America's only hope for energy independence?

Only fuel cell hybrids can save us?

Most these days claim fuel cells are a dream, but are America's plans for energy independence or serious reductions in global warming emissions any less of a dream?

Study after study demonstrates the fickleness of consumers towards embracing hybrid cars, especially plug-in versions. Likewise, according to most studies, achieving energy independence and serious reductions in global warming emissions via battery-powered vehicles requires gas prices as high as $7.00 or $8.00. Ironically, at such prices, most consumers would buy cheaper cars, not more expensive plug-in versions, studies have suggested.

More important, however, what are the chances of selling such a gas tax to America, or a robust enough cap and trade plan? It seems neither has any chance, despite the overwhelming evidence indicating the need for either one or both. Ultimately, Americans want everything without giving up anything.

Certainly, the key might not be fuel cell hybrids; however, can anything other than a major technological breakthrough - a dream - save America? Equally important, is there any chance America can achieve any such breakthrough without a leap of faith forward?

When America decided to reach the moon, for instance, our leaders didn't ask if it was possible, we had to make the impossible, possible. Is clean energy independence any different?

US on verge of energy independence?

A paradigm shifter?

A few weeks ago I asked, Would natural gas vehicles make sense?

According to an interesting Telegraph piece regarding last week's World Gas Conference in Buenos Aires, the answer is, yes.

Because the technologies for extracting gas from shale and methane beds have evolved much faster than anyone was anticipating, the US - and its large natural gas supplies - is expected to reap huge rewards, while Europe should become less dependent upon Russia.

Consequently, writer Ambrose Evans-Pritchard claims "we may soon be looking at an era when gas, wind and solar power, combined with a smarter grid and a switch to electric cars returns the country to near energy self-sufficiency."

Are automakers clueless about the future?

The future, again?

Clean diesel, ethanol, natural gas, biofuels, small cars, hybrid cars, plug-in cars and fuel cell vehicles: those are just a few of the technologies that could drive the automotive future.

At least that is all that can be determined from the varied solutions that automakers are developing these days to fight high oil prices and CO2 emissions. Yet, are any of these technologies THE future?

Why so many varied approaches? Is it simply the fact that all of these technologies will be required? Are all of these technologies potential game changers? Or, are automakers truly clueless about how the auto industry is going to evolve?

On the other hand, are automakers even in control of the automotive future, or does it all come down to energy policy?

Big 3 "visionary leaders" of "rebranded green" autos?

So, when will the Big 3 make America foreign oil independent?

"They [Big 3] need to tell Congress next week and the world that they are visionary leaders of a rebranded green auto industry," Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm said in an interview with The Detroit News. "We're not whining. And I don't think the auto industry should whine. They just need to lead. ... They need to convey that they intend to lead our nation to energy independence."

Talk about denial. The problem is that the Big 3 are not leading us to energy independence, at least not in the next few decades. Already, Big 3 CEOs testified before Congress that 35 mpg by 2020 was already pushing their capabilities. That won't come close to ending even Persian Gulf oil dependence.

Is that the leadership to which Granholm is referring?

Human prosperity requires an "energy revolution"

World's energy paradigm "unsustainable"

"It is not an exaggeration to claim that the future of human prosperity depends on how successfully we tackle the two central energy challenges facing us today: securing the supply of reliable and affordable energy; and effecting a rapid transformation to a low-carbon, efficient, and environmentally benign system of energy supply. What is needed is nothing short of an energy revolution," reports the IEA.

Automakers are in trouble. The US economy is tanking. Is it just me, or isn't it obvious that this needed "energy revolution" is the key to both automakers and the US economy?

Real cost of gasoline today is $10.00?

What's the real cost of gas-guzzling?

Why is achieving energy independence so hard? According to the Milken Institute it "is the discrepancy between the price we pay and the costs society incurs for various energy sources," notes Technologue.

In reality, the real cost of gasoline is more like $10.00 per gallon when "military intervention to secure supply lines, environmental harm, asthma-inducing particulates, etc." is added into the equation.

