Although Scientific American is a consumer publication, its editorial
processes are more like those of rigorous professional
scientific/academic journals. Anything that goes into this
161-year-old magazine is exhaustively examined and "vetted."

Thus, it's a major signal that hybrid cars have arrived when an
article called "Hybrid Vehicles Gain Traction" appears on pages 72-79
of the April 2006 issue (now on new-stands). That's also true for
plug-in hybrids when the cover promotes the article with the phrase
"Plugged-In Hybrid Cars." This article provides a superb overview of
hybrid technology, Then it positions PHEVs as the logical outcome of
the evolution of advanced technology vehicles, and explains their
benefits. We present a few excerpts below.

The article is written by two leading experts on
energy/transportation policy and practice:
* Josep J. Romm, principal with Capital E
<http://www.cap-e.com/mission>, a consulting firm providing
"integrated intelligence and strategic investment advice on
distributed energy." He's an MIT-trained physicist, former US Energy
Dept. Acting Assistant Secretary, and author of "The Hype about
Hydrogen: Fact and Fiction in the Race to Save the Climate.
* Andrew A. Frank, Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering Professor,
University of California at Davis and Director of the Advanced Hybrid
Vehicle Research Center ,http://www.team-fate.net>. He a University
of Southern California-trained engineer, the creator of the first and
the most plug-in hybrid prototypes, and a long-time advisor to CalCars.

We encourage you to get the article (with not-to-be-missed graphics)
-- for yourself and others. Newsstand price is $4.95. Online, you can
register and pay $5 with a credit card to download a PDF of the
article (you can also get the cover and table of contents). At
<http://www.sciamdigital.com>, look for the link to the April 2006
issue. Here are some selections:

TITLE: "Hybrid Vehicles Gain Traction"
As car buyers turn to fuel-sipping gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles,
a new generation of greener hybrids is just coming over the horizon

By then [2010], next generation technology, called plug-in hybrids
will offer motorists still better fuel efficiency as well as other
perks: low-cost battery recharging overnight by simply connecting a
120-volt plug to an electrical outlet at home or work, very few trips
to the gas station each year, and even the chance to sell surplus
power back to the electric grid. Beyond the consumer benefits,
however, the new plug-ins would help reduce the release of greenhouse
gases by displacing emissions from millions of tailpipes to utility
power plants. Today these facilities burn domestically supplied coal
or natural gas, and in the future they should generate cleaner
electricity from energy sources such as wind, solar or even advanced
fossil-fuel systems that capture carbon dioxide for underground storage.

Some makers of full hybrids, such as Toyota and Ford, have replaced
the standard Otto cycle engine used in most gasoline-powered cars
with a more fuel-thrifty configuration based on the Atkinson cycle. A
modern Atkinson cycle engine uses electronic controls and
intake-valve timing to achieve greater expansion of the fuel/air
mixture burning in the cylinder, thereby allowing the power plant to
make more efficient use of the fuel. Engineers had only rarely used
the Atkinson cycle before because its greater fuel economy comes at
the expense of power output; however, in a hybrid, the electric motor
can make up for the lost power. In highway driving, the Atkinson
engine, combined with the energy savings from braking regeneration,
can yield an overall hybrid system efficiency better than that of the
modern diesel engine -- the leading internal combustion engine in this regard.

Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles combine the best of electric and
hybrid-drive technologies...What is more, these plug-in hybrids
should not be much more complex, heavy or pricey than present hybrid
models. First, their internal combustion engines will shrink as their
electric motors and batteries grow. Second, batteries and electronic
components have been steadily dropping in price.

A conventional auto costs about 12 cents a mile to operate at current
gasoline prices. A plug-in hybrid could run on electrons at three
cents a mile using electricity costing about eight cents a
kilowatt-hour, the current average residential rate. And given that
half of American cars travel only 25 miles a day or less, a plug-in
with a battery capable of providing power for a 20-mile range could
cut petroleum-based fuel consumption by as much as 60 percent. Even a
long-distance commuter driving a plug-in hybrid could go most of a
typical day on less expensive electricity stored in an advanced
batter that was topped up overnight via a conventional wall socket
and partially recharged at work during the day.

Plug-in hybrids offer other unique benefits....One can speculate that
a utility might lease a plug-in hybrid to a consumer or business
willing to leave the vehicle connected when it was not on the road
and to permit the utility to control when the vehicle's batter was
charged and discharged depending on its generation or
voltage-regulation needs. Such an arrangement would help utilities
with load balancing, for instance.

For policymakers concerned about global warming, plug-in hybrids hold
an edge over another highly touted green vehicle technology --
hydrogen cars. Plug-ins would be better at utilizing zero-carbon
electricity because the overall hydrogen fueling process is
inherently costly and inefficient. Any effective hydrogen economy
would require an infrastructure that could use zero-carbon power to
electrolyze water into hydrogen, convey this highly diffuse gas long
distances, and pump it at high pressure into the car -- all for the
purpose of converting the hydrogen back into electricity in a fuel
cell to drive an electric motor. The entire process of electrolysis,
transportation, pumping and fuel-cell conversion would leave only
about 20 to 25 percent of the original zero-carbon electricity to
drive the motor. In a plug-in hybrid, the process of electricity
transmission, charging an onboard battery would leave 75 to 80
percent of the original electricity to drive the motor. Thus a
plug-in should be able to travel three to four times farther on a
kilowatt-hour of renewable electricity than a hydrogen fuel cell could.

