consumption of hybrids will be extremely limited. Still, the technology behind hybrid vehicles - both standard and plug-in - is poised for great advancements and both hybrids will not only become more powerful and fuel efficient, but cheaper. In fact, the potential of the next generation of hybrids demonstrates that fuel cell vehicles might not even be quite so necessary. While that doesn't mean we should discontinue fuel cell vehicle research, it does mean we should do everything we can to create the most environment friendly, fuel efficient automobiles as quickly as possible. Hybrids and plug-in hybrids offer too much potential to turn back now. More important, as I recently argued, give consumers the choice to choose their fuel - whether that fuel is gasoline, electricity or ethanol

For an interesting article on the realities of plug-in hybrid cars, check out this CNN article, Plug-in hybrids: Not ready for primetime.

More juice for plug-in hybrid vehicles

Recently, I was doing some research on the Tesla electric car. 0 - 60 in around 4 seconds, 250 miles per charge at a fueling cost of about 1 cent per gallon - how awesome is that? Sure the vehicle costs $100,000 and will probably only be an option for the Hollywood elite, but it still demonstrates that the days of gasoline are nearing an end and that we definitely don't have to wait for hydrogen to save the world.

Even better, especially in the short term, flex-fuel-plug-in hybrid vehicles could be made for less than half the cost of the Tesla. Such a vehicle would extend the range of the vehicle and make it easier to fuel on long distance trips. Additionally, it would allow owners to choose the fuel of their choice.

While gas-guzzlers and their producers consistently talk about consumer choice, wouldn't real choice include not just the size of the vehicle, but the choice of fuel? Let me decide if I want ethanol, gasoline or electricity. Now that's real choice.

Alternative fuels to save the world?

Can alternative fuels, such as ethanol or biodiesel, end the world's oil dependency?

It seems to me that supply and demand will always catch up to most fuels. Once petroleum was extremely cheap, so cheap that alternative fuels just didn't offer a viable enough economic case compared to gasoline.

While I'm not opposed to alternative fuels, technologies, such as hybrid cars, demonstrate that fuel is becoming less and less important. Lithium-ion powered hybrid cars with plug-in technology, for example, could take the far majority of Americans to work and home every day without any fuel. Now it is true that some electricity would be required to power these hybrids and that electricity might not come from clean sources. Nonetheless, how much quicker would a solar powered roof become cost effective if you could not only power your home, but all of your daily driving needs?

Bush blowing off U.S. automakers? Get real Detroit

Not long ago President Bush told U.S. automakers to make more relevant vehicles. Automakers answered, that they didn't have to, E85 would save America. Yet, the science behind E85 is not nearly as convincing as the E85 rhetoric coming out of Detroit. Some scientists claim it takes more energy to produce ethanol than ethanol provides and that ethanol is purely a huge pork-barrel distraction. Others claim that only cellulosic ethanol - which isn't yet reality - can provide any real help to America's oil addiction.

Still, even those that think ethanol can provide help are quick to note that if Detroit doesn't produce more fuel efficient vehicles, ethanol won't help much.

So when Bush blows off Detroit's request for a meeting to discuss what Washington can do to 'protect' American automakers, can you really blame him? According to the Detroit News besides asking for government help, the Big 3 want to use the meeting as a PR campaign - It's ethanol or bust.

"The automakers have been trying to meet with Bush to discuss soaring health-care costs, energy and trade issues. The Big Three have been waiting to follow the summit with an announcement about their commitment to producing more flexible fuel vehicles."

Give me a break!

How about a commitment to fuel efficiency? It's as if Detroit wants mandates on the oil industry, a massive government bailout, but they don't want to be forced to change. We can all drive Hummer-like gas-guzzlers filled with E85 and the world will be perfect - right!

While Detroit does have some legitimate legacy issues, many of those issues were self-created. More important, Detroit's failures cannot be completely pinned to legacy issues. When it takes 16 more labor hours for Detroit autoworkers to build a car versus Japan, as it did for DECADES, you have to realize there is a problem. Yet, Detroit did very little.

Over and over Detroit has stubbornly refused to change.

O.K., Detroit has reduced this labor gap to 8 hours, yet it still seems painfully obvious that Detroit needs to be more efficient if it wants to be competitive. Additionally, why did it take so long to even address this issue?

Perhaps if the Big 3 were announcing a huge transition to hybrid cars, or the development of some other fuel-efficient, real-world technology, Bush would be more inclined to meet with them.

However, if the best the Big 3 have to offer is E85, then it is obvious that even after 9/11, even after Katrina, even after $3.00 gas, Detroit still doesn't get it.

The world has changed and it's time for Detroit to do the same. If they can't do more to change, then they shouldn't expect taxpayers to do more to bail them out.

Hybrid technology proves a bill to increase fuel economy is possible

There is a move in the Senate to raise the average fuel economy to 35 mpg from 25 mpg by 2017. (more)

Surprise, surprise Detroit doesn't want to be forced to make more fuel efficient vehicles, but they want the oil industry to be forced to use ethanol. Shouldn't Detroit focus more on its core business - making cars, especially more fuel efficient cars?

Of course ethanol should be explored, but the science behind ethanol is still very conflicted, yet one thing seems clear: If GM just makes more and more Hummers, Tahoes, and Escalades ethanol really isn't going to help reduce foreign oil dependency that much.

Anyway, the technology to achieve this new fuel economy threshold already exists today and with advancements in hybrid technology, it is conceivable that even today's worst gas-guzzlers could achieve this new limit with such hybrid technology.

Ultimately, the entire issue is cost, or profit. While I understand that businesses have to make a profit, when that profit can only be made at the expense of the safety of the people, is their product worthwhile?

When numerous ex CIA officials and National Security experts agree that foreign oil dependency is possibly the greatest issue facing U.S. national security can we continue to tolerate excuse after excuse from automakers?

How many more 9/11s do we need? How many more 100s of billions of dollars do we need to spend protecting our right to cheap oil?

Be part of the solution Detroit, not part of the problem.

Fuel cells, ethanol and hydrogen: GM's bag of excuses?

For decades, GM has lobbied Congress and the White House not to increase fuel economy standards. In fact, it is rumored that even Rick Wagoner has lobbied the White House, stating that increased fuel economy would hinder fuel cell development.

Now that it's obvious that fuel cells are still decades away, GM has switched to ethanol - not just as an alternative fuel, but as a bridge to hydrogen. "Even some of the initial steps in the processing of the biomass -- whether to make it hydrogen or ethanol -- will be one and the same, so it is an important step toward an alternative pathway for energy," he said. "And it allows us to use our existing internal combustion engines as we transition to hydrogen in the future." (AutomotiveNews)

And they don't have to stop making gas-guzzlers. The more ethanol GM uses, the more they are helping farmers, right?

Back to Reality

Scientist after scientist - many of whom are working on ethanol - claim that even cellulosic ethanol will not help America much if we don't create more fuel efficient vehicles. Yet, it seems that GM comes up with excuse after excuse not to become significantly more fuel efficient.

Perhaps ethanol can help create a path to hydrogen, but hybrid cars can also use ethanol and hydrogen. Moreover, since GM's current fuel cell vehicles are fuel cell hybrid vehicles, the more hybrids we build today, the faster we can build tomorrow's fuel cell hybrid vehicles.

Oh yeah, and in the interim we can at least end foreign oil dependency.

So why doesn't GM care about foreign oil dependency? What can't GM help make America stronger?