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.

Capitalism, Competition, Free Markets & Hybrid Tax Credits

Today, the Pentagon is one of the biggest proponents of energy independence. Why? Quite frankly, the cost of protecting America's oil habit is very expensive, and it is possibly the greatest threat to American National Security. Most citizens are even starting to understand the problems foreign oil dependency has and is creating. As a result, Congress created a new tax credit to help Americans purchase clean, foreign-oil-dependency fighting automobiles, such as hybrid cars.

The plan worked so well, that Toyota met its quota in less than a year, long before GM has even sold ONE full hybrid vehicle. Consequently, sales of Toyota hybrids have slowed in recent months. Sure, high gas prices have dulled people's interest in fuel economy, but it seems obvious that reduced tax credits are also an important part of the skid.

In America, where the virtues of capitalism, competition and free markets are loudly promoted in corporations and Congress, shouldn't such ideals also be used to fight for energy independence? If Toyota could sell another 60,000 hybrid vehicles right now, utilizing GM's unused credits before GM even offers a full hybrid, shouldn't they have that right?

Isn't protecting National Security more important than protecting Detroit's failures? Is America afraid to end oil dependency too quickly? Is the status quo really more important than National Security? Why are we punishing Toyota for doing too much to help America fight foreign oil dependency?

Why are there even quotas on the tax credits? There are no quotas on the tax incentives given to small business owners that buy the worst gas-guzzlers, yet there is NO incentive for small business owners to buy fuel efficient vehicles.

I guess that only makes sense to members of Congress.

While GM's Rick Wagoner can complain about unfair trade advantages and currency manipulation in places like Japan, Toyota has every right to complain about protectionist legislation coming out of the U.S. Congress.

If GM were forced to compete for those credits in a free market, you can bet they would have gotten more hybrids on the road much faster. Instead, Congress has essentially given them a safety net NOT to act faster.

Great job Congress! I mean its only our National Security at stake!

Is there an issue more important than energy independence, right now?

Oil dependence aids terrorists, funds dictators and gives millions around the world a reason to point their finger at the imperialist, capitalist and evil American empire. Gas guzzling greed has produced complacency and ignorance that has stunted automotive development by focusing on speed and power rather than than on efficiency and clean technology. This greedy, ego-driven focus - produced by cheap oil dependence - has severely weakened the U.S. auto industry and now threatens the U.S. economy.

And for what? So, that yours is bigger than mine?

American automakers, their unions and representatives in Washington complain about imports and outsourcing, yet turn a blind eye to our extremely dangerous oil imports. How can one import be so good, yet another so bad?

One political party protects the oil industry, the other political party protects the gas-guzzler builders. Yet, our environment and National Security continue to deteriorate as politicians blame each other for a problem each party has contributed in creating.

Now politicians on both sides of the aisle are preparing to make energy independence the core issue for 2008 - at least in terms of political soundbites.

Why are waiting until 2008? I don't care about the next election, right now. I don't care about lame ducks, right now. I care about today, right now.

Right now, Congress could renew tax credits for Toyota hybrid cars. Right now, we could give small business owners the same tax incentives to buy clean vehicle technologies that we currently give small business owners to buy the worst gas-guzzlers.

When America went to the moon, it inspired the development of so many technologies and industries. Right now, striving for energy independence could do the same, while increasing National Security and fighting global warming.

Why isn't America doing more? Shouldn't we be doing everything we can, right now?

--> More on hybrid tax credits, etc.

For 2008: Its Energy Independence, stupid

Tom Vilsack, the Democrat from Iowa, threw his hat into the race for the 2008 Presidential elections, and his platform is energy independence. Energy independence is the way to strengthen both National Security and the U.S. economy, according to Vilsack.

It's nice to see that energy independence appears to be gaining political importance, but let's hope it leads to real action and not just a lot of talk and pork-barrel legislation focused more on paying political favors than on results.

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.