If current trends in fuel costs and concerns about climate change
continue, we expect a broad market transition around the year 20020,
when hybrids are likely to become a option for most models.
Relatively soon thereafter, we believe plug-in hybrids will probably
become the dominant alternative-fuel vehicle, with the speed of that
progress determined primarily by oil price rises and government
policy on climate change and energy security. Whenever the world's
transportation system finally moves to replace oil as its main power
source, the most plausible car design would be a flexible-fuel,
plug-in hybrid vehicle running on a combination of zero-carbon
electricity and a biofuel blend. If the performance of batteries were
to improve substantially at some point, drivers might then gradually
switch to all-electric cars. It makes senses for us to adopt this
highly practical personal transportation technology as expeditiously
as possible.

WHERE TO EXPLORE
- The Car and Fuel of the Future, Joseph Romm, Report for the
Natiional Commission on Energy Policy. Available at:
http://www.energyandclimate.org
- Driving the Solution: The Plug-In Hybrid Vehicle. Lucy Sanna in
EPRI Journal Fall 2005. Available at http://www.epri.com or
http://mydocs.epri.com/docs/CorporateDocuments/EPRI_Journal/2005-Fall/1012885_PH\
EV.pdf
- To learn more about plug-ins, visit http://www.calcars.org
- To learn more about hybrids, visit http://www.hybridcars.com
- Andrew A. Frank's technical articles on plug-ins can be found at
http://www.team-fate.net

--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
          http://www.calcars.org/news-index.html
      http://www.hybridcars.com/blogs/power
            http://www.eaa-phev.org
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --

Most people noticed when the President started talking about PHEVs.
That's only one of many major recent developments. In the past two
months, much has happened to confirm the still-growing momentum for
PHEVs. Here are some key milestones:

* Jan-Feb: Major media endorsements: NYTimes editorial board,
influential NYT columnists Thomas Friedman and Nicholas Kristof,
coverage in Wall St. Journal, The Economist, Good Morning America,
NPR All Things Considered, the Charlie Rose Show, the Colbert Report, etc.
* Jan 24: Plug-In Partners launches national campaign (evolved out of
Plug-In Austin) at all-star Washington, DC press conference, gaining
commitments by the Mayors of Baltimore, Boston, Dallas, Denver, Fort
Worth, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Salt Lake City, San Francisco,
Seattle and others.
* Jan 31: President at State of the Union announces Advanced Energy
Initiative, including PHEVs
* Feb. 7: Leading global warming expert James Hansen calls PHEVs
"best bet" for controlling vehicle CO2 emissions in short-term.
* Feb. 16 Ford Exec VP-Europe Louis Booth endorses research on PHEVs.
* Feb. 16: Japanese Auto Research Institute holds workshop on PHEVs
including presentations by Toyota, Japanese, French and US government
officials.
* Feb. 16: US Army and Marines PHEV development programs described in
USA Today.
* Feb 21: President tours Wisconsin battery factory, sees Escape
Hybrid, describes plug-in hybrids as "an amazing technological breakthrough."
* Feb. 21: Hymotion, an Ontario company, becomes second firm to
announce after-market PHEV conversions. In addition to Toyota Prius,
they will offer the Ford Escape Hybrid as vehicles to which they will
add additional batteries and grid-charging. Hymotion's focus will be
fleet sales.
* March 4: Senate Republican and Democratic leaders introduce
legislation to give PHEVs the same levels of business tax writeoffs
as large SUVs.
* March 9: X-PRIZE announces it will follow its space flight prize
with a clean cars competition.
OEMs.

Looking ahead:
* April 22: CalCars will conduct a public conversion of a Prius at
the O'Reilly Media Maker Faire in San Mateo CA on Earth Day weekend.
This will be fully documented and may enable advanced
do-it-yourselfers around the country to then do their own conversions
of Priuses.
* We're anticipating a new round of media coverage for PHEVs
* We'll have other important announcements later this month.

1. For more on any of these, see our summaries at
http://www.calcars.org/news-index.html>.
2. For computer-viewable versions of the TV and radio reports, see
<http://www.calcars.org/audio-video.html>.
3. Post your comments at blog,
<http://www.hybridcars.org/blogs/power/phev-momentum>.