GM needs to stop making excuses and start taking the realities of the new world more seriously. Millions of Americans will support GM to the very end, yet millions more would support GM if they acted like they truly cared about the environment and about America's foreign oil dependency.

Take on the Toyota Prius, GM, and you could attract millions of new customers. Follow the current path and you'll lose many of us forever.

E85 and Hybrid Cars: Hollywood, Democrats and Republicans

I just finished replying to a CNN Commentary by Robert Redford on Kicking the Oil Habit. Lately, the idea of kicking the oil habit has become a hot topic, but there is growing partisan spin using this platform for political gain. I find this unacceptable. Ultimately, both parties have enabled America's oil addiction, and most Americans have happily helped. Lately the favorite buzzword of many politicians has become E85 or ethanol. Yet, far too many scientists note that ethanol will never end America's oil addiction, nor even foreign oil dependency, if we don't move towards significantly more fuel efficient vehicles, such as hybrid cars. Yet, it seems that not only are politicians misguided, but even cultural leaders, such as Robert Redford, whom are too focused on partisanship, rather than real leadership and solutions for such a serious issue. (Full Story)

Ethanol isn't enough, but ethanol hybrids could be just right

Over the last several months there has been a tremendous amount of hype around ethanol. In fact, GM's GoYellow campaign seems to imply that every American could drive a flex-fuel Hummer and America could still end foreign oil dependency. Yet, scientists don't agree, and they say corn-based ethanol will have little effect on foreign oil consumption.

Of course, ethanol supporters suggest other forms of biomass, such as cellulosic ethanol - which still requires undeveloped technologies - could possibly achieve a 30% drop in gasoline consumption by 2030. "There are many people who believe that biomass has the power to replace our appetite for gasoline," said Kimberly Gray, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Northwestern University. "But that will only occur with significant improvements in energy efficiency and smart growth." (more)

In reality, despite GM's marketing deception, corn offers very little hope for America's fuel needs, especially if GM only produces Tahoes and Hummers. America needs smaller vehicles, and it needs millions and millions of hybrid cars. While smaller flex-fuel hybrid cars won't end gasoline consumption anytime soon, they could end foreign oil dependency - something flex-fuel gas guzzlers will NEVER accomplish.

GM and E85: Fool's Gold?

Flip, flop. Mandates on the oil industry are bad, mandates on the oil industry are good - that's the position of Hillary Clinton on mandating that the oil industry put E85 pumps in half of America's gas stations. Hillary Clinton, like all good politicians, has learned to stand for votes, rather than convictions. While she has publicly stated that ethanol mandates would hike fuel prices and VOTED against them, now she knows ethanol mandates will hike auto worker votes in her direction. Convictions or votes? Votes or convictions?

Despite Hillary's strong convictions, I say, E85 is Fool's Gold for GM. (Full Story)

Japan versus Detroit: Who acts more American?

Automobiles versus fuel?

When automakers have faced Congress over the last week, there has been a striking contrast in style. Toyota, for example, has focused on incentives for building more fuel efficient automobiles, such as hybrid cars. Detroit, on the other hand, has focused on new fuels, such as ethanol, for their gas-guzzlers.

While ethanol holds great promise as an alternative fuel, the automotive technology to utilize ethanol is already complete. What isn't complete are new vehicles, such as flex-fuel hybrids, for example, which could make inefficient burning ethanol much more efficient. Fortunately, Ford has at least proposed such a vehicle.

Still, shouldn't GM focus on being a better automaker? If they want to be an energy company, maybe its time to sell the auto business? For decades GM has used fuel cell vehicles as an excuse not to compete with Japanese efficiency, now they are using ethanol. At a time when foreign oil dependency is causing so many problems for America, why is it that Japanese companies are doing so much more to alleviate the problem? You make cars, Detroit, not energy. (Sources: AutomotiveNews)

Congress and Detroit: The Dangers of E85

It will take years before ethanol, especially E85, makes a noticeable dent in America's gasoline consumption. Still, in a decade, if 10% of gasoline consumption were reduced in favor of ethanol, would it matter?

Perhaps not as much as first thought. First, in 10 years demand for fuel is going to go up. Second, without subsidies ethanol offers little in terms of free market competition, it simply isn't cheaper than gasoline. Sure, it does reduce foreign oil dependency, but how much and is that enough?

(Finished in Comments)

GM's Rick Wagoner is a hypocrite

Rick Wagoner lobbied members of Congress today for help with ethanol, noting that because Detroit automakers believe in free markets, "Incentives rather than mandates are the way to go." Yet, aides to Wagoner admitted that mandates would be required for energy companies. I guess there is nothing like free markets, huh, Mr. Wagoner? Why should we expect anything less than hypocrisy and deception from a man whom admits that his company's efforts to develop hybrid cars are purely about image?
(Source: AutomotiveNews)

Time to Declare War on Foreign Oil Dependency?

I think America is at War, a war that most Americans refuse to acknowledge, and the fight for independence from foreign oil dependency is shaping up to be the most important war America has ever fought.

Former CIA Director R. James Woolsey has become a huge advocate for ending America's foreign oil dependency, and he is very outspoken about the dangers of America's oil addiction.

"If you want to see who's paying for all that [extremism and terrorism], next time you pull in to fill up, turn the rearview mirror a little bit so you can look at yourself for a minute as you get out with your credit card," Woolsey said during a meeting with reporters and editors of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

Yet, Americans don't really think about that - to our direct connection to extremism and terrorism - instead we think about how expensive is $3.00 oil. Sadly, $3.00 oil is nothing compared to what could happen.

Aside from the problems in Iran, Nigeria, Venezuela, aside from hurricanes, aside from rapidly growing oil demand in China and India, an attack on Saudi oil refineries could have an even greater impact on gasoline prices.

How bad?

Today oil is at $70.00 per barrel, but if Saudi oil refineries were damaged - not destroyed - oil could easily climb to over $150.00 per barrel. Add intensified problems with Iran, or another major hurricane and who knows how high oil prices could climb.

What would a year of $7.00 gasoline do for the American economy? How high would $7.00 gas push the cost of groceries and other commodities? How would $7.00 gas help your commute?

What We Can Do

Fighting this war isn't a battle between ethanol versus biodiesel, or clean diesel cars versus hybrid cars. All of these technologies and alternative fuels MUST be utilized. Conservation MUST be utilized.

While politicians can blame one another, and citizens can blame politicians, automakers and the drivers of gas-guzzlers, blame will not win the war. While many in Congress blame other members, or the President, how many members regularly drive a hybrid car, fill up with ethanol or biodiesel, or maybe even walk a little more? Not very many according to recent reports. What about citizens?

Ultimately, little can be done in the short term to fix gas prices or to reduce foreign oil dependency. Today, average citizens must try to conserve, buy hybrid cars, use ethanol where available, or give bio-diesel a try. Moreover, we have to think about the future. We must make Congress and the President create more tax incentives for clean automobiles and clean fuels, not for Hummers and for oil companies.

Finally, we need to let automakers and politicians know that if they can't, or won't, help us fight this war, we'll find alternatives to them.

Join our campaign to make Congress Act.

How hybrid vehicles can save America

"At some point the love affair with horsepower will run out of gas. If it doesn't, we will." (The Atlanta Journal-Constitution)

Gas guzzling is the root of all evil. O.K., I'm just kidding. Still, gas-guzzling is causing massive problems throughout the world. Let's face it, the geopolitical scene in the Middle East revolves entirely around oil, and very important glaciers are probably melting due to gas-guzzling global warming emissions. Of course, most Americans simply tune these issues out of every day consciousness.