Bush believes hybrid cars one of the best paths to foreign oil independence

"I believe so strongly that this country has got to use its talent and its wealth to get us off oil," Bush said. "Probably the fastest way we can begin to change the consumer habits -- is to promote hybrid vehicles."

President Bush made that statement earlier today in response to falling gas prices.

"My worry is, however, that a low price of gasoline will ... make us complacent about our future when it comes to energy," Bush said at a government-sponsored renewable energy conference in St. Louis.

I couldn't agree more. Already one new study has demonstrated that consumer interest is dropping significantly as gas prices are dropping, while interest in gas-guzzlers is rebounding.

Bush, who has asked Congress to extend the tax credit for hybrids earlier this year, again brought up tax credits today. Unfortunately, Congress has not addressed this issue. Perhaps, hopefully, once the elections are over an extension will be enacted. Otherwise, with dropping gas prices and smaller tax credits for Toyota hybrids, interest in hybrid vehicles could drop significantly.

(Source: Reuters via Yahoo)

Are you red, white and green?

Do you want to change America's energy paradigm? Do you believe in energy conservation? Do you want to end foreign oil dependency? Do you want to raise fuel economy standards? Do you want fight global warming? Do you want to buy a hybrid car or other fuel efficient vehicle?

You are not alone. It is estimated that 45.3 million Americans would answer yes to most of the questions above and they are not all tree-hugging hippies. In fact the majority of the Red, White and Greens are non-partisan moderates, but there are also significant numbers of liberals and conservatives - these issues are more important than party politics.

Civil Society Institute President and Founder Pam Solo said: "Red, white and green is the new patriotism for this complex era in which energy, the environment and national security are all bound up together. What we see here are a new set of values that equate love of country with energy independence and protecting the environment from global warming. These survey findings show that there is a huge group of Americans who are very clear about their strong embrace of environmental values and the elected officials who reflect those values. The existence of red, white and green voters could have huge implications for the 2006 and 2008 elections." (more)

Let's get some more red, white and green representatives in political office!

GM considering plug-in hybrid vehicle

GM has stated that it is considering a plug-in hybrid vehicle.

"We are always looking at ways to provide fuel efficiency to our customers, and energy independence to the United States," said GM spokesman Brian Corbett. "Obviously, a plug-in hybrid is something that would definitely be on our radar screen, something we could consider for the future. But I'm not saying we're going to do one or the other." (more)

Concern for energy independence? Oh, really? Wow! I'm sorry, but GM is still admitting that hybrid cars are only useful for image and marketing. I guess their plug-in hybrid vehicle would be for the same?

Still, I hope GM builds the plug-in hybrid.

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.

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.

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.

New Energy Bill to include plug-in hybrid vehicles?

Plug-in hybrids, just like a regular hybrid, only better

Senator Ken Salazar of Colorado was on CNBC's Morning Call this morning to discuss a panel that had been convened to discuss America's energy situation. He indicated that there is broad bipartisan support in Congress for a new energy bill that further pushes the country towards energy independence. Congressman Salazar noted a two step approach to make this happen: 1.) Alternative fuels and 2.) A whole new generation of plug-in hybrid vehicles.

I say excellent idea, but make them flex-fuel plug-in hybrids. Click here to help.

Oil independence: Do Americans really care?

In order to achieve oil independence, Americans will have to make some tough decisions according to the article, Does America Want Oil Independence?. Still, hybrid cars and alternative fuels are a strong step in the right direction. While the article also plugs plug-in hybrid vehicles, I think it indirectly points out that flex-fuel plug-in hybrid vehicles offer the best path towards beginning a real push for oil independence. Nonetheless, without a majority of Americans pushing for oil independence, many analysts think real change is almost impossible.

Thus, the question remains, "Do the majority of Americans really care about oil independence?"

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!!!

Syriana, Kyoto and Hybrid Cars

So, the Montreal climate conference resulted in a 150 Nation agreement for further meetings that won't include the U.S. (more). The Bush administration won't sign onto the Kyoto Protocol because of fears that mandatory emissions cutbacks could have a negative effect on the U.S. economy.

