New study slams algae as energy source

Not a green solution?

A new study by the University of Virginia claims that switchgrass, canola and even corn have "lower environmental lifecycle impacts than algae in energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and water regardless of cultivation location."

Another example that biofuels alone will never replace petroleum?

(GreenCarCongress)

Cramer stays on natural gas bandwagon

Barnett Shale in Texas

Trick me once, shame on you. Trick me twice, shame on me.

Not long after Boone Pickens took on his natural gas campaign, CNBC financial guru, Jim Cramer, joined the cause. Several months later he backed off natural gas and called out Pickens to explain himself, which Pickens did on Cramer's Mad Money Show.

Months later, Cramer was again higher than ever on natural gas, a place he has now been for several months. In fact, Cramer believes the recent Total and Chesapeake Energy deal is just the beginning of action to come in the natural gas space as new drilling techniques make shale a paradigm shifter for US energy policy. (more)

Hey, if natural gas can reduce CO2 emissions and reduce foreign oil consumption - while guaranteeing the protection of water resources - then natural gas might be one of the greenest of investments out there.

Don't mess with corn

Corn helps fuel American politics

Not long ago CARB set in place the California Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), a standard that would significantly impact the use of much corn ethanol, not just in the California, but in the US.

Now, the research on corn ethanol has often been contradictory, but there has been plenty of independent, objective research that has produced some very unpleasant findings with corn ethanol and its impact on the environment.

Nonetheless, many have embraced corn ethanol as a path to cellulosic ethanol, an approach with some merit. Still, cellulosic ethanol cannot be an excuse for increased corn ethanol, especially ethanol with little benefit to the environment. Ultimately, if ethanol cannot move beyond corn, its time to start thinking beyond ethanol.

Can California, however, take such a stance? The courts are now going to decide that if two ethanol lobbying groups have their way (more).

Maybe cellulosic ethanol is for real?

But corn cob as feed?

Just finished an interesting piece on POET's advances in cellulosic ethanol. In a nutshell production costs have dropped from $4.13 to $2.35, but POET believes they can be further reduced to $2.00 per gallon when commercial production begins.

That's not bad compared to today's gasoline prices. Still, how much feedstock is available for such an application when it is still very corn-intensive? If corn demand goes up, won't these prices eventually go up?

Algae a really green investment

Can it get much greener than algae?

Every year since 2006 the number of companies exploring algae as a potential biofuel have doubled. Currently, there are 50 companies exploring algae, a potential fuel that ExxonMobil believes that of all the alternatives, algae "has the most potential in terms of scalability and fitting into the vast infrastructure of existing refineries and filling stations."

Nonetheless, CNN points out cost-effectiveness is still an issue, but an issue that more and more researchers believe can be solved, especially now that enough investments are being made into this space.

"The possibilities are endless," says Samhitha Udupa, a research associate with Lux Research.

Best diesels for biodiesel conversion

The favorite for biodiesel conversions

According to MarketWatch, the Mercedes-Benz 300 Series from the 1980's is the most favored diesel vehicle for biodiesel conversions because of its reliability.

Other suggestions included the VW Passat TDI from 1996 or 1997, or an 8 - 10 year old VW Jetta TDI.

Cheap, organic gasoline?

An ethanol killer?

Terrabon believes it can turn a Texas A&M University pioneered fermentation process called MixAlco into cheap gasoline. Using almost any organic material, Terrabon believes it can produce gasoline at a price of $1.75 per gallon that behaves just like gasoline, leaving Terrabon's fuel far less corrosive and more efficient than ethanol.

Pickens Plan dead - Jim Cramer

Better to keep it a concept

Jim Cramer called out Boone Pickens today on his Mad Money show stating Pickens has "some explaining to do" for his inability to make natural gas a Presidential issue. Hence, according to Cramer, the Pickens plans is dead.

In the past, Cramer had stated that he was onboard the Pickens plan.

Black liquor biofuels - Is it really green?

It's not saving any trees

Chemrec, a company specializing in black liquor gasification, has completed $20 million in funding to turn pulp and paper mills into "biorefineries".

According to the company, the waste of pulp and paper mills, aka black liquor, could be turned into enough biofuel to replace 2 percent of global fuel demand.

Of course, how does this fuel get into the pipeline? How much gas will it take to get this bio-gas to gas stations?