--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
          http://www.calcars.org/news-index.html
      http://www.hybridcars.com/blogs/power
            http://www.eaa-phev.org
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --

Last night to he Georgia Republic Party's President's Day Dinner.
Today to the 45th annual Government Affairs Conference of the
National Newspaper Association. This national association of
community newspapers. with over 2,500 members, is the largest
newspaper association in the U.S.
See also comments since State of Union at
http://www.hybridcars.com/blogs/power/state-of-union-now-what
and since his "energy trip: at
http://www.hybridcars.com/blogs/power/pres-bush-endorses-phevs-amazing-breakthro\
ugh

By the way, we knew that a phtoo of our PRIUS+ was featured in the
Advanced Energy Initiative's online pages at
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2006/energy/index.html>;
it turns out it's also in the glossy 20-page brochure the White House
is distributing -- you can download it at that URL.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060309-10.html
March 9, 2006
President's Remarks at Georgia Republican Party's President's Day Dinner
Georgia International Convention Center, College Park, Georgia
Part of shaping our future is to make sure we're not hooked on oil. I
know that sounds odd for a Texan to say. (Laughter.) But if you see
the world from my perspective, I think you would agree with me. Being
addicted to oil is a problem. When demand for hydrocarbons or fossil
fuels goes up in developing parts of the world, it causes the price
of gasoline to go up here at home. When parts of the world that don't
like the United States of America threaten to withhold supplies of
oil from the market, it creates a national security problem. And so
I'm looking forward to working with Congress to diversify away from
oil, to spend money on research and development so we can have
plug-in hybrid automobiles that can drive the fist 40 miles on
electricity, to spend money to make sure that our technologies are
able to help us develop ethanol. Look, we want our farmers in Georgia
growing crops that can run our automobiles. We need to become less
dependent on foreign sources of oil in order to be a competitive
nation. (Applause.)

We need nuclear power and solar power and wind power. In order for
this country to be competitive in the out years, in order for us to
be confident about our national security, we have got to be less
addicted to Middle Eastern oil, and I intend to lead that country
this direction [sic]. (Applause.)

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/10/AR2006031000729\
.html>
President Bush Speaks to the National Newspaper Association
Courtesy CQ Transcripts Wire
Friday, March 10, 2006; 11:17 AM

We also need bipartisanship when it comes to energy.

I surprised some of you, and I'm sure some of my Texas friends here
were somewhat surprised to hear me say, "We're addicted to oil and
that's a problem."

(LAUGHTER)

And it is a problem. It's an economic problem, economic security problem.

When demand for fossil fuels goes up in India or China or elsewhere,
it affects the price of gasoline in Granbury, Texas.

BUSH: When I'm sitting around the Oval Office talking about national
security matters and someone says, "Did you see what the Iranians
said about consequences?" Really what they're talking about, I guess,
is energy.

So for national security purposes, we have got to become, you know,
not addicted to oil. And there are ways to do this: really
interesting ways, exciting new technologies. And Congress and the
administration needs to work together to fund those new technologies.

For example, it's possible to develop energy from sawgrass. We know
we can develop energy from sugar and corn; we're doing it in the
Midwest. Those of you in the Midwest have seen the advent of the E-85 pumps.

Well, we need to be able to get ethanol out of other forms of
biomass. And it's coming. We're close to some breakthroughs.

We want people driving cars from fuels grown in America. That's what we want.

There's going to be hybrid batteries being developed that will enable
you to plug in your car or your truck and you'll be able to drive the
first 40 miles on electricity. That's coming. It's called plug-in
hybrid vehicles. That's going to be a part of making sure we're not
addicted to oil.

Same on the electricity front. We can use wind power and electricity.
These are all coming to the market because of research. They're
becoming competitive forms of energy.

We need nuclear power, in my judgment. It's a renewable source of
energy that doesn't create greenhouse gases.

We're spending a lot of money, by the way, on clean coal technology.
We've got 250 years of coal here in the United States of America. And
we're developing technologies so that we can burn the coal cleanly.

In other words, we've got a comprehensive strategy to get us off oil.
And I'm looking forward to working with both Republicans and
Democrats to get this passed.

We don't generally send out every announcement about promising new
battery developments, but we are including this one because, as Green
Car Congress notes, we'recureently partnering with Electro Energy.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/03/altairnano_and_.html#more
Altairnano and Electro Energy to Partner on Lithium-Ion Batteries
Green Car Congress
8 March 2006

Altair Nanotechnologies and Electro Energy have entered into a
four-year Joint Development Agreement for the design, manufacture and
marketing of high-power lithium-ion batteries and battery systems.
Initial target markets consist of a variety of portable devices,
including hand-held power tool applications.

Under the terms of the agreement, Altairnano and Electro Energy will
jointly develop a new generation of rechargeable batteries based on
Altairnano's advanced nano-structured electrode materials (earlier
post) and Electro Energy's patented bi-polar cell design (earlier post).

Altairnano's rapid charge Lithium Titanate Spinel electrode
nanomaterials promise a recharge time of approximately 30 to 45
minutes. Electro Energy's bi-polar design is more compact, exhibits
higher power capability, and presumably will be lower in cost that
the conventional cylindrical and prismatic designs.

Electro Energy is currently working with CalCars on a custom
prototype battery pack based on the bi-polar NiMH batteries for use
in CalCars's Prius+ plug-in hybrid testbed.