The only thing that really gets Americans emotionally engaged is $3.00 gas, but still not enough to stop our love affair with gas-guzzling. In reality, $3.00 gas isn't that expensive, it just isn't dirt cheap.

Year after year America consumes more and more gas and more and more of it comes from countries that perceive America as enemy, not friend.

While huge SUVs, for example, aren't as popular as they have been, they are still selling extremely well. More alarming, if these gas hogs do not sell well, the American auto industry will almost certainly collapse.

Therefore, hybrid vehicles have become absolutely essential for America's survival. Inevitably, Americans want power and they want speed, but this combination is synonymous with gas-guzzling. Only hybrid technology can provide this combination, while also reducing gas consumption.

While others might speak of ethanol or bio-fuel, which are excellent options, they will not go far enough. If ethanol is someday cheaper than gasoline for all Americans, demand will just keep increasing, creating the need for more and more ethanol. Then one day, a drought or some other disaster, will wipe out a significant percent of our ethanol supplies.

Conservation might the best solution, at least in the short term, but such a topic seems offensive to many Americans, and might also bring down Detroit.

Inevitably, America and the world needs significantly more fuel efficient automobiles and hybrid technology can cross that bridge. Along the way, any number of hybrid breakthroughs just might result in even more efficient, fuel cell hybrid vehicles - available at cost-effective prices.

While I wouldn't mind a ban on any vehicle that doesn't achieve, say 30 mpg, most Americans simply aren't going to support such a move in the near term. Thus, it is vitally important that Americans who demand large vehicles and other performance autos, to embrace hybrid vehicles.

Likewise, the Big 3 automakers, especially GM, must also embrace hybrid technology and one can only hope that GM's Two Mode Hybrids live up to expectations. If GM can be successful selling these vehicles in America, the future could be much brighter not just for consumers, but for GM and America as well.

Ultimately, America must embrace technology, especially clean and green technology, if the economy is to remain strong. Otherwise, America will quickly become but a footnote in the history of 21st Century Superpowers.

Gas-guzzling Congress Drives ONE Block to Protest Gas Prices!

Congressional Hypocrisy?

When members of Congress went ONE block to a gas-station news conference to sound off on high gas prices, almost all of them drove, and the majority of them drove gas-guzzlers.

One Senator did drive a Prius hybrid car and John McCain actually made the extremely difficult, one block journey, on foot - an amazing feat!!!

"Since George Bush and Dick Cheney took over as president and vice president, gas prices have doubled!" charged Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), standing at an Exxon station on Capitol Hill where regular unleaded hit $3.10. "They are too cozy with the oil industry."

"She then hopped in a waiting Chrysler LHS (18 mpg) -- even though her Senate office was only a block away." (Washington Post)

So, Mrs. Boxer's plan is to drive one block, stop and wastefully idle, and then drive one more block? Now that's the way to fight high gas prices!

The actions of both Democrats and Republicans demonstrate why gas prizes are too high: Americans drive gas guzzlers and they are lazy.

At least these politicians could have driven some more hybrid cars, biodiesel or ethanol cars on this huge 2 block journey to help promote the kinds of technologies that can fight these high gas prices.

Apparently, most in Washington just talk about making a difference, instead of actually making a difference. It's people like Mrs. Boxer that are causing high oil prices. She who live in a glass house should not throw stones.

With such leadership, is the current state of America really that surprising?

Are Detroit vehicles irrelevant?

Next month President Bush is going to meet with the Big 3 about energy and the environment, pensions and health care, and currency problems with Japan. Unfortunately, building more "relevant" vehicles probably isn't going to come up.

When Bush told Detroit to build more "relevant" vehicles, auto executives were not too happy. In their minds, huge gas-guzzling vehicles are relevant, which must explain why almost every flex-fuel vehicle - those that can run on ethanol-mixed fuels - are extreme gas guzzlers.

Without tax incentives and even with incentives, ethanol isn't always cheaper than gasoline, so flex-fuel vehicles aren't helping the consumer by offering cheaper fuel costs.

O.K., so is Detroit building flex-fuel vehicles to fight foreign oil dependency?

That doesn't make sense either. If you want to fight foreign oil dependency, then why not offer flex-fuel capabilities in all vehicles? Why just offer flex-fuel capabilities only in vehicles that might fail CAFE?

Today, their are just 600 ethanol pumps covering ALL of America, compared to about 180,000 gasoline pumps. Just a little over a year ago - when GM churned out most of it's flex-fuel vehicles - there were only about 300 pumps. This is why GM never told anyone about the flex-fuel capabilities they added to many gas-guzzlers for a number of years - there was NOWHERE to fill them up and in most states there still isn't.

Now GM is trying to take credit for such actions.

In today's world, flex-fuel gas guzzlers that receive CAFE credits can only be called one thing, irrelevant. Flex-fuel gas-guzzlers neither offer the far majority of Americans cheaper fuel nor do they help fight foreign oil dependency.

While ethanol offers tremendous potential, today's gas-guzzling flex-fuel vehicles do not.

Later this year or early next year, GM will start offering hybrid cars. Once again, most of them will also be gas-guzzlers.

With the unstable nature of gasoline and oil and the limited supply of ethanol and pumps, are any of these vehicles - whether hybrid or flex-fuel - really relevant?

Plug-in hybrids gain a little momentum

AutoWeek claims, "Hybrid variant holds promise".

"Top politicians from President George W. Bush to Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch have thrown their weight behind a hybrid variant dubbed the 'plug-in hybrid.'

Hatch suggests a plug-in hybrid that burns ethanol could be the 'silver bullet' that frees America from dependency on foreign oil."

Still, effective plug-in hybrids are probably not cost-effective until lithium-ion batteries are far more common. Even then, according to Toyota, such capability could reduce the life of lithium-ion batteries. Obviously, this is a serious concern. Moreover, when lithium-ion batteries are made cost-effective, will hybrid cars even need plug-in capabilities?

Toyota believes its next generation Prius, a coupling of lithium-ion batteries and advanced computer technology, could achieve 94 mpg - without plugging into the grid.

Nonetheless, it's beautiful thing to imagine plugging your hybrid vehicle into a solar or wind powered house for a little extra energy.

Now that's energy independence.

Ethanol Toyota Vehicles Coming, Hybrids Still Preferred

Toyota wants to sell ethanol cars in Brazil, but will also offer the cars in the U.S. if the demand exists. In order for that happen, more than just 600 of the Nation's 180,000 gas pumps will have to start selling ethanol. Still, Toyota is concerned about corrosion problems caused by ethanol and is more "keen" on hybrid cars.(Reuters via Yahoo)

Ethanol Windfall Profits?

While most Americans have no problem blaming big oil companies for high gasoline prices, they aren't the only energy producers experiencing huge profits. Ethanol producers are also enjoying tax incentives, tariffs and, ultimately, profits.

"The increased demand has sent ethanol prices through the roof. Tom Kloza, a gasoline-markets analyst for the Oil Price Information Service, figures ethanol producers such as Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) are enjoying profits as high as $65 out of every $115 barrel. That's contributing to the gasoline price run-up as refiners pass those costs along."

BusinessWeek Via MSNBC

Oil closes at $70! Gas-guzzling rules!!!!!