Converting waste into energy is always a good practice, but how green is this investment?

NaturalDrive: Retrofitting conventional cars into natural gas vehicles.

The Honda Civic CNG vehicle at the LA Auto Show

NaturalDrive has received EPA certification for its CNG retrofit of the 2008 Chevy Impala.

According to GreenCarCongress, "NaturalDrive’s retrofit package includes a compressed natural gas sequential digital fuel injection system and 10.4 gasoline gallon equivalent storage in Type 3 composite fuel cylinders. An additional optional cylinder provides a total of 13.0 gge storage, for a maximum highway range of more than 375 miles @ 3,600 psi. The 3.5L engine delivers 212 hp and 190 lb-ft of torque."

Other retrofits are on the way.

Natural gas is much cleaner than oil and there is enough natural gas to replace foreign oil for many decades. Unfortunately, however, there are some questions about CNG drilling and possible water pollution.

If those issues could be resolved, such retrofits could help America quickly end foreign oil dependency while either creating new jobs, or at least sustaining current automaker jobs.

Trash trucks: The economics of Natural Gas

A natural gas trash truck in Los Angeles

Within two years, Los Angeles might convert their entire fleet of trash trucks into natural gas vehicles. Already, LA's Bureau of Sanitation is using 300 such trucks.

These trucks, built by Peterbilt with Cummins Engines, reduce CO2 emissions by 90 percent, but they cost $50,000 more per truck. Natural gas is also cheaper than diesel fuel, but it could take as long as 10 years to recover costs.

Still, isn't that investment worth less global warming emissions and less foreign oil dependency? Check out MSNBC for a video.

Recession hurting cellulosic ethanol

Ethanol's promise fading?

"Because of the upheaval in the capital markets," CNET is reporting that "Mascoma cannot go public to raise additional funds, and institutional investors are being more cautious now. So the company is positioning itself to hold on to cash as long as possible."

Thus, the company is laying off employees.

Unfortunately, Mascoma is one of the few well-funded cellulosic ethanol companies out there, and if cellulose is the future of biofuels, the future of biofuels isn't looking too promising.

A natural gas-driven automaker bailout?

Honda Civic natural gas vehicle next to a home refueling station

Today, Jim Cramer opened MadMoney with his vision for how Obama should solve most of America's major problems in the first 100 days. Regarding energy independence, Cramer called for an immediate automaker bailout, with a catch. To qualify for a bailout, automakers would have to make a serious commitment to natural gas vehicles.

Finish: A natural gas-driven automaker bailout?

CO2-powered cars coming soon?

Convert CO2 into fuel

Interesting story on Kicking Tires about a California startup that wants to turn CO2 emissions into transportation fuel. The company, Carbon Sciences, uses biocatalytic hydrolysis to, according to the company, efficiently convert CO2 emissions into a liquid fuel.

Can green jobs power a new America?

Can it power America's 'new' economy

According to a study released by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, by 2038 America could create 4.2 million new green jobs if American makes a bold commitment to green power, such as solar, wind, and biofuels.

Others, such as Barack Obama claim we could create 5 million new green jobs in just 10 years if we committed to green technology to power our economy.

While the later is probably just political hype to be expected in an election year, it does demonstrate the potential of the alternative energy sector.

Can America commit to the future and embrace alternative energy, even if it means some extra taxes and costs up front?

Warming a little to Pickens Plan

Not just selling his book?

Boone Pickens is an oil man that has made a lot of money off investing in oil. Lately, he's put a lot of money in natural gas. At the same time, Pickens is trying to lobby America to offset some of its foreign oil dependency with natural gas.

So, is he just trying to sell his book?

Now, I have to admit, I haven't thoroughly researched the Pickens plan on my own, but I now intend to do just that, particularly after hearing Mr. Pickens talk on CNBC today.

Today, Pickens implied that natural gas isn't the solution to America's foreign oil dependence, but it can be part of the mix. In particular and especially, Pickens believes that natural gas would be great for heavy duty vehicles, such as buses and the large trucks carrying goods from our ports all throughout the country. These commercial transport vehicles account for about 30 percent of America's fuel consumption, and Pickens believes that natural gas infrastructure could be developed for such vehicles within just five years.

This isn't about converting all of America's cars to natural gas, but heavy duty trucks - vehicles that are light years away from the electrification of the automobile.