While I support the Kyoto Protocol, I think Bush does have a point about the economy, but I think he has an even greater point when he demands that Kyoto must include India and China. Nonetheless, in the midst of ever more global warming evidence, I think serious action is required, and Kyoto might be a good step because it gets the U.S. to stop talking about global warming and to start doing something about it.

So, what is Bush's answer to global warming, technology.

While I agree with Bush, I don't agree with his process for bringing forth such technology. The Bush future is the hydrogen economy, which I believe in, but I also believe we can't wait for it. We must start taking action NOW.

Ironically, one of the main contributors to global warming is also one of the main contributors to terrorism - oil dependency. Yet, even after 9/11, after Iraq, after Katrina, the U.S. is still taking little action to really change America's dependency on oil.

If Bush believes in technology, then why doesn't he seek oil independence the same way Kennedy sought the moon in the '60s?

The technology just isn't there yet?

Baloney!!!!!

While many criticize hybrid cars for their costs and for their failure to meet EPA fuel efficiency ratings, the truth is, if every American drove a Toyota Prius hybrid today, we would end foreign oil dependency today.

But the best part of hybrid cars isn't what they can do today, but what they can do tomorrow if we invest. Experimental hybrid cars demonstrate that the technology to drastically reduce America's oil consumption exists right now, and it really isn't that expensive. In fact it is incredibly less expensive and incredibly more feasible than hydrogen vehicles.

Is it more expensive than conventional vehicles, yes, and that is why the government needs to get involved. Still how expensive is the war on terror, or the costs of pollution and global warming?

Recently, Bill Ford lobbied the government to provide more tax incentives to help Detroit reduce foreign oil dependency and to regain its sense of automotive innovation.

The government has said it isn't interested.

Isn't this exactly what Bush was talking about when it comes to better alternatives to Kyoto? But it isn't just Kyoto, its the war on terrorism as well.

"I'm involved in this because most of the world's oil reserves are owned by countries that finance people that want to kill us, that finance radical Islam," Anne Korin, co-director of the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for the Analysis of Global Security.

While Mrs. Korin doesn't believe in global warming, she is joining with global warming activists and using the movie Syriana to bring attention to the dangers of America's oil dependence (more).

Yet, GM is set to roll out model after model of gas-guzzling SUVs and neither Ford nor GM seem to know how to be profitable in a fuel efficient world.

What better opportunity for the government to get involved? This isn't about interfering with free markets, it's about protecting the people from the proven dangers of terrorism, while also protecting the environment and the 'possible' dangers of global warming. If global warming isn't a national security issue, terrorism certainly is.

And, speaking of the economy, if America is the fuel efficient, greenhouse reducing technology leader of the world, what could be better for the economy?

Do GM's hybrid vehicles demonstrate fuel cell lies?

GM won't really have any major hybrid presence until around 2008, yet GM has stated numerous times that its fuel cell vehicles will be a reality by 2010. "We believe we can design and validate a competitive fuel cell propulsion system by 2010," stated Lawrence D. Burns, G.M.'s vice president for research and development recently (more).

So, why is GM even developing hybrid vehicles? If GM can develop a "competitive" fuel cell system by 2010, then there is no need for hybrid vehicles, right? Even GM has stated, "Hybrids could be another niche, low-volume technology that is nice to have," according to Mr. Burns.

I guess GM is just a hybrid poser? "Toyota is at this moment skimming off all the altruistic people who are doing it for the birds and the bees and for energy independence," Bob Lutz, G.M.'s vice chairman, told reporters in Detroit in September.

Oh, excuse me for caring about energy independence and the environment, you putz, I guess those are just silly issues to GM?

Mr. Lutz has also stated that GM could have developed hybrids at a cost of a fraction of its YEARLY marketing budget. That's right, for a fraction of ONE year's marketing budget, GM could have helped fight FOR the environment and AGAINST foreign oil dependency, but GM chose to invest in INCREASING foreign oil dependency and environmental damage.