Both companies believe that the combined technologies will create a
range of new lithium ion batteries that are expected to deliver
improved functionality and cost performance.


http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/060308/0112477.html

Press Release   Source: Altair Nanotechnologies, Inc.
Altair Nanotechnologies Partners With Electro Energy to Develop and
Manufacture New Generation, High Power Lithium Ion Batteries
Wednesday March 8, 10:15 am ET

Targeting Portable Devices and Hand Held Power Tool Markets

RENO, NV and DANBURY, CT--(MARKET WIRE)--Mar 8, 2006 -- Altair
Nanotechnologies Inc. (NasdaqSC:ALTI - News) and Electro Energy, Inc.
(NasdaqSC:EEEI - News) today announced that they have entered into a
four-year Joint Development Agreement for the design, manufacture and
marketing of high power lithium ion batteries and battery systems.
Initial target markets consist of a variety of portable devices,
including hand-held power tool applications.

Under the terms of the agreement, Altairnano and Electro Energy will
jointly develop a new generation of rechargeable batteries based on
Altairnano's advanced nano-structured electrode materials and Electro
Energy's patented bipolar cell design. Both companies believe that
the combined technologies will create a range of new lithium ion
batteries that are expected to enable, for example, hand-held power
tool manufacturers to deliver end user products with improved
functionality and cost performance. If the companies are successful
in developing these new lithium ion battery products, power tools
using these batteries are expected to weigh less, recharge in minutes
versus hours, and have a significantly improved cycle life.

Sales of the new battery products will be governed by a marketing and
sales agreement, the terms of which will be agreed upon by the parties.

"Altairnano's nano-structured lithium ion electrode materials provide
an outstanding combination of performance properties including rapid
charge, increased power, long life and safety," commented Altairnano
President and CEO Alan J. Gotcher, Ph.D. "The Joint Development
Agreement with Electro Energy presents both companies with
considerable opportunities to capture markets demanding battery
performance with significantly more power and energy in extreme
environments. Electro Energy has strong relationships with leading
manufacturers of cordless power tools as well as organizations within
the military and aerospace industry. The battery performance
requirements within these markets may provide excellent commercial
opportunities for Altairnano's battery materials and products," added Gotcher.

"We currently manufacture and market batteries and battery packs for
complex applications with high power battery requirements," said
Electro Energy's President Michael E. Reed. "Over the last two years
we have been developing lithium ion rechargeable batteries and we
believe that Altairnano's innovative battery materials technology,
integrated with our bipolar battery design, can provide a new
generation of high power rechargeable batteries with highly desirable
price and performance."

ABOUT ELECTRO ENERGY INC.

Electro Energy Inc., headquartered in Danbury, Connecticut, was
founded in 1992 to develop, manufacture and commercialize
high-powered, rechargeable bipolar nickel-metal hydride batteries for
use in a wide range of applications. Its Colorado Springs operation
supplies aerospace-grade high quality nickel cadmium batteries and
components for satellites, aircraft and other specialty applications.
Electro Energy Inc. is developing high power lithium rechargeable
batteries utilizing the Company's proprietary design. Electro Energy
has announced plans to acquire significant manufacturing assets near
Gainesville, FL, in early 2006 to accelerate commercialization of its
battery technology. For additional information on Electro Energy
visit www.electroenergyinc.com

ABOUT ALTAIR NANOTECHNOLOGIES INC.

Altairnano is a leading supplier and innovator of advanced ceramic
nanomaterial technology. Based in Reno, Nevada, Altairnano has
assembled a unique team of materials scientists who, coupled in
collaborative ventures with industry partners and leading academic
centers, have pioneered an array of intellectual property and products.

Altairnano's robust proprietary technology platforms produce a
variety of crystalline and non-crystalline nanomaterials of unique
structure, performance, quality and cost. Altairnano's two divisions,
Life Sciences and Performance Materials, are focused on applications
where its nanotechnology may enable new high growth markets. The Life
Sciences Division is pursuing market applications in pharmaceuticals,
drug delivery, dental materials and other medical markets. The
Performance Materials Division is focused on market applications in
advanced materials for paints and coatings, air and water treatment,
and alternative energy including new Li Ion battery electrode
materials. For additional information on Altairnano and its
nanomaterials, visit www.Altairnano.com



--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
          http://www.calcars.org/news-index.html
      http://www.hybridcars.com/blogs/power
            http://www.eaa-phev.org
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --

The X PRIZE Foundation is best-known for the $10M competition that
led to the 2004 flights of SpaceShip One. It's been exploring for
some time what might be involved in developing a prize for better
cars. We've had the opportunity to give our views and suggestions.
For the Foundation, it's a challenge to balance ways in incentivize
technology breakthroughs and steps to commercialization while
providing popular entertainment.

We're delighted that the Foundation has now made its first public
announcement of its intention to launch such a program. We have no
more details than anyone else about what, how or when -- that will
come from them! But we're hopeful that its structure and mechanism
will in some way contribute to the efforts to motivate automakers to
bring plug-in hybrid cars to market.

http://www.xprizefoundation.com/news/pr4_XPC_march6.asp?

SANTA MONICA, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 6, 2006--The X PRIZE
Foundation has announced that Mark Goodstein will join as Executive
Director of a new prize that will inspire entrepreneurial innovation
in the automotive industry.

"The X PRIZE is about changing paradigms," explains Goodstein. "The
current paradigm is that it's perfectly acceptable to drive a car
that only gets 20 or 30 miles per gallon. This prize is about
leveraging cash and opportunity to effect positive change in the
environment, economy and geopolitics."