Combined with his ideas for wind and solar power, the Pickens plan does seem to have some merits, simply because it is realistic. It's not pie in the sky. It's a mix of today's technology and tomorrow's technology. Most important, it achieves results in a realistic time frame.

Anyway, I'll be talking more about the Pickens Plan, after I do some more thorough research. Until then, I'm not saying I support the Pickens Plan, but, without doubt, I support the call for a comprehensive energy plan.

Kudos to Pickens for lighting a fire on this issue. Can America get real? Or is it purely about drill, drill versus solar and wind and no compromises?

Cramer supports Pickens plan

Some have complained about natural gas pollution in Wyoming

I'm pulling my normal CNBC watch today and I've caught too many Pickens Plan commercials to count. While I'm not sure about the overall merits of this plan, Jim Cramer was asked about the Boone Pickens plan on last Friday's show during a mail call. Essentially, he was asked if he would work directly on the campaign. He said no because of CNBC obligations, which he enjoyed, but he stated that absolutely supported the Pickens plan.

Propane advocates now chime in

Ethanol, natural gas and now propane

With 11 million propane vehicles already on the world's roads today, Brian Feehan, vice president of the Washington-based Propane Education and Research Council, believes that about 10 percent of US auto fleets could also be converted to propane powered vehicles.

"That technology, we feel, is going to be around for a while now," he said at a recent event in Central Park touting the future of the fuel in the automotive industry. "We've perfected it."

Natural gas is not for cars

A depleting resource?

Yesterday, I caught Bob Simpson of XTO Energy give an interview on CNBC. The Chairmen and CIO, whom stands to do well if natural gas plays a more important role in US energy, claimed that while the US has a "secure supply" of natural gas, natural gas "is a depleting asset."

Moreover, in terms of automobiles, Simpson stated that the lack of infrastructure a major obstacle, especially in terms of the costs of building. Even more interesting, Simpson continually seemed bearish on the idea of Natural gas for cars. When asked about the potential of shale, Mr. Simpson seemed to imply that shale was simply going to replace the depleting natural gas of current wells.

My take, forget natural gas for automobiles or, in a few decades, we'll be just as dependent on foreign natural gas as we are on foreign oil.

Insane: Saltwater key to America's fuel needs?

The new gasoline or the key to the 'hydrogen highway'?

"Years of research lie ahead, but he suspects that his doped salt-water could pack sufficient punch to power an internal- combustion engine, with a ceramic "window" in the top of the cylinder through which radio waves would enter to ignite the mixture," states MotorTrend's Technologue regarding saltwater as a fuel.

"Or maybe salt proves too corrosive for use in engines, and the technology just gives us a clean, economical means of producing hydrogen to power fuel cells. In any case, John Kanzius may have stumbled upon a scientific phenomenon with the potential to brighten our increasingly gloomy energy future. At least we'd never have to go to war over salt"

Hopefully this salty discovery will shake up the world of alternative fuels.

Politicians Blowing Bio-Fuels?

Better Biofuels killed by politicians?

"This startup adds genes to microbes so the bugs convert sugar into useful stuff—such as green fuels. "Lobbyists have a huge influence in American politicals. For example, Amyris figures it can make a diesel and a gasoline-like product that offer major advantages over ethanol and biodiesel, today's alternative-fuel darlings. "Why not look for better solutions?" says Melo. "There is a second generation of fuels coming that could be very helpful to the country." (more from BusinessWeek)

When politicians are funded by lobbyists and special interest groups, can voters really expect politicians to do the right thing?

Tough environmental regulations a boon for hybrids and bio-fuels in Europe?

How will Europe deal with CO2 emissions?

According to press releases from Frost & Sullivan, the future seems very bright for hybrid cars and alternative fuels, at least in Europe.

"As a medium-term strategy over the next three to five years, OEMs are expected to introduce micro hybrids, mild hybrids, ethanol, biofuels and LPG into their fleets to reduce CO2 emissions," notes Frost & Sullivan (http://www.automotive.frost.com) Research Analyst Krishnasami Rajagopalan. "These technologies offer increased fuel efficiency and reduced emissions, which help OEMs reduce their fleet average CO2 emissions."