Gas prices are now over $3.00 for regular unleaded where I live. Today, oil prices closed over $70.00. Yet the problems in Iran, Venezuela, Nigeria - not to mention Iraq - are only getting worse, and the busy summer driving season hasn't even begun. The worst is yet to come. Will it be enough to get Americans out of gas-guzzlers? Will it push the government towards more tax credits for hybrid cars? Will it result in more than just 600 ethanol gas stations to cover the entire United States?

I hope not, the world can only get better if we keep gas-guzzling!!!

Automakers versus big oil: Who is to blame for high gas prices?

Gas prices are going up, and the potential for significantly higher gas prices is increasing regularly. Who is to blame? Big oil says, "the U.S. economy had become vastly more fuel-efficient since the first oil shock, 'so why is the average fuel economy of American cars unchanged in two decades?'"

Chrysler responds, "Despite a documented history of blowing their exorbitant profits on outlandish executive salaries and stock buybacks, and hoarding their bounty by avoiding technologies, policies and legislation that would protect the population and environment and lower fuel costs, Big Oil insists on transferring all of that responsibility on the auto companies." (Detroit News)

O.K., so oil hasn't done their job, but what has Chrysler, or any of the Big 3, done?

Nothing regarding fuel economy, that's for sure.

Oops, I forget, they put millions of Flex-fuel vehicles on the road, that's right. Instead of paying fines for missing CAFE requirements, automakers have added flex-fuel technology to gas-guzzlers. I guess that's enough!

Unfortunately, with only 600 ethanol stations out of 180,000 gas stations, most simply can't find ethanol.

Ultimately, big oil and the Big 3 have failed America and the world.

Of course Americans keep buying gas-guzzlers and performance that can't be utilized, but we look good! Well, that's another story...

Irresponsibility - it's always someone else's fault!!

Energy Secretary Disses Hybrids?

U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman called on Americans to embrace ethanol, but did little to promote hybrid cars or clean diesel at the SAE conference in Detroit.

"It should be our common goal that E85 become a nationwide fueling option," Bodman said. "In the coming days, I will be asking that we do more to make consumers aware of the flex-fuel option both when they are considering a new car purchase and for existing owners of flex-fuel vehicles."(DetroitNews)

Additionally, the Secretary plugged electric cars and hydrogen fuel cells as the 'answer' to America's energy problems.

It's ironic that since GM, Ford and Toyota fuel cell vehicles will be hybrid vehicles, that the Secretary didn't promote hybrids, minimally, as a bridge to not just fuel cell vehicles, but electric vehicles as well. Plug-in hybrid vehicles, for example, can function as electric cars, while also providing gasoline, diesel, ethanol, biodiesel or even hydrogen as a supplementary or primary fuel source.

On the other hand, there is a good chance that if someone buys a flex-fuel vehicle, especially if they live on either coast - they will never fill it up with E85, since they won't be able to find any gas stations that carry ethanol.

In fact, if you are worried about the environment, or foreign oil dependency, many flex fuel vehicles cause much more harm than good. Since many flex fuel vehicles are large trucks and SUVs, flex fuel capabilities were only added to avoid penalties for missing CAFE requirements. Consequently, flex-fuel technology is often only serving as a loop hole that increases foreign oil dependency and pollution.

And the government is good at loopholes. According to some, Bush's new CAFE requirements - intended to make more fuel efficient trucks and SUVs - might lead to bigger, more fuel inefficient trucks and SUVs thanks to another loophole. (AutoWeek)

Why should we be surprised since the government already gives unlimited, $25,000 tax deductions for small business owners to buy the most pollution and foreign oil dependency causing vehicles, yet gives much smaller, capped tax incentives for hybrids?

It seems the government and the Energy Secretary are either ignorant, incompetent, or too focused on protectionist legislation designed to protect American corporations, rather than to actually make America a safer place. Apparently, only gigantic, inefficient corporations can save America.

Yes, ethanol is important, but so to is clean diesel, biodiesel, and even clean gasoline. More important, hybrid technology can make any of these fuels much more efficient, while clearing the path to fully electric cars and/or fuel cell hybrid vehicles.

Let's put the power in the hands of the people, not the corporations. Join the campaign for hybrid vehicle tax incentives.

French diesel hybrids coming soon?

Peugeot hopes to sell the Peugeot 307 and Citroen C4 hybrids by 2010

Yesterday, I blogged that I was tired of reporters whom claim that clean diesel is an alternative to hybrid cars, especially since diesel vehicles can also be hybrid vehicles.

Case in Point

"Imagine a car that gets 82 miles a gallon -- doubling the average fuel efficiency of the green-automotive market leader Toyota Prius. French auto maker PSA Peugeot-Citroen believes it can deliver such a car by 2010 with hybrid diesel engines that will join two fuel-efficient technologies. "That's the future. It combines the best of both worlds," says Thomas Sedran, partner at Munich consultancy Roland Berger." (BusinessWeek)

Whether the fuel is diesel, gasoline, hydrogen, ethanol, bio-diesel, or electricity, hybrid technology makes each of these fuels, and the vehicles powered by them, cleaner and more fuel efficient.

Join the Hybrid Car Revolution!

Can automakers do the right thing? Join the hybrid revolution

Talking 'bout a revolution

Recently, IBM held a think tank calling on business leaders to lead the green revolution, before the government forces them to do it with messy and expensive regulations.

Automakers need to heed this call.

Let's face it, can we really afford to wait much longer before taking oil dependency seriously? Political tensions in Iran, Venezuela, Nigeria, the War in Iraq, bomb attacks on Saudi oil refineries and increased hurricane activity over the next decade are already great reasons to act, but they are only the beginning.

New evidence suggests that global warming is picking up fast. In less than 100 years, Miami could be a memory as oceans rise as much as 20 feet (NewScientist).

Additionally, yesterday I blogged about the potential of a billion new drivers from Asia and asked, "Where will the oil come from?"

Today, even China is beginning to tax SUVs and other gas guzzlers in an attempt to spur the sales and development of efficient automobiles.

Yet in America, we can only propose new fuel efficiency standards on large SUVs, but not on trucks - a huge source of gas-guzzling - because we wouldn't want to upset the American consumer or the American auto industry. (MORE)

We must do more, much more.

Even Flex fuel cars, hybrid cars, and plug-in hybrid cars are not enough. We need even better cars. We need to make automobiles smaller, and we need to make them flex fuel, plug-in hybrid vehicles. We need the best technology that the entire auto industry has to offer and we need it to be affordable. Most important, we need it NOW!

Yet, AutoWeek questions, "Do consumers even want plug-in hybrids?"

Since when did consumerism become more important than health or national security? So, what about smoking? What about seat belts? What about the Dubai port deal?

Ultimately, consumers will mostly do what is in their best interest, however, national security takes priority over consumer choice - ALWAYS. Still, if consumers know they can reduce fuel costs by 50%, they will gladly plug-in their vehicles.

Imagine the competition that could be created by flex-fuel plug-in hybrids for fuel choices. Ethanol, diesel, bio-diesel, gasoline, hydrogen, clean coal-powered electric, solar-powered electric, wind-powered electric, etc. all could play an important part in the new energy revolution that can fundamentally change the world. Ultimately, the green revolution and energy independence are not about protecting America, it's about liberating the people of the world.

The green revolution can be driven with the automobile. If the auto industry cannot focus on creating green choices for the world, then eventually the government will have to, and that won't be good for either consumers or businesses. Starting now might already be too late, but waiting any longer is simply suicidal.