Is that an example of American corporate leadership?

GM has been telling the U.S. government that fuel cell vehicles were just around the corner since the Nixon administration, and GM has likewise cited increased U.S. fuel economy as a roadblock to its fuel cell outcome. Thus, after decades, fuel economy in the U.S. has gone nowhere, as have GM's fuel cell vehicles.

Good thing increased foreign oil dependency hasn't had any costs to America!

If GM can achieve its 2010 fuel cell goals, it will be decades ahead of the rest of the auto industry and it will salvage itself and America. However, if GM fails to meet its fuel cell goals, then it will have failed America as no other American corporation has ever failed America.

For now, I'll wish GM the best of luck, but if they fail, heads MUST roll - there can be no more excuses from GM.

Honda is high on natural gas

Before I rip on Honda, let me start out by acknowledging that Honda is the greenest auto company in the world, and they deserve kudos. Additionally, they produce excellent vehicles, and the Honda Civic GX is the cleanest vehicle on the road and it doesn't depend on foreign oil. Nonetheless, natural gas vehicles are not going to take over the American automarket, and anybody who thinks they will is just plain silly.

Thus, John Mendel, senior vice president of automobile operations of American Honda Motor Co., seems to have inhaled a few too many natural gas fumes. "We'll do hybrids as it makes sense, but I do not think they are the best solution. Right now hybrids don't make sense economically," Mandel was recently quoted as saying as he expressed his vision that natural gas vehicles are more important than hybrid vehicles.

I don't even know where to start on this one. First, natural gas simply isn't going to replace gasoline as the new energy infrastructure. The savings simply are not that great, and while Honda can sell home fueling systems, most consumers simply are not going to buy into the concept.

Second, while natural gas vehicles do offer independence from foreign oil, and burn cleaner than gasoline vehicles, new technologies - particularly hybrid vehicles - could easily outweigh every positive aspect of natural gas vehicles. One significant upgrade in hybrid batteries ends natural gas's cost effectiveness. Two upgrades and, well, you get the point.

Third, the hydrogen economy is the future. While it will probably take a few decades to achieve it, the hydrogen economy will be built upon fuel cells and those fuel cells will work in coordination with batteries. The hybrid powertrain can evolve into fuel cell-electric vehicles and help move the world entirely from fossil fuels. Natural gas is a fossil fuel.

Fourth, Mandel states, "you can use the car pool lane (in California)." Yes you can in the short term, but don't expect this privilege to last, if sales start numbering in the 1000's.

Additionally, if natural gas capabilities were to be added to trucks and SUVs, or even cars, which demand greater horsepower, the lure of natural gas begins to tarnish rather quickly. In terms of the future natural gas is already dead. In reality, the most interesting natural gas vehicle would be a natural gas-electric hybrid vehicle.

So, what is Honda's deal? I don't know. While Honda has been much more bullish on hybrids than the Big 3, they are still far behind Toyota. The Civic hybrid is a great vehicle, nothing flashy, but a quality vehicle. Still, in terms of hybrid technology, it really isn't Best of Breed. The Accord hybrid is the best Accord ever,but it also is a mediocre hybrid at best.

In terms of pure hybrid technology, Toyota and Ford stand above Honda. The Prius is simply the best hybrid vehicle. The Lexus RX400h, the Highlander hybrid, and the Escape hybrid demonstrate that very fuel efficient hybrid SUVs are possible - as more efficient batteries are developed. This, while frustrating for environmentalists, is simply an important aspect of the American automobile market.

Natural gas is a new fuel for a dying technology. While it offers great potential for fleets, it does not offer the same for the average consumer.

Hybrid technology, on the other hand, is a step towards the future, a future that can offer unlimited horsepower without foreign oil, without pollution. More important, hybrids can work within the current energy infrastructure and the technology can naturally, transparently accommodate fickle consumers afraid of change, as the industry adapts and evolves into the hydrogen highway.

Yes, hybrid technology is a bit expensive, but not as expensive as the first calculators, cellphones, and computers.