"Going forward, reducing emissions below 140 g/km of CO2 will be possible mainly with the help of alternative fuels and hybrids (micro, mild and full). While OEMs are aware of this fact, further development or market acceptance of these alternative fuels and hybrids is restrained by the distribution network, availability and high implementation costs."

Automakers shun fuel efficient technology for fuel

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

Who cares about foreign oil dependency?

America hasn't learned anything from the 70's gas lines, the Iranian hostage crisis or even 9/11

Recently, President Bush suggested the idea of reducing gasoline dependence by 20 percent in the next decade. America's Big 3 automakers responded that ending foreign oil dependency just isn't profitable.

On the other hand, Honda welcomed the idea, and Toyota was far less opposed than American automakers. So, which automakers are better for America?

Yet, foreign oil dependency has already cost Americans more than a trillion dollars, and it is certain to cause even far more money and problems in the next few decades if we can't even reduce dependence by 20 percent. Ironically, however, such a sum could easily fund the technology to end foreign oil dependency using today's technology such as hybrid cars, clean diesels, lightweight composite materials and bio-fuels.

So why don't Americans take foreign oil dependency more seriously? (Read More)

Big Oil to take over alternative fuels market?

BP PLC has provided $500,000,000 to the Universities of California and Illinois to develop an Energy Biosciences Institute.

"UC Berkeley is looking to combine its expertise in engineering and life sciences to find ways to develop new fuel sources and to make solar energy more powerful and less expensive," the AP reported today.

The University of Illinois, on the other hand, "will focus on growing plants that can be used to produce alternative fuels."

Could Phill power Honda sales?

Could natural gas give Honda some gas?

Yesterday, John Herrington, a former head of the U.S. Department of Energy, spoke about the importance of natural gas for California as an alternative fuel at the unveiling of a new CalSTEP program promoting alternative transportation fuels.

"Natural gas is an extremely low carbon fuel that is domestically produced," Herrington said. "It provides proven near-zero emission benefits unlike diesel or gasoline-powered vehicles, and is competitively priced at about $1.85 per gallon at our Clean Energy fuel stations."

Today, in California, only the Honda Civic GX still qualifies for HOV access, unlike any hybrid cars which have met their quota. Additionally, the Civic GX qualifies for a $4000 federal tax credit. Moreover, if GX buyers purchase Phill, the natural gas home refueling appliance, GX users can qualify for another $1000 tax credit.

It will be interesting to watch whether Honda can make any gains with Phill and the Civic GX under this new CalSTEP program.

The Big 3 Beggars?

Unlike Toyota, GM and DaimlerChrysler have not sold 1 full hybrid car in America

"The opening round of congressional hearings this year on global warming and alternative fuels showed one fact is clear: The climate for automakers on Capitol Hill is becoming increasingly unforgiving," claims the DetroitNews this morning.

Good. Can automakers blame Congress?

According to GM, the Big 3 doesn't need an increase in CAFE, they need more money - much, much more money. Yet, the Big 3 have already been given billions to produce vehicles like the EV1 and hybrid cars, yet what has America received in return?

Increased foreign oil dependency. (READ MORE)

Mad Money Host Calls for Gas Tax

O.K., I've been talking up the idea of a gas tax for a couple weeks now. Still, I know it's a crazy idea. It's so crazy I was originally against the idea, but I'm starting to feel maybe America needs to get a little crazy, especially at the consumer level. Then, as I'm flipping through TV stations, I catch Jim Cramer on Scarborough Country calling for a gas tax. "If you believe in national security, then we need oil higher not lower," Cramer told the host. Ultimately, Cramer said if natural forces don't take oil prices higher, then a gas tax is the next best path because only higher oil prices are going to force us to change.

Let's do it. I say we tax gasoline, which would make alternative fuels more competitive, and we can use the gas tax revenue to fund hybrid cars and other clean vehicle technologies.

BMW: Hydrogen highway still decades away

"BMW says hydrogen-powered cars are 30 years off, at least in terms of being available to the masses—and yes, I know, they just introduced a hydrogen-power 7-Series model. This 30-year prediction is much more pessimistic than the already pessimistic GM's 10-year prediction." (more)

When such a time frame is realized, it seems obvious that everything that can be done today, better be done today. Hybrid cars offer huge gains in efficiency, they can utilize any of the alternative fuels being developed including hydrogen, and hybrids can help develop fuel cells. Or, we can just wait 30 years.