Let's Revolt!

Congress doesn't need to build the green revolution, they need to inspire the green revolution with intelligent tax incentives. Let's keep the pressure on Congress and Business to do the right thing. Join the Hybrid Car Revolution Campaign.

Are automakers destroying hybrid technology?

Yesterday, Business Week printed the article, Are hybrid sales running out of gas, which argues that other than the Toyota Prius hybrid, the sales of most other hybrid cars are slowing.

Unfortunately, I basically agree with Business Week that the costs of hybrids are an issue that is slowing hybrid sales. Hybrid vehicles do save gas, but they do not always save enough gas to justify the higher costs, especially hybrid SUVs.

Thus, only those with the wallet and the passion to fight foreign oil dependency or for the environment, can afford these vehicles.

A much larger customer segment; however, can afford vehicles such as the Prius or the Honda Civic hybrid. Still, the conventional Civic isn't a gas-guzzler, so you inevitably start comparing the Civic hybrid to the conventional Civic. For most consumers, up-front costs will eventually dominate.

The Prius, on the other hand, is unique. It is the hybrid vehicle, not a conventional vehicle with hybrid technology.

If someone wants to buy a sports car, they wouldn't typically want to buy a souped-up Chevy Malibu, they would want to buy a Corvette. Simply putting a badge on a Chevy Malibu that states 'Corvette Powered' doesn't make the Malibu a Corvette, even if they both have the same engine and performance.

Vehicles, such as the Ford Escape hybrid or the Toyota Highlander hybrid, will always have an audience, but they will never meet the sales demand of the Prius. If there were a unique hybrid SUV; however, it would dominate hybrid SUV sales.

Nonetheless, in the next year gas prices are going to go up significantly as refineries go from MTBE to ethanol additives. Additionally, in the next couple of years we will probably see multiple, significant spikes in the price of gasoline. All of these events will renew interest in ALL hybrid vehicles.

Additionally, hybrid technology is and will continue to advance. These advancements, and the potential small business tax credit for hybrid vehicles, could make hybrids, such as the Escape and Highlander, very cost-effective - perhaps even long term bargains.

Still, the only way hybrid technology will ever take off is when a number of unique hybrid vehicles are competing against each other. If automakers don't take this approach, the potential of hybrids will never be reached.

Oil: Why are Americans so irresponsible?

CNN did a very interesting survey on oil.

"Although Americans don't believe the country faces an imminent energy crisis, most believe there are "major problems" --- from potential oil shortages to possible terrorist attacks -- and they are harshly critical of the leadership on the issue from the White House, according to a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll."

Yet, only 1 in 4 Americans believe consumers brunt any responsibility and only about the same amount blame automakers. While Bush receives much of the blame, oil companies are the most hated.

So, what are Americans doing about? Buying more oil.

In reality, what can Bush really do? Most energy experts note the majority of the problem is refinery capacity. Yet, there has been little support the last few decades to build new refineries and even if Bush said, build ten more, they wouldn't be online until long after he's out of office.

Yet, Dems like Hillary Clinton complain that Bush isn't being tough enough with Iran, at the same time Iran is devising plans to use oil as a weapon against the U.S. If problems with Iran escalate, gasoline prices would easily surge beyond $4.00 or $5.00 per gallon.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't

Lame duck Bush simply can't win, even though there is little he, or anyone, can really do about short term oil prices. All we can do in the short term is conserve.

Then there are the oil companies. I'm tired of this one. Too much of the oil industry is controlled outside of the United States. We, the consumers, need to buy less oil - that's it.

Of course that's hard since automakers haven't provided a lot of choice when it comes to fuel efficiency. GM still doesn't have any hybrid vehicles on the road - no their 'mild' hybrid doesn't count. Additionally, GM's 'GoYellow' compaign is complete B.S., since there aren't any gasoline stations with E85. So, who is GM kidding?

Apparently, most Americans!!! It's too expensive for GM to build hybrids, but not too expensive to spend $3 billion per year on advertising lying about ethanol and other 'professional grade' technologies.

In reality Congress deserves far more blame than the President and if any President deserves blame for oil, you'd have to blame Clinton, the first Bush, or Reagan.

Ultimately, however, Americans should blame automakers and themselves for buying the billions of dollars of propaganda that the big 3 have been selling to America. The right to gas guzzle isn't about American freedom, it's about American stupidity.

And these people laugh at us for buying hybrids.

GM showcases fuel efficiency efforts

GM's fuel efficiency claims; Much ado about nothing

Eric Kaufman, GM engineering group manager for energy and drive quality said that while the buzz around fuel efficiency has been focused on hybrid cars, GM has made other important gains. (MotorTrend)

For example, they have made gasoline engines more efficient through a number of achievements and they now have almost 2 million flex-fuel vehicles on the road.

Why is GM such a joke? Why don't they just shut up regarding fuel efficiency?

Let's just be clear, GM is not focused on fuel efficiency, PERIOD.

As for flex-fuel vehicles, how much is a flex-fuel vehicle worth if you can't find ethanol? GM flex-fuel vehicles cause more harm than good. Since no one can fill them up with ethanol because there aren't any pumps, or it's too expensive, the only thing GM's flex-fuel program achieves is CAFE credits.

GM's flex-fuel vehicles simply enable GM to avoid fines on their gas-guzzlers, that's it. If GM cares so much about flex-fuel, why not offer it on all vehicles and not just those vehicles that might miss their CAFE requirements?

Even doing that wouldn't have much effect any time soon, but at least it would demonstrate some sincerity.

GM isn't going to go green by going yellow, they need to get real if they want to go green.

Why I like the flex-fuel Ford Escape hybrid

Lately, there has been a lot of buzz around ethanol, and suddenly GM has gone green by going yellow. Yet, a closer look at the numbers highlights some serious issues.

There are 168,987 gasoline pumps in the United States and only 608 of them offer ethanol (AutoWeek). In a previous post, Help us Detroit, I called GM's ethanol campaign pure smoke and mirrors.

If GM has put millions of ethanol vehicles on the road, where are they filling up? Also, why are the far majority of ethanol vehicles large SUVs and trucks? Isn't it ironic that most buying this technology aren't using ethanol, yet GM still receives CAFE credits for using the technology? If GM cares so much about ethanol, why isn't the technology in all vehicles, rather than just vehicles near failing CAFE?

Yes, ethanol offers great potential as a fuel, but not today. In fact, some analysts suggest that it could take 15 years before ethanol could really start making a difference, which is why I like the flex-fuel Ford Escape hybrid.

The Escape hybrid is already a great vehicle, reducing the conventional Escape's fuel consumption by between 20 and 30 percent, while also significantly reducing pollution. The flex-fuel Escape hybrid vehicle offers these same gains, plus the ability to use ethanol.

In 10 years, both ethanol and the technology behind hybrid cars will advance, but neither will offer a real solution to oil dependence. In 10 years; however, a plug-in flex-fuel hybrid vehicle could easily and economically function without oil - not just foreign oil - while continuing to push the bar for fuel economy.

I like ethanol and I like hybrid vehicles, but I really like flex-fuel hybrids. And if plug-in technology is added to those flex-fuel hybrids we add even greater fuel economy, while sparking greater competition and variety in fuel choices.

Shouldn't something as important as energy be about choice, especially in today's world?

Help us, Detroit....