Schwarzenegger paves way to hybrid cars?

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger told a United Nations conference that the threat from global warming was real, and that California was going to lead the fight.

"I say the debate is over. We know the science, we see the threat and we know the time for action is now," he said. (AP via Yahoo)

While Schwarzenegger did not announce many specific new policies, he did state that he would move ahead with greenhouse gas emissions standards for automobiles starting in 2009, despite the Bush administration's siding with automakers against California's standards.

If automakers lose the fight in California, the road to hybrid cars will be clearly paved. The battle against foreign oil dependency has moved from the federal government to the state government of California and the Gov. is in a position to accomplish what the federal government has been unable to accomplish for decades - responsible fuel efficiency.

While that is not the goal of the California legislation, it will inevitably have that effect.

Governor Schwarzenegger has a tremendous opportunity to lead America regarding important issues such as global warming and energy independence, perhaps, even more than the President. Let's hope he takes advantage.

If he terminates his Hummer soon, I might become a true believer.

Tax credits for hybrids "tinkering around the edges"?

A tough, new article by BusinessWeek, Bush is blowing smoke on energy notes that vehicles account for 60% of U.S. oil consumption and calls the President's tax credit proposal for hybrid cars "tinkering around the edges".

Energy independence from foreign oil is possible with today's technology. That's a fact.

If the U.S. is at war against terror, why isn't ending foreign-oil dependency as quickly as possible a national priority? Why isn't every one conserving and pitching in - as we did during WWI and WWII?

BusinessWeek says it's politics, I say it's pathetic.

Regardless, while tax credits for hybrids and other clean technologies might be tinkering, they could help force Detroit to come to grips with fuel efficiency, and that would be much better than doing nothing.

How can this message be sent to the Senate?

Automakers, emissions, and hybrid cars

Daniel Becker, a director at the Sierra Club, is applauding Canada's agreement with the world's largest automakers to reduce vehicle emissions. According to the DetroitNews, Becker believes the move will make it harder for automakers to argue their case against similar legislation in the U.S..

The Detroit news also stated that Canada's agreement was roughly equivalent to California's demands.

I don't get it.

I thought the California plan was a two phase project? While the first phases might be similar, there is no agreed upon second phase of the Canada plan. On the contrary, the real bite of the California plan, the second phase, requires 30% less emissions by 2016.

6% versus 30% is no big difference?

Anyway, I'm tired of hearing about costs from automakers.

How much tax payer money has been spent in the Middle East protecting oil? How much is it going to cost to protect the coasts from rising Oceans? What are the health care costs of SMOG-related illnesses?

What, automakers can only do the right thing if the government mandates it?

Hybrid technology has demonstrated that foreign-oil independence is ultimately achievable with today's technology. It has also shown that hybrid SUVs such as the Ford Escape hybrid and the Toyota Highlander hybrid can perform just as well as conventional SUVs, even better, while significantly reducing pollution and the need for oil.

More important hybrid cars have created a discussion. Maybe lighter vehicles are a good idea. Maybe scaling auto size down a little wouldn't be that bad. More and more Americans are open to change and many Americans are beginning to demand change.

Can American automakers change?

The Prius is about America, not the environment

Man, some people just don't get it.

I love the environment, though I don't do enough to protect it, but that isn't why I like hybrid cars such as the Toyota Prius.

When it comes to the Prius, un-American corporatism is my inspiration.

Decades ago, when tiny Hondas hit American soil, my father laughed. "Who would want to drive one of those. You'd get killed in an accident."

But the 70's and the early 80's provided a little dose of reality that caused many to realize that maybe fuel efficiency wasn't such a bad idea - gas shortages. For those living paycheck to paycheck, gasoline was causing pain. Something needed to be done.

Something still needs to be done.

In the interim, the U.S. has significantly built up its military and political influence in the Middle East to achieve one end, cheap foreign oil. This has stoked the fire of a growing Arab resentment against the rich West, which has contributed to 911, and both Iraq Wars.