Congress: Flex-fuel plug-in hybrids not flex-fuel guzzlers

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.

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.

Tax incentives for hybrids, or oil companies?

Even in the final days of the current Republican led Congress, tax incentives for oil drillers are still of extreme importance. Even in these days of astronomical oil company profits, more tax incentives for oil companies are still far more important than tax incentives for hybrid cars and other clean vehicle technologies.

If filthy-profit rich oil companies can't afford to do more Gulf drilling without tax incentives, then too bad. If that means higher gas prices in the short term, then I guess it will just make alternative fuels and hybrid cars that much more cost-effective. Besides, the more we invest in alternative fuels and clean vehicle technologies, the less we'll have to be worried about the price of oil in the long term.

Vinod Khosla believes private funds can develop alternative energy?

Vinod Khosla, a very wealthy venture capitalist whom is making huge investments in the ethanol industry, believes that private funds can mostly drive the transition from oil to clean energy. Of course Khosla believes that ethanol is the best path to alternative energy. Still, while Khosla claims private funds can fund much of the switch to alternative fuels, it seems - inevitably - the government would have to become significantly involved nonetheless. So, private funds apparently cannot fund the switch to alternative energy? Is that double speak?

(Source: Reuters)

American automakers need to embrace change and adaptability - something E85 doesn't provide

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.

Don't expect Democrats to change much about 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."

Could ethanol become a boondoggle?

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.

"The hybrid is the basis" for fuel cell vehicles?!

"The hybrid is the basis," said Robert Stempel, chairman and CEO of Energy Conversion Devices Inc., which develops batteries used in hybrid cars. "It gets the electric drive on the vehicle. Once you have the electric drive there, then you really don't care if you have the gasoline engine or diesel or fuel cells. The key is that electric drive." (more)

So, why haven't American automakers been more bullish on hybrid vehicles? If hybrids help create the necessary powertrain for fuel cell vehicles, doesn't hybrid production ultimately help reduce the costs for fuel cell production? Moreover, other fuel cell makers have argued that plug-in fuel cell hybrid vehicles could also speed fuel cell development by enabling smaller - thus cheaper - fuel cells to help power the vehicle.

Are American automakers really going to compete in the world auto market by focusing on alternative fuels?

I say technology is the only answer, and it seems American automakers are already missing the boat. C'mon GM and Ford, it's OUR future! Give us foreign-oil dependency, fuel cell investing American-made hybrid vehicles and ask those jackasses in Washington to help foot the bill.

Honda closer to cellulosic ethanol

"Honda and the Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth, a nonprofit entity set up by the Japanese government and private enterprises, said the new method allows large volumes of ethanol to be produced from widely available waste wood, rice straw, leaves and other so-called soft biomass that is currently discarded". (more)

Though I'm not a huge supporter of ethanol, I'm excited about the prospects of cellulosic ethanol. It's not that I believe ethanol, even cellulosic ethanol, provides a complete solution, but it does offer a nice competitor to gasoline in the short term. Still, I wish automakers, especially the American ones, focused more on technology and less on alternative fuels. In reality, I believe the time for biofuels was several decades ago.

Now is the time for hybrid cars, then plug-in hybrid cars, followed by plug-in fuel cell hybrid cars. Still, each of the preceding hybrids could also use cellulosic ethanol as a fuel.

Solar Power: Picking up Energy?

"By the year 2010 we'll be able to halve generation costs," Sharp President Katsuhiko Machida told Reuters in an interview on Thursday. "By 2020 we expect a further reduction -- half of 2010 -- and by 2030 we expect half the 2020 level. By 2030 the cost will be comparable to electricity produced by a nuclear power plant." (more)

Even more interesting, Mr. Machida also predicted that fossil fuels would be largely depleted by 2030.

So, where is America in this battle for clean energy supremacy? If America is the largest consumer of energy, why is Japan leading the way with hybrid cars and solar power? America has the most to lose with fossil fuels and the most to gain with alternative energy.

What ever happened to American innovation?

$2.00 gas is better for oil companies than gas companies

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?

Will Supply and Demand catch up to alternative fuels?

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?

GM versus Toyota: Fuel versus Automobiles

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)

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.