Yesterday, I read an article that bothered me a bit. Daniel Howes, an auto reporter for the Detroit News, wrote an article, Help us, Mr. President, that really got under my collar.

Now, I like Howes as a reporter because I think he's pretty fair, especially compared to some of the other auto writers at the same paper. Still, you can't blame Howes for trying to save Detroit. What other choice does he have? In many ways, his job is probably dependent on the success of Detroit automakers.

What really angers me, I've realized, is Detroit automakers, especially GM.

Mr. Howes notes the legacy healthcare and pension costs of GM and Ford, while also complaining that Asian automakers have enjoyed unfair trade barriers. While I have sympathy for these issues, it isn't much.

Then, Howes states, "Nearly 20 GM models deliver 30 mpg or more; the first gas-electric hybrid SUV is a Ford; and Chrysler's Jeep Liberty is the U.S. industry's first diesel-powered SUV."

"Did Toyota and Honda set the standard in hybrids? Absolutely, and more models are coming. Same with Ford, GM and Chrysler. And GM and Ford have millions of ethanol-capable vehicles on the road today, a precursor to the ethanol-powered fleet that you say would free us from Oil Sheikdom."

Smoke and Mirrors

These statements are pure Detroit - deception and lies and the art of advertising.

First, in real world driving, GM doesn't have 20 models that achieve 30 mpg. Sure hybrid cars don't achieve EPA estimated fuel economy, but in reality almost every car misses their EPA numbers. In fact, the Jeep Liberty Howes mentions actually achieves 50% less than what the EPA estimates in city driving according to Consumer Reports.

Second, these faulty EPA numbers are used by GM and Ford to deceive CAFE. Consequently, many Ford and GM SUVs would not pass their CAFE requirements, if not for the EPA's inefficiency. Since this fact is well known by the government and industry alike, I'd call that U.S. protectionism - especially since SUVs have been Detroit's savior the last few decades.

Third, America's ethanol fleet, please! This one is the one that really sets me off, especially since I've seen at least 20 ads promoting how green GM now is because it has more than a million ethanol vehicles on the road.

Go Yellow? Go to hell GM! It has been a long running joke that almost everyone who drives a flex-fuel vehicle - one that can run on ethanol - doesn't even know it.

Why?

Ethanol is expensive most places it's offered, and ethanol isn't offered in very many places. Thus, a flex fuel vehicle really isn't much of a benefit to most, except Detroit automakers.

Adding flex-fuel capabilities to a large SUV only costs a few hundred dollars, but it enables vehicles that wouldn't pass CAFE to pass CAFE - EVEN THOUGH NO ONE IS USING THE FUEL. Thus, GM spends a few extra hundred deceiving the government - whom enables this deception - on vehicles it makes thousands of extra dollars in profits.

Who wouldn't take that deal? Here, you give me $500.00 and I'll give you $5000.00.

Thus, I'm supposed to be proud of GM for lies and deceit? Lies and deceit that don't reduce foreign oil consumption at all, but instead increase foreign oil consumption - this is something GM is spending millions bragging about?

Disgraceful.

How many more loopholes does the government need to give Detroit? I mean there is already a $25,000 tax deduction for the most offensive, gas-guzzling and polluting SUVs - which was only just reduced and doesn't even include depreciation deductions.

How much more does Detroit need?

Ford used to anger me as much as GM, but at least Ford has admitted the error in its ways and has taken a step in the right direction. Still, Ford needs to do much more, but I'm a huge advocate of the Escape hybrid.

If GM, on the other hand, wants my sympathy or wants my money, then GM needs to come clean. Since 9/11 GM has continued to promote it's most fuel inefficient vehicles as its marquee product. This is irresponsible and un-American.

Get with the program GM. Take some real responsibility. Admit some mistakes and talk to the people about the effort it will take to change. Tahoes, Escalades and Chargers aren't the answer. Help America - lead America - towards ending not just foreign oil dependency, but oil dependency and global warming emissions - not in some mystical future world of fuel cells, but today!

Let's Dare to Dream!

When GM shows some vision and some real leadership - first by accepting its failures and then with new products - I'll be the first in line to buy a GM.

Ultimately, GM has no one to blame but themselves, and forgiveness cannot begin without first accepting responsibility. Until then, I'll hope for bankruptcy.

Lithium: Why hybrid vehicles will dominate auto sales by 2020

Hybrid cars will dominate new car sales by at least 2020.

When stories such as how the Greenland ice cap is melting twice as fast as was thought just a few years ago hit the press, those of us that worry about global warming get anxious and even angry. Still, I believe that in the next decade, the evidence of global will become so clear, that the majority of the world will demand action.

Such demand could justify the extra costs of hybrid vehicles, even if those costs can't be made up solely by saving money on fuel.

While hybrid critics might claim that such demand could benefit clean diesel instead of hybrid cars, those critics simply have no vision.

Why?

New research being done at Sandia National Laboratories, for example, demonstrates that a new generation of lithium-ion batteries will be ready to take over the hybrid battery market before 2010.

Once this transition takes place, lithium-ion batteries will be cheaper, lighter and far more efficient than the current NiMH batteries used in today's hybrids. This means cheaper hybrid vehicles that further reduce pollution while offering greater fuel efficiency and better performance than today's hybrid vehicles.

If this hybrid battery transition occurs by 2010, imagine the technological advances that will occur in this technology by 2020. If you are having problems with this visualization, think about the advancement of notebook computers from 1995 to 2005 and remember that software, computers, semiconductors and lithium batteries dominate the technology behind both hybrids and notebook computers.

By 2020, conventional vehicles simply won't be able to cost-effectively compete with hybrid cars.

Maybe, you say, but won't fuel cell vehicles be ready by then?

Maybe. Since the same batteries used by gasoline hybrid vehicles will probably be used by fuel cell vehicles, fuel cell vehicles could also gain from these advancements. Still, since Ford, GM, and Toyota, for example, believe that fuel cell vehicles will be fuel cell hybrid vehicles, hybrid vehicles will still dominate auto sales either way.

Today's hybrid cars won't save America, or the world, from global warming or oil dependency, but tomorrow's hybrids could. The more we invest in hybrids today, the sooner we'll have real tools to fight oil dependency and global warming, not just in America - the world's biggest global warming culprit - but in the entire world.

The potential of hybrids simply must be tapped. Sure, conservation, clean diesel, ethanol and bio-fuel can help, especially in the short term. Moreover, clean diesel, ethanol and bio-fuel can also be utilized by hybrid vehicles and should be used by hybrids.

Dare to dream that the world can end oil dependence and that the world can fight global warming because it can. Let's make it happen.

Diesel versus ethanol versus hybrid: Why not Dare to Dream?

"Advocates for diesel -- a less refined fuel than gasoline that burns more completely in the engine, delivering more power -- say it can cut oil use, perhaps more quickly and cost effectively than alternatives such as hybrids and ethanol." (CNNMoney)

Wow, diesel can cut oil use. Holy cow, somebody call up the Nobel committee!! We're ready to end foreign oil dependence!!

O.K., maybe not. While clean diesel is an excellent technology, it will never go far enough.

Diesel advocate Dieter Zetsche, CEO of DaimlerChrysler, "estimated that if 30 per cent of the vehicle fleet were powered by diesels, the United States could reduce fuel consumption enough to cut oil imports by the equivalent of what it buys each year from Saudi Arabia." (MotorTrend)

But what about Iran, Nigeria, and Venezuela, etc.? Why are we so content with such insignificant results and small goals?