Twenty to thirty years ago, American automotive executives and boards should have realized the dangers that foreign oil dependency could pose to America in the future. Forecasting is an essential business process, but those same shareholders were probably as invested in oil, as they were in automobiles.

Yet, if America is about freedom and independence, how could the American economy be so dependent upon a foreign resource?

Thus, American automakers, in a stroke of brilliance, created the SUV, while spending billions and billions of dollars marketing the idea that an SUV, not some fuel efficient foreign-made rice box, was Americana. Don't worry about the environment or foreign-oil dependency. Any year now, American automakers have said for decades, we'll develop fuel cells.

Decades later it is obvious American automakers shorted the American people and their security for profit. Perhaps you think that is just business. Fine, but I don't.

Sure the environment is important, important enough that the Pentagon considers environmental concerns one of the greatest threats to American security, but it isn't the reason I like hybrids.

I like the Toyota Prius because it epitomizes America better than any American-made car. It's all about freedom.

Thank you Toyota hybrids

Recently, I have grown a bit frustrated with Toyota. Why can't they make more Prius hybrid cars? Why did the Lexus RX400h and the Highlander hybrid have to have their market releases pushed back?

My desire for hybrids to take over the automotive world just isn't rationale at this point in time.

Automotive experts, particularly competitors, are confident that the Prius does not make money, nor do they expect any of Toyota's next hybrids to make money either - at least in 2005. The fact is, it has been terribly expensive for Toyota to accomplish what it has accomplished with hybrids.

Basically, every expert in the world laughed at Toyota's hybrid car endeavors for years, until demand for the 2004 Prius slapped every one of those analysts in the face. And Toyota has had to go it alone, without the help of a vast supply network. So the progress Toyota has made is all the more remarkable, while the lack of progress made by almost every other auto-maker, is all the more disappointing.

Now, places like California, Canada, even the U.S. legislature are demanding that automakers take action. Hybrids have proven that there is another way, not in some fantasy future, but today.

When the CIA and Pentagon describe foreign-oil dependency and global warming as great threats to American security, how long do you wait before contributors to U.S. foreign-oil dependency and global warming are also named co-conspirators against the security of the United States?

Often GM, for example, tries to equate itself with Americana. Not my America, brother. Dumping your waste in my land, polluting my lungs, threatening the environmental stability of the world, while maintaining and supporting an oppressive, robber-barron-like foreign-oil dependency for America is not patriotic, rather the antithesis of patriotism.

America is about freedom and independence, or at least that was the idea, right? Gas-guzzling reduces freedom and independence according to the CIA and the Pentagon.

How dare American corporations risk my freedom and independence for their short term profit. If American auto-corporations represent patriotism, then I say it's time to revolt.

Thanks Toyota.

Hybrid + Solar = Energy Independence?

A number of days ago, I wrote a story, What's better than a hybrid car, a plug-in hybrid of course. In that story I mentioned an electric-truck owner whom forced Ford to sell him an electric vehicle, rather than destroying it, after his lease was up on the truck.

The farmer loved his truck because his fuel, electricity from a small solar array, charged the truck for free.

On the EV1.org website, there is a picture of a house and its solar roof. Only taking one-quarter of the roof, the solar system generates enough electricity to power the home and two electric cars - for the same monthly price as their old electric bill.

What could be more independent, more American, than independently-produced clean energy? No foreign oil, no pollution, no rolling blackouts. And, on a united grid, American citizens could sell energy to other Americans and the world - clean energy - not tied to terrorism.

Hybrid cars, such as the Prius, Escape hybrid, Lexus RX400h hybrid, or Toyota Highlander hybrid could quite easily be converted into plug-in-gasoline-electric hybrids. Able to be charged cleanly in urban driving, these hybrids could also utilize gas when needed.

Fuel cell technology will be great, but the technology to radically make the world safer via cleaner and cheaper energy exists now. Greed and profit are unacceptable justifications for putting off until tomorrow what needs to be done today.

Demand nothing less than hybrid car efficiency.