'A Prius in every pot': Not a kind smell

"It's taken over five years, but George W. Bush finally made a concession speech to Al Gore.

He conceded that America needs to conserve, by buying hybrid vehicles and developing new energy sources."

This is the lead to Maureen Dowd's A Prius in Every Pot editorial originally posted in the NY Times, in which Mrs. Dowd blames the entire gas crisis on Republicans, particularly Dick Cheney.

Just to be clear, Bush has been on the hybrid band wagon for at least year, even promoting plug-in hybrids last year, but why haggle over facts?

So, Mrs. Dowd would have us believe that Republicans like Cheney, Bush etc. would screw over Americans to make their oil co-conspirators rich at the expense of the entire Republican Party? So, these very rich Republicans are not only selling out their Presidential legacies, but the entire Republican Party, for a little more money?

That's just silly, especially since the current price of oil is decided in the open markets.

Certainly, Republicans deserve a great amount of blame for not helping to promote alternative fuels or alternative technologies, such as hybrid cars earlier. Democrats, on the other hand, deserve considerable blame for protecting the Unions of inefficient, gas-guzzling producing American auto companies.

For decades many Democrats have regularly joined Republicans, including recently, to prevent an increase in CAFE because they knew union members would lose their jobs.

More important, American citizens deserve much blame for not being more fuel efficient. When Europe pays $5.00 for a gallon of gas, did we really believe we could pay just $2.00 forever while always increasing our demand?

And to be fair, just what did President Clinton accomplish to reduce America's average fuel economy in his 8 years? According to statistics, nothing.

O.K., since gas prices weren't that high then, Americans didn't really care about this issue, so we just guzzled more gas. Was this also Bush and Cheney's fault?

Let's not forget, gas-guzzler sales really took off during the Clinton Administration, when Dowd's hero, Al Gore, was in office.

Inevitably, too many Americans, including most members of Congress, waste energy and guzzle gas. Earlier today I posted an article about how the members of Congress contribute to gas-guzzling. Most members of Congress are horrible conservationists and most drive gas-guzzlers, regardless of party.

With this kind of leadership to follow, is there really any wonder why America is in this energy crisis?

Inevitably, Democrats, Republicans, automakers, and many American citizens share the blame for America's oil problems. Too bad professional mudslingers, such as Mrs. Dowd, can't be more open-minded, dare I say fair-minded, for it is precisely this type of myopic, provincial vision that has caused this crisis in the first place.

Most in Congress lazy gas-guzzlers?

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?

Peugeot-Citroen hybrid vehicles by 2010 twice as efficient as Prius

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 lead the green revolution?

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?"

Read the Full Story

Bi-partisan support for 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.

Do Americans care enough to end oil dependence?

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?"

Solar thermal energy the key to solar power?

Solar roof panels are an excellent technology. When the cost of pollution is factored into the expense of solar technology, it's clear that solar technology is for real and worth the costs. Unfortunately, especially in America, upfront costs are all that matters, and on the face of it standard electricity or even wind power and bio-mass appear much cheaper.

Solar thermal energy could help change those up front costs; however. Rather than just collecting solar power via solar panels, solar thermal energy uses the sun to create steam that powers turbines.

Fred Mayes, an alternative energy expert at the U.S. Energy Information Administration, said that solar thermal is pricey compared with wind energy and fuel from biomass. But it does have advantages, he said. Power from the desert sun is more reliable than wind power during the day -- the time of peak prices. And unlike biomass fuels, it emits no greenhouse gases. (MSNBC)

In the long run, the benefits of clean energy simply cannot be over-stated and those benefits justify the investment in solar energy.

Record oil profits? Let's Build Hemp Powered Hybrid Vehicles

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.

Hybrid cars and the future: What a typewriter can teach us.

Over the weekend I've been contemplating the article, Despite car show hype, hybrids, diesels will remain marginal.

Not only does the article dismiss hybrid cars, diesels and small autos, but even fuel cell vehicles, which is contrary to the typical hybrid critic. Many critics call hybrids an interim step to fuel cells - a distraction if you will - but they do see a changing market. While I disagree, seeing hybrids as an essential step toward fuel cell hybrid vehicles, that's not the point.

Mr. Winton, the author of the article, seems to think nothing will change and that America will forever be dominated by the size of the motor, not fuel efficiency. Now Mr.Winton does note that gas prices have to remain at $2.00 per gallon for his future to take place.