Additionally, I disagree with the fuel efficiency of diesels. Advocates claim that clean diesel is 30% more fuel efficient - on the highway at least.

Yet new studies claim, "The worst traffic in the U.S. is getting even worse. It pollutes as the vehicles idle. It wastes the time of trucks and passenger cars. The annual delay per driver is in excess of 47 hours per year. It creates delayed shipments. It wastes more than 2.3 billion gallons of fuel each year." (Fortune)

In reality, diesel gas is going to have little effect on reducing fuel consumption in these conditions. Since census data suggests that the far majority of Americans are going to live around just a few large cities in the future, shouldn't congestion be the new standard for testing fuel efficiency?

In congestion - or the driving conditions of the future - full hybrid technology, such as that powering Toyota and Ford hybrid cars, is the best.

Then there is the cost of diesel fuel, and even if those costs are eventually reduced, Americans will simply drive more and then we'll need that Saudi Arabian oil anyway. So, where is the gain?

Dare to Dream

Why are we so afraid to shoot for the moon? Why do we accept such complacency from governments, oil barons, and automotive corporations? Why don't we demand the best, most innovative fuel efficient technology available? Why don't we demand choice?

For example, instead of diesel, why not diesel hybrids? Even better, flex-fuel diesel plug-in hybrids or flex-fuel gasoline plug-in hybrids blow every competitor away.

The only technology that can compare to or surpass flex plug-in hybrid technology is fuel cell technology, but the costs are just to high at this time, and fuel cell vehicles will probably be hybrid vehicles anyway.. Flex-fuel plug-in hybrids, on the other hand, can already achieve well over 100 mpg, while offering numerous fuel choices, such bio-diesel, diesel, gasoline, ethanol, electricity, solar-electricity, wind-electricity, etc.

More important, as hybrid battery technology advances, the fuel efficiency of hybrid batteries will increase significantly while reducing costs - think notebook computers and their batteries.

Besides isn't capitalism supposed to be about competition? Where is the competition in today's energy paradigm?

Don't question the lack of competition because energy is cheap?

How many trillions will oil politics and oil-driven pollution end up costing the world? Has cheap oil really been such a bargain?

Obviously, cheap oil has been great for oil companies. Entire countries are driven by oil profits alone, and oil conglomerates set unbelievable records for profits, yet continually ask for tax incentives as if they have somehow lost money over the history of oil.

We the People

Ultimately, most American simply haven't demanded more. Instead we complain about high gas prices, about Bush's oil connections, about Haliburton, about Iraq, about Iran, and then we go buy a gas-guzzler.

Americans should Dare to Dream for energy independence just as we dared to dream for the moon. If America could become energy independent, then any country could become energy independent, and what would be so wrong with that? Bankrupt oil companies?

I say let's start judging our politicians, corporations, and other capitalists by their ability make our dreams reality, not by their ability to maintain the status quo.

Let's DARE TO DREAM!!!

Hemp and hybrid cars: A perfect marriage?

Tired of record oil profits, let's change America!

Tonight, when the President gives his State of the Union address, one of his main topics is expected to be energy. Oil and gasoline prices are rising and will continue to rise. Some have speculated that oil could even rise to $262 per barrel (more).

Thus many, such as Fortune, are speculating that the President is going to plug alternative fuels and energy, especially ethanol.

I've written about ethanol, diesel and biodiesel many times. I don't see them as the answer. I do; however, see them as an important part of the solution.

My solution, on the other hand, is flex-fuel plug-in hybrid vehicles. The technology already exists today and will only become significantly better. Moreover, it is far cheaper than hydrogen. Additionally, such technology gives consumers the widest array of clean and efficient fueling choices - we don't want to put all of our eggs in one basket.

But, back to ethanol. If ethanol makes gasoline cheaper, then demand will simply increase, and much more ethanol will be needed. Where will all this ethanol come from? How many pesticides and fertilizers will be needed? What happens if there is a drought?

Couldn't hemp address many of these issues?

Hemp is not marijuana and the government has legalized hemp in the past to help fight wars. Why not legalize it again?

Hemp grows like a weed, doesn't need fertilizers, is drought resistant and helps enrich the soil. Thus, it could very efficiently provide a massive amount of material to convert into ethanol, while protecting the environment.

Ethanol and hybrid cars provide the tools to drastically change America in just a couple of decades to the benefit of everyone and America can start right now.

Will America care? Unfortunately, I doubt it, there just isn't enough bling in it.

Diesel, biodiesel, and ethanol not enough

Even hybrid cars, or plug-in hybrid vehicles do not push the envelope of auto technology far enough


Flex-fuel plug-in diesel/gasoline hybrid vehicles can completely change America's national energy paradigm - long before fuel cell vehicles become either cost-effective or technologically feasible.

Such vehicles could easily achieve well over 100 miles per gallon, utilizing gasoline, diesel, ethanol, biodiesel, or combinations, while completely ending foreign oil dependency. (more)

Ford pushes increased tax incentives for hybrid vehicles

Yesterday, I wrote about how Bill Ford, CEO of Ford Motor, was appealing to the American people to stand behind the American auto industry.

Well, he also appealed to the government to help the American auto industry again become innovative, urging Congress "to offer a package of tax incentives to make the country less dependent on foreign oil and to drive innovation in the struggling domestic auto industry," according to the LATimes. Citing hybrid cars and ethanol, Mr. Ford stated, "If we put our heads together and keep in mind our shared interest in America's future, I'm confident that we can innovate our way toward the right solutions."

While I agree that the government should help, it is very disappointing that Ford and GM didn't take more proactive action a decade or two ago. Yes, we probably should help bail them out through quality tax-incentives, but these auto companies and their executives owe a lot to the American people. Instead of leading America, their lack of innovation has lead to the firing 10's of thousands of people, helped imperil the Nation's pension system, and now they are asking for more handouts.

We gave them a billion just a decade ago to produce an American Prius, and they accomplished almost nothing. What a shame.

This time, there can be no more excuses.

Flex fuel, biodiesel, or hybrids: Which is America's answer to oil dependency?

When the Iranian Revolution in 1979 caused massive gas lines in the United States, many Americans turned to small Japanese vehicles. Eventually, however, oil prices stabilized, gas prices dropped, and many Americans returned to gas-guzzling as SUVs became an expression of American freedom.

But the Iranian Revolution wasn't only felt in the U.S., and the problems of oil dependence, particularly foreign-oil dependence, pushed Brazil to do more than just buy a few small Japanese vehicles. By 1985 almost every vehicle produced in Brazil was designed for alcohol as fuel transportation and gasoline stations were updated to handle this new fuel.

So did Brazil kick the oil habit? Not exactly. According to an interesting article, Ethanol: Is it the answer?, a combination of cheap oil and droughts - which caused poor harvests and less ethanol - led Brazilians back to oil.

Today in Brazil, flex-fuel technology has changed everything. Able to run on both gasoline, ethanol, or a mixture of the two, flex fuel vehicles allow Brazilians to take advantage of which ever fuel they choose. Thus, drivers are hedged against either drought, or skyrocketing oil prices.

So should America just focus on flex-fuel vehicles as the solution to America's oil problems?

Absolutely not.