Goodstein was a founder of GoTo.com, which became Overture Services
and is now Yahoo's search marketing company. He helped define and
launch this disruptive search engine company in 1996 creating $250
billion in market capitalization today.

"We are extremely excited to have Mark join X PRIZE," said Chairman
and Founder Peter Diamandis. "His proven leadership skills and
creative approach to problem solving will make for a very productive
and exciting competition."

Most recently, he founded X1 Technologies in 2002, helping to spark
the desktop search revolution. Along the way, X1 picked up awards and
plaudits of all kinds, including the coveted Technical Excellence
award from PC Magazine. He directed product and company strategy, and
was responsible for Yahoo's licensing X1 as its desktop search
product. He also started Intranets.com (purchased by WebEx) and
Blackdart, an office supplies e-commerce company, and served as the
general manager of a streaming media company called FasTV.

Goodstein has a degree in history from the University of Chicago.

The X PRIZE Foundation is an educational nonprofit organization. Its
mission is to create radical breakthroughs for the benefit of
humanity. Based on the success of the $10 million Ansari X PRIZE, the
foundation is widely regarded as the leading prize management
institute in the world. For more information please visit www.xprize.org.


Contacts
X PRIZE Foundation
Ian Murphy, 310-587-3355
Mobile: 310-689-6397
press@...



--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
          http://www.calcars.org/news-index.html
      http://www.hybridcars.com/blogs/power
            http://www.eaa-phev.org
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --

Here's how Green Car Congress reported on this event:
Senate Committee Hears Testimony on Approaches to
“Energy Independence,” with the Focus on Transportation

The US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources held a hearing on US Energy
Independence today, with testimony from four
witnesses: Amory Lovins, CEO of Rocky Mountain
Institute; R. James Woolsey; Susan Cischke, Ford
vice president of environmental and safety
engineering; and Frank Verrastro, Director and
Senior Fellow of the Energy Program at the Center
for Strategic and International Studies.

You can read Green Car's summary at:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/03/senate_committe.html#more

And below are our more extensive excerpts  (or
see the full testimony, from the index page at:
http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID\
=1534

We've included Woolsey's recommendations (updated
versions of extremely well-presented previous
statements), but skipped over much of his
analysis of the context; we've excerpted cautions
and doubts from Verrastro, and included all of
Lovins' relatively brief statement.

On Ford, we've included all of Cischke's
statement (which contains no mention of "advanced
hybrids" or anything pointing to PHEVs). Her
bottom line on hybrids is important to understanding Ford's viewpoint:
"Nevertheless, a key challenge facing hybrids is
the incremental costs ­ both in terms of higher
prices for components and engineering investments
­ that must be overcome for this technology to
transition from 'niche markets' to high-volume applications."
This points to our challenge: CalCars, Plug-In
Partners are demonstrating that the incremental
cost should not be the decisive factor. Fleet
buyers and individuals will pay for the
"environmental feature; people recognize the
concept of lower lifetime total cost of
ownership; incentives and benefits can reduce
first costs,. In these ways, societal benefits
(un-valued "externalities") will play a growing
factor in the future evolution of our automotive fleets.


http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Testimony&Hearing_\
ID=1534&Witness_ID=4342
The Honorable R. James Woolsey
U.S. Senate Committee on Energy
March 7, 2006
Energy Independence
Testimony of
R. James Woolsey

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee.  It’s
a real pleasure to appear before this Committee
today on this issue.  I am appearing solely on my
own behalf and represent no organization.  By way
of identification I served as Director of Central
Intelligence, 1993-95, one of the four
Presidential appointments I have held in two
Republican and two Democratic administrations;
these have been interspersed in a career that has
been generally in the private practice of law and
now in consulting.  A major share of the points I
will make today are drawn from an August 2005
paper by former Secretary of State, George P.
Shultz, and myself, although I have updated some
points due to more recent work;  the two of us
are Co-Chairmen of the Committee on the Present
Danger and the full paper may be found at the
Committee’s web site (www.fightingterror.org).

   Energy security has many facets – including
particularly the need for  improvements to the
electrical grid to correct vulnerabilities in
transformers and in the Supervisory Control and
Data (SCADA) systems.  But energy independence
for the US is in my view preponderantly a problem
related to oil and its dominant role in fueling
vehicles for transportation.  For other
countries, e.g. in Europe, energy independence
may be closely related to preventing Russia from
using against them the leverage that proceeds
from its control of the natural gas they need for
heating and electricity.  In the US, however, we
generally have alternative methods of producing
electricity and heat, albeit shifting fuels can
take time.  Some of these methods are superior to
others with respect to costs, pollutants, global
warning gas emissions, and other
factors.  Technological progress continues to
lead to reassessments of the proper mix – for
example, there appears to be progress in
affordably and reliably sequestering the carbon
captured during the operation of integrated
gasification combined cycle coal (IGCC)
plants.  And progress in battery technology to
improve the storage of electricity may help us
expand the use of renewables such as solar and
wind, which are clean but intermittent.  Change
is not easy in generating electricity, but we are
not locked in to a single source for it, for
heating, or for most other uses of energy.

