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.

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.

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.

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.

Flex-fuel hybrids or plug-in hybrids?

Last week, when I read that Toyota wasn't going to offer the Toyota Tundra hybrid until at least 2010, I posted the article Toyota's huge hybrid vehicle mistake. Essentially, I wondered why Toyota wouldn't offer a hybrid truck much sooner just to steal some truck buzz from GM.

Anyway, Autopia took the same news and spun it into the article flex-fuel hybrids gain speed and suggested that any smart automaker would display flex-fuel hybrids at the Detroit Auto Show in January.

Still, if Toyota isn't going to offer a gasoline-electric version of the Tundra until 2010, then a flex-fuel Tundra hybrid wouldn't be available until 2010 either. By 2010, however, I expect more than a flex-fuel hybrid Tundra, I expect a plug-in Toyota Tundra. Sure it would be nice if that plug-in Tundra hybrid were a flex-fuel hybrid, but I'll take a gasoline plug-in Tundra hybrid over a flex-fuel Tundra hybrid any day.

Consequently, if automakers are smart they will show off plug-in hybrids at the Detroit Auto Show. It already appears GM will be smart - at least from a PR standpoint.

The hybrid show stopper at the Detroit Auto Show, in my opinion, would be a Toyota plug-in hybrid vehicle. Having already produced several hundred thousand hybrid vehicles, Toyota could really kick it up a notch if they went hell-bent-for-leather on plug-in hybrid technology.

While GM has already picked up some positive PR for its potential plug-in hybrid showcase, Toyota could steal their thunder. Inevitably, whom does the world believe more when it comes to hybrid vehicles - Toyota or GM?