Flex-fuel vehicles definitely are part of the solution, but even Brazil hasn't been able to kick the oil habit. More important Brazil consumes SIGNIFICANTLY less fuel per year than the U.S.. Additionally, Brazil uses sugar to produce its ethanol fuel, the U.S. uses corn, which is far less efficient than sugar.

Of course new grains, etc., might offer better efficiency, but how long will it take to create enough fuel? Brazil produces only about 5 billion gallons of ethanol per year, U.S. demand is around 140 billion gallons per year. And what about drought, or another natural disaster?

The key to Brazil's struggles and successes boil down to one thing, flexibility. Flex-fuel vehicle technology should be the standard in America, but it shouldn't stop there. Hybrid technology, or even better, plug-in hybrid technology, offers even far more flexibility.

Hybrid cars, or better yet, flex-fuel hybrid cars, could significantly improve fuel efficiency, while opening up new fuel possibilities beyond oil. In reality; however, fuel competition alone won't be enough to handle the oil monster, and that's why hybrid technology is so important.

Plug-in flex-fuel advanced diesel hybrid vehicles could offer fuel efficiency of more than 100 mpg with today's technology - even for SUVs. Sure the technology is somewhat expensive today, but it is FAR less expensive than fuel cell technology. Additionally, a national fleet of 100 mpg vehicles would end the need for foreign oil in about 5 years, which I've argued could save America more than a TRILLION dollars (more).

Even better, plug-in power could lead to another revolution in the automotive world, the utilization of solar power. Already solar power is cost-effective to power a home - if you are going to live in that home for at least 15 years - but what if you could also help power your car with your home energy system, with totally clean energy? Even more interesting, garage mechanics have already created plug-in hybrids with solar panels and Mazda is now showing a solar hybrid concept vehicle that includes embedded solar panels in the roof of the vehicle.

Ultimately, the good old days of the U.S. auto industry are over. Constant innovation and the best technology are an absolute requirement, and the best technology requires fuel flexibility, as well as the best possible fuel economy. It isn't just about saving money at the fuel pump, or protecting the environment, it is about protecting the security and welfare of Americans and the American economy.

Neither ethanol, bio-diesel or hybrids alone are going to take the oil monkey off America's back quickly enough, but combined, these alternative choices could radically change America within a decade.

Instead of subsidizing the cost of a foreign-oil-dependency-ending fleet of vehicles, America is going to build more oil refineries, drill in Alaska, and give billions of tax payer dollars to filthy rich oil companies, as GM increases production on the Hummer.

Is that really an investment in the future? Isn't it time to start investing in real American freedom, instead of investing in companies that can profit as much as $23 billion in just one quarter?

I guess it is pretty clear who Congress represents, and it isn't the majority of Americans.

Hybrid cars versus hydrogen, ethanol?

Interesting little article questioning the amount of pork-barrel funding that goes into ethanol and the hydrogen economy and whether that money should be added to funding for hybrid cars. The article points out the 100mpg hybrids, such as the Toyota Prius hybrid, could be just around the corner. Why doesn't the government seem to care? (Investor's Business Daily Via Yahoo)

Hybrids, Biofuels and the Coming Energy Crisis

Just finished watching Robert McFarland, exNational Security Advisor, and James Woolsey, exCIA Director, on Rob Insana's Street Signs on CNBC. The two are leaders of a group of 45 current and past National Security officials that have been lobbying the President to curtail U.S. consumption of oil.

Both men essentially claim that the U.S. is playing with fire if the United States doesn't take fuel efficiency seriously. They pointed out that last year alone, China increased its foreign oil dependency by 35% over the previous year, and that such increases are possible into the future.

More important they noted that in the Middle East, Al Queda has publicly stated that it will target Persian Gulf production. Such a disruption, they say, will easily push oil well over $100.00 per barrel, and both believe when, not if, is the only question.

One of the most important solutions? Tax credits for hybrid cars, clean diesel and other biofuels. Currently, both noted that the President is pushing for a $4000.00 tax credit, and both stated that the credit should be tied to fuel efficiency, not just technology. Thus, hybrid cars that achieve the highest fuel efficiency would receive the greatest tax advantage, those with the lowest fuel efficiency would still qualify, just for less.

They also noted that all vehicles should be made flexible fuel vehicles, which would significantly increase their ethanol capabilities. Thus, vehicles could fill up with gasoline that is 85% ethanol, and this ethanol doesn't have to be just corn. Prairie grass and even various waste products could also be recycled into ethanol.

So make America stronger, buy a hybrid vehicle!

For more information on how Brazil used flex fuel vehicles to end its foreign oil dependency, highlighting American Congressional incompetence, click here.

Hybrid cars and marijuana!

O.K. there really isn't a direct connection between marijuana and hybrid cars.

Still, yesterday, I wrote an entry Marijuana, Hemp, and Hypocrisy discussing a perspective of the Supreme Court ruling affirming federal jurisdiction over state's rights and marijuana.

Essentially, I argued that the issue should have never come before the Supreme Court - this is an issue for Congress and I discuss the hypocrisy behind government campaigns, such as Hemp for Victory and the continued law against growing hemp in America. Basically, since hemp is almost like marijuana - even thought it can't get you 'high' - it still has to be illegal because it is related to marijuana.

Yet, I find myself amused about stories of Henry Ford growing fields of Hemp to fuel his automobiles. And how Dupont and Mellon, Treasury Secretary of the U.S., and petroleum supporter and investor, conspired against hemp - in the guise of marijuana - to eliminate not only a competitor of the petroleum industry, but cotton, tobacco, and almost every other important industry of the day.

Then there are stories of how tire, petroleum, and auto industries bought out the original Los Angeles light-rail system, dismantled it and created freeway sprawl as well as today's most important automotive market - certainly no motive-driven collusion.

Ultimately, the story claims that Ford was against petroleum because it was so dirty - even then, in the early 1900's, oil was dirty and polluting. Ford was interested in biodiesel, hemp-biodiesel, but the robber barons were interested in petroleum.

And where has petroleum taken us?

The damage that foreign oil dependency has caused to America is beyond measure - SMOG, 911, and multiple wars in Iraq are nothing compared to the coming environmental costs.

Yet, Ford sells Ford Explorers and receives a tax advantage from the government because those Explorers 'could' fill up with ethanol gasoline, but don't. Thus, Ford receives a tax credit for fuel efficiency, even though it isn't. Good to see the government hard at work!

American automakers have become incapable of competing in the fuel efficient vehicle segment, so the government creates loopholes and tax incentives for America automakers to increase America's foreign oil dependency. Someday, they've said for decades, fuel cells will take care of the all the world's problems.

Thus, Congress - Democrats and Republicans alike - continue to ignore the importance of fuel efficiency to reduce foreign oil dependence, to help reduce funding for terrorism against the U.S., to help American auto companies become more competitive, and to help the damned environment.

If you don't believe in pollution, stop using your plumbing and just crap in the backyard for a few months and then tell me there is no such thing as pollution or global warming. What is wrong with people?

Those whom argue against global warming constantly try to say the science is not 100%. While that is true, the science? What kind of idiot can say pollution isn't a problem based on science, when the essence of science is based on the principle that for every action is an equal and opposite reaction?

Efficiency is the essence of natural science and fuel efficiency should be a national priority for America, but it isn't. Instead, the U.S. Congress rewards Ford for building gas-guzzling SUVs. Unfortunately, it is obvious that U.S. politicians and corporations represent money, not people.

Demand nothing less than hybrid vehicle efficiency and register to vote! The only thing that can change America, is the people.