Powering vehicles is different.

Just over four years ago, on the eve of 9/11, the
need to reduce radically our reliance on oil was
not clear to many and in any case the path of
doing so seemed a long and difficult one.  Today
both assumptions are being undermined by the
risks of the post-9/11 world, by oil prices, by
increased awareness of the vulnerability of the
oil infrastructure (as illustrated in the al
Qaeda attacks ten days ago on the large Saudi oil
facility at Abquaiq) and by technological
progress in fuel efficiency and alternative fuels.

   There are at least seven major reasons why
dependence on petroleum and its products for the
lion’s share of the world’s transportation fuel
creates special dangers in our time.  These
dangers are all driven by rigidities and
potential vulnerabilities that have become
serious problems because of the geopolitical
realities of the early 21st century.  Those who
reason about these issues solely on the basis of
abstract economic models that are designed to
ignore such geopolitical realities will find much
to disagree with in what follows.  Although such
models have utility in assessing the importance
of more or less purely economic factors in the
long run, as Lord Keynes famously remarked:  “In
the long run, we are all dead.”

   These dangers in turn give rise to two proposed
directions for government policy in order to
reduce our vulnerability rapidly.  In both cases
it is important that existing technology should
be used, i.e. technology that is already in the
market or can be so in the very near future and
that is compatible with the existing
transportation infrastructure.  To this end
government policies in the United States and
other oil-importing countries should:  (1)
encourage a shift to substantially more
fuel-efficient vehicles within the existing
transportation infrastructure, including
promoting both battery development and a market
for existing battery types for plug-in hybrid
vehicles; and (2) encourage biofuels and other
alternative and renewable fuels that can be
produced from inexpensive and widely-available
feedstocks -- wherever possible from waste products.

PETROLEUM DEPENDENCE: THE DANGERS:

1.  The current transportation infrastructure is
committed to oil and oil-compatible products.

   Petroleum and its products dominate the fuel
market for vehicular transportation.  This
dominance substantially increases the difficulty
of responding to oil price increases or
disruptions in supply by substituting other
fuels.  With the important exception, described
below, of a plug-in version of the hybrid
gasoline/electric vehicle, which will allow
recharging hybrids from the electricity grid,
substituting other fuels for petroleum in the
vehicle fleet as a whole has generally required
major, time-consuming, and expensive
infrastructure changes.  One exception has been
some use of liquid natural gas (LNG) and other
fuels for fleets of buses or delivery vehicles,
although not substantially for privately-owned
ones, and the use of corn-derived ethanol mixed
with gasoline in proportions up to 10 per cent
ethanol (“gasohol”) in some states.  Neither has
appreciably affected petroleum’s dominance of the transportation fuel market.

   Moreover, in the 1970’s about 20 per cent of
our electricity was made from oil – so shifting
electricity generation toward, say, renewables or
nuclear power could save oil.  But since today
only about three per cent of our electricity is
oil-generated, a shift in the way we produce
electricity would have almost no effect on the
transportation or oil market.  This could change
over the long run, however, with the advent of
plug-in hybrid vehicles, discussed below.

   There are imaginative proposals for
transitioning to other fuels for transportation,
such as hydrogen to power automotive fuel cells,
but this would require major infrastructure
investment and restructuring.  If privately-owned
fuel cell vehicles were to be capable of being
readily refueled, this would require reformers
(equipment capable of reforming, say, natural gas
into hydrogen) to be located at filling stations,
and would also require natural gas to be
available there as a hydrogen
feed-stock.  So  not only would fuel cell
development and technology for storing hydrogen
on vehicles need to be further developed, but the
automobile industry’s development and production
of fuel cells also would need to be coordinated
with the energy industry’s deployment of reformers and the fuel for them.

   Moving toward automotive fuel cells thus
requires us to face a huge question of pace and
coordination of large-scale changes by both the
automotive and energy industries. This poses a
sort of industrial Alphonse and Gaston
dilemma:  who goes through the door first?  (If,
instead, it were decided that existing fuels such
as gasoline were to be reformed into hydrogen on
board vehicles instead of at filling stations,
this would require on-board reformers to be
developed and added to the fuel cell vehicles
themselves – a very substantial undertaking.)

   It is because of such complications that the
National Commission on Energy Policy concluded in
its December, 2004, report “Ending The Energy
Stalemate”  (“ETES”) that “hydrogen offers little
to no potential to improve oil security and
reduce climate change risks in the next twenty years.” (p. 72)

   To have an impact on our vulnerabilities within
the next decade or two, any competitor of
oil-derived fuels will need to be compatible with
the existing energy infrastructure and require
only modest additions or amendments to it.