I say the days of $2.00 gas are long over, which immediately calls into question the entire logic of Mr. Winton.

This year, $3.00+ gasoline will become commonplace in many parts of the U.S. for an extended period of time - possibly forever - and the possibility of spikes as high as $4.00 or $5.00 are almost a certainty. This alone could significantly affect demand for hybrid vehicles and other alternative fuels, etc.

With significant hurricane activity expected the next several years, combined with limited oil refinery capacity and ever-increasing world demand, higher gasoline prices are inevitable for America.

But that isn't the whole story.

Environmental concerns and foreign oil dependency could also push many more Americans to completely rethink their vehicles and the relationship their vehicle has to world politics. Still, that isn't even the whole story.

I'm a Gen-X'er and I've grown up around computers. The way computer technology has advanced and become 'dirt' cheap in the last 20 years is truly mind-bending.

Well, hybrid technology is largely dependent upon the very same computer technology.

Hybrids will become cheaper; however, they will never match the cost of conventional vehicles. That is probably a fact. Nonetheless, as hybrid technology becomes cheaper, it will also become significantly more powerful.

This means that hybrids will not only offer significantly more fuel efficiency than their conventional counterparts in the next generations - more easily justifying the cost difference - but they will offer far more speed and power at the same time. That is the nature of computer technology.

Mr. Winton can continue to write about the marginality of hybrid cars on his typewriter, but hybrids, just as personal computers 20 years ago, are simply a young, barely-tapped, emerging technology. In 10 years hybrid technology will evolve significantly. Gasoline engine technology; on the other hand, will have changed about as much as, well, typewriter technology in the last 20 years.

Clean diesel and hybrid technology: Let's work together

DaimlerChrylser is nowhere to be seen in the segment of hybrid cars. Why? They say clean diesel is better (more)

So is hybrid technology less important than clean diesel technology?

An interesting place to find an answer to that question is Europe. Europe is all about diesel, and in France, diesel is seen as the short term answer, but diesel hybrid vehicles are seen as the next step before fuel cells. (more)

Why? Because diesel hybrids would still be 20 - 30 percent more fuel efficient than clean diesel engines, and that is just with today's technology.

What the critics of hybrids are missing - in a huge way - is that experimental hybrids already demonstrate that is quite possible to achieve more than 200 mpg. When lithium-ion batteries take over NiMH batteries for use in hybrid cars, everything will change.

To assume that won't happen would be like assuming computers wouldn't overtake calculators.

The fact is, hybrid technology is just emerging, and the potential of hybrid technology has barely been tapped.

In reality, in the next decade, a diesel hybrid that achieves more than 200 mpg is completely feasible and cost effective. Within this same period, a completely feasible fuel cell vehicle will still cost more than $100,000.00.

In a decade, the potential of clean diesel technology simply won't be in the same league as hybrid technology.

Still, even if clean diesel is 20 or 30 percent more efficient than standard gasoline engines, diesel still costs almost a $1.00 more per gallon in California.

How cost effective is that?

Related

Hybrid cars versus biodiesel

Peugeot hybrids: The days of hybrid hype are over

In the past there has been a lot of indifference coming from Europe regarding hybrid vehicles, but that sentiment seems to be changing. According to Reuters, "France's second-biggest carmaker said on Thursday it would show off a Peugeot 307 and a Citroen C4 demonstration car with a hybrid diesel system on January 31."

"The announcement coincides with a call by French President Jacques Chirac to develop such cars within 10 years."

Both GM and Ford have both developed diesel hybrids and Toyota has announced numerous times that their hybrid vehicles can function with gasoline engines, diesel engines, or even hydrogen engines.

If hybrid technology is just hype, why is automaker after automaker investing more and more into hybrid development?

I think it has become obvious that hybrids are not hype, as hybrid technology will also be important for fuel cell vehicles. Hybrids are more than just an interim step to fuel cells. In fact, hybrids are even more than a bridge to fuel cells, for hybrid technology is an integral piece of fuel cell vehicle technology. At this point in time, fuel cell vehicles WILL also be hybrid vehicles.

Those automakers calling hybrids hype are simply trying to buy time as they recover from their lack of leadership and vision. The days of hybrid hype are over.

Fuel cell hybrid vehicles: The next step for hybrids?