2.  The Greater Middle East will continue to be
the low-cost and dominant petroleum producer for the foreseeable future.
<snip>
3.   The petroleum infrastructure is highly
vulnerable to terrorist and other attacks.
<snip>
4.   The possibility exists, both under some current regimes and among those
that could come to power in the Greater Middle
East, of embargoes or other disruptions of supply.
<snip>
5.   Wealth transfers from oil have been used,
and continue to be used, to fund terrorism and Its ideological support.
<snip>
6.   The current  account deficits for the US and
a number of other countries create risks ranging
from major world economic disruption to deepening
poverty, and could be substantially reduced by reducing oil imports.
<snip>
7.   Global-warming gas emissions from man-made
sources create at least the risk of climate change.
<snip>

THREE PROPOSED DIRECTIONS FOR POLICY:

   The above considerations suggest that
government policies with respect to the vehicular
transportation market should point in the following directions:

   1.  Encourage improved vehicle mileage, using technology now in production.
   The following three technologies are available
to improve vehicle mileage substantially:

Diesels

   First, modern diesel vehicles are coming to be
capable of meeting rigorous emission standards
(such as Tier 2 standards, being introduced into
the U.S., 2004-08).  In this context it is
possible without compromising environmental
standards to take advantage of diesels’
substantial mileage advantage over
gasoline-fueled internal combustion engines.

   Heavy penetration of diesels into the private
vehicle market in Europe is one major reason why
the average fleet mileage of such new vehicles is
42 miles per gallon in Europe and only 24 mpg in
the US.  Although the U.S. has, since 1981,
increased vehicle weight by 24 per cent and
horsepower by 93 per cent, it has actually
somewhat lost ground with respect to mileage over
that near-quarter century.  In the 12 years from
1975 to 1987, however, the US improved the
mileage of new vehicles from 15 to 26 mpg.

Hybrid gasoline-electric

   Second, hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles now
on the market generally show substantial fuel
savings over their conventional
counterparts.  The National Commission on Energy
Policy found that for the four hybrids on the
market in December 2004 that had exact
counterpart models with conventional gasoline
engines, not only were mileage advantages quite
significant (10-15 mpg) for the hybrids, but in
each case the horsepower of the hybrid was higher
than the horsepower of the conventional vehicle.  (ETES p. 11)

Light-weight Carbon Composite Construction

   Third, constructing vehicles with inexpensive
versions of  the carbon fiber composites that
have been used for years for aircraft
construction can substantially reduce vehicle
weight and increase fuel efficiency while at the
same time making the vehicle considerably safer
than with current construction materials. This is
set forth thoroughly in the 2004 report of the
Rocky Mountain Institute’s Winning the Oil
Endgame (“WTOE”).  Aerodynamic design can have
major importance as well.  Using such composites
in construction breaks the traditional tie
between size and safety.  Much lighter vehicles,
large or small, can be substantially more
fuel-efficient and also safer. Such composites
have already been used for automotive
construction in Formula 1 race cars and are now
being adopted in part by BMW and other automobile
companies. The goal is mass-produced vehicles
with 80% of the performance of hand-layup
aerospace composites at 20% of the cost.  Such
construction is expected approximately to double
the efficiency of a normal hybrid vehicle without
increasing manufacturing cost.  (WTOE 64-66).

2. Encourage the commercialization of alternative
transportation fuels that can be available soon,
are compatible with existing infrastructure, and
can be derived from waste or otherwise produced cheaply.

Biomass (cellulosic) ethanol.

   The use of ethanol produced from corn in the
U.S. and sugar cane in Brazil has given birth to
the commercialization of an alternative fuel that
is coming to show substantial promise,
particularly as new feedstocks are
developed.  Some six million vehicles in the U.S.
and three-quarters of new vehicles in Brazil are
capable of using ethanol in mixtures of up to 85
percent ethanol and 15 per cent gasoline (E-85);
these are called Flexible Fuel Vehicles (“FFV”)
and require, compared to conventional vehicles,
only a somewhat different kind of material for
the fuel line and a differently-programmed
computer chip.  The cost of incorporating this
feature in new vehicles is trivial. Between 2003
and 2005 Brazil moved from five per cent of its
new vehicles being FFVs to 75 per cent being
such.  Also, there are no large-scale changes in
infrastructure required for ethanol use. It may
be shipped in tank cars (and, in Brazil, in
pipelines), and mixing it with gasoline is a simple matter.

   Although human beings have been producing
ethanol, grain alcohol, from sugar and starch for
millennia, it is only in recent years that the
genetic engineering of biocatalysts has made
possible such production from the hemicellulose
and cellulose that constitute the substantial
majority of the material in most plants.  The
genetically-engineered material is in the
biocatalyst only; there is no need for genetically modified plants.

   These developments may be compared in
importance to the invention of thermal and
catalytic cracking of petroleum in the first
decades of the 20th century – processes which
made it possible to use a very large share of
petroleum to make gasoline rather than the tiny
share that was available at the beginning of the
century.  For example, with such
genetically-engineered biocatalysts it is not
only grains of corn but corn cobs and most of the
rest of the corn plant that may be used to make ethanol.