Already, Toyota is claiming that its hybrid cars will eventually become fuel cell cars. In essence, hybrid vehicles are providing the foundation for fuel cell automobiles. A recent article demonstrates that Ford is also starting to follow this path. "The FCV [Ford Fusion FCV] is a hybrid car that uses a fuel cell powertrain supplied by Ballard Power Systems Inc. as well as a nickel metal-hydride battery pack and a brake-by-wire electrohydraulic regenerative braking system."

If this is true, what is the foundation of most hybrid critics?

Hybrids, such as the Prius or the Escape hybrid, can achieve amazing fuel efficiency and clean emissions today, but the potential of such hybrids is barely being tapped. Better hybrid batteries, diesel hybrids or bio-diesel hybrids, demonstrate that we can change the world - in terms of foreign oil dependency and clean air - and we don't have to wait for fuel cells.

Nonetheless, as fuel cell breakthroughs do occur, we can convert hybrids into fuel cell hybrid vehicles.

Is it just because GM isn't leading the way that hybrids are so criticized? I know they have an amazingly huge marketing budget, but is that enough reason for critics to wear such blinders?

Corn-based diesel set for explosive gains?

According to my October issue of Popular Science Magazine, just 0.5 gallon "of an experimental corn-based diesel - now in the works at the University of Wisconsin - can produce as much energy as one gallon of ethanol."

Yet, flex fuel ethanol-gasoline engines seem to to be the rage in Congress, according to a recent Autoweek article. Why are we picking the most inefficient path? While I'm not opposed to ethanol-gasoline engines, ethanol-diesel engines seem to offer even more potential. AutoWeek even cites Brazil as a success, however, doesn't Brazil use ethanol-diesel flexible fuel engines (more)?

Once again it appears that American politicians are stuck in the status quo and completely unable to think outside-of-the-box.

Additionally, merging flexible fuel technology with hybrid vehicle technology could create vehicles that not only end foreign oil dependency, but hedge consumers against spikes in fuel prices. For example, in Brazil ethanol fuels are sometimes more expensive than diesel and the flexible fuel engine; therefore, provides choice to Brazilian consumers when drought raises the price of ethanol.

Flexible fuel diesel hybrids offers consumers a great range of fuel choices, including ethanol, diesel, bio-diesel, regenerative electric, or even solar. Why do we stop so short? All of the above technologies could be combined to achieve unbelievable levels of clean and fuel efficient performance, at a fraction of the cost of fuel cells. Some of these experimental hybrids have already been developed.

So what's the problem?

Hybrids and biodiesel: A powerful combination

Earlier this week I made a post that paired off hybrid cars and bio-diesel vehicles (Read the article). Every time I write something about bio-diesel, I seem to offend some bio-diesel proponents. Still, I'm glad there are so many fans of bio-diesel because I DO believe this fuel offers immense possibilities to reduce foreign oil dependency.

While I ultimately believe that hybrid technology is more important than bio-diesel, I also believe that a bio-diesel hybrid would make the best hybrid vehicle, except for a solar-plug-in-biodiesel hybrid vehicle.

Of course, today, there simply aren't enough hybrids to make much of a difference in fighting foreign oil dependency, which highlights why bio-diesel is so important right now.

Tomorrow; however, today's 30 or 40 mpg bio-diesel cars could be 100, 200, or even 500 mpg plug-in-bio-diesel hybrids, and that is why it is so important that we invest in hybrid technology.

The focus of alternative energy and fuels shouldn't be on hybrids OR bio-diesel, but hybrids AND bio-diesel, especially bio-diesel hybrid vehicles.

(Click here for more on experimental hybrid vehicles)

The future of hybrids according to automotive engineers

The Society of Automotive Engineers is in Detroit this week for its 100th annual congress, and "the fuel economy of new cars and trucks has become a top concern again," the DetroitNews is reporting. Today, one panel is exploring the latest trends in gas-electric hybrid powertrains. The hybrid car niche, according to experts interviewed by the DetroitNews, is now drawing the interest of companies outside of the automotive field. "There's a lot of interest out there just below the surface trying to figure out if this is real," stated Thad Malesh, an economist with the Automotive Technology Research Group.

Other top topics at the congress include alternative fuels, fuel cells, and improvements in diesel and conventional engines.