   Such biomass, or cellulosic, ethanol is now
seeing commercial production begin first in a
facility of the Canadian company, Iogen, with
backing from Shell Oil, at a cost of around
$1.30/gallon. The National Renewable Energy
Laboratory estimates costs will drop to around
$1.07/gallon over the next five years, and the
Energy Commission estimates a drop in costs to
67-77 cents/gallon when the process is fully
mature (ETES p. 75).   The most common feedstocks
will likely be agricultural wastes, such as rice
straw, or natural grasses such as switchgrass, a
variety of prairie grass that is often planted on
soil bank land to replenish the soil’s
fertility.  There will be a decided financial
advantages in using as feedstocks any wastes
which carry a tipping fee (a negative cost) to
finance disposal: e.g. waste paper, or rice
straw, which cannot be left in the fields after
harvest because of its silicon content.

   Old or misstated data, frequently dealing with
corn ethanol, are sometimes cited for the
proposition that huge amounts of land would have
to be introduced into cultivation or taken away
from food production in order to have enough
biomass available for cellulosic ethanol
production.  This is incorrect.  The National
Commission on Energy Policy reported in December
that, if fleet mileage in the U.S. rises to 40
mpg -- somewhat below the current European Union
fleet average for new vehicles of 42 mpg and well
below the current Japanese average of 47 mpg –
then as switchgrass yields improve modestly to
around 10 tons/acre it would take only 30 million
acres of land to produce sufficient cellulosic
ethanol to fuel half the U.S. passenger fleet.
(ETES pp. 76-77).  By way of calibration, this
would essentially eliminate the need for oil
imports for passenger vehicle fuel and would
require only the amount of land now in the soil
bank (the Conservation Reserve Program (“CRP”) on
which such soil-restoring crops as switchgrass
are already being grown.  Practically speaking,
one would probably use for ethanol production
only a little over half of the soil bank lands
and add to this some portion of the plants now
grown as animal feed crops (for example, on the
70 million acres that now grow soybeans for
animal feed).  In short, the U.S .and many other
countries should easily find sufficient land
available for enough energy crop cultivation to
make a substantial dent in oil use. (Id.)

   Some also have an erroneous impression that
ethanol generally requires as much fossil fuel
energy to produce it as one obtains from it and
that its use does not substantially reduce global
warming gas emissions.  This is also
incorrect.  The production and use of ethanol
merely recycles in a different way the CO2 that
has been fixed by plants in the photosynthesis
process.  It does not release carbon that would
otherwise stay stored underground, as occurs with fossil fuel use.

   But when starch, such as corn, is used for
ethanol production much fossil-fuel energy is
consumed in the process of fertilizing, plowing,
and harvesting. Much of this is the natural gas
required to produce fertilizer.  But corn ethanol
still normally produces a very large (over 90 per
cent) reduction in the use of oil compared to
gasoline.  Starch-based ethanol reduces
greenhouse gas emissions to some degree, by around 30 per cent.

   But because so little energy is required to
cultivate crops such as switchgrass for
cellulosic ethanol production, and because
electricity can be co-produced using the residues
of such cellulosic fuel production, the energy
requirements for converting switchgrass and other
cellulosics to ethanol is very small.  Indeed,
with the right techniques reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions for celluslosic ethanol
when compared to gasoline are greater than 100
per cent.  The production and use of cellulosic
ethanol can be, in other words, a carbon sink. (ETES p. 73)

Biodiesel and Renewable Diesel

   The National Commission on Energy Policy
pointed out some of the problems with most
current biodiesel “produced from rapeseed,
soybean, and other vegetable oils – as well as .
. . used cooking oils.”  It said that these are
“unlikely to become economic on a large scale”
and that they could “cause problems when used in
blends higher than 20 percent in older diesel
engines”.  It added that “waste oil is likely to
contain impurities that give rise of undesirable emissions.” (ETES p. 75)

   The Commission notes, however, that biodiesel
is generally “compatible with existing
distribution infrastructure” and outlines the
potential of a newer process (“thermal
depolymerization”) that produces renewable diesel
without the above disadvantages, from “animal
offal, agricultural residues, municipal solid
waste, sewage, and old tires”. (This was
designated “Renewable Diesel” in the Energy Act
of this past summer.)  The Commission points to
the current use of this process at a Conagra
turkey processing facility in Carthage, Missouri,
where a “20 million commercial-scale facility” is
beginning to convert turkey offal into “a variety
of useful products, from fertilizer to low-sulfur
diesel fuel” at a potential average cost of
“about 72 cents per gallon.” (ETES p. 77)

There have also been promising reports of the
potential for producing renewable diesel from algae.

Other Alternative Fuels

   Progress has been made in recent years on
utilizing not only coal but slag from strip
mines, via gasification, for conversion into
diesel fuel using a modern version of the
gasified-coal-to-diesel process used in Germany during World War II.

   Qatar has begun a large-scale process of
converting natural gas to diesel fuel.

   In the realm of non-conventional oil, the tar
sands of Alberta and the oil shale of the Western
U.S. contain huge deposits.  Their exploitation
involves issues of cost which must be resolved,
both economic and environmental, but both may
hold promise for a substantial increases in oil
supply from other-than-conventional sources.

3. Encourage the commercialization of plug-in hybrids and improved batteries.

   A modification to some types of hybrids can
permit them to become “plug-in-hybrids,” drawing
power from the electricity grid at night and
using an all-electric mode for short trips before
they move to operating in their gasoline-electric
mode as hybrids. With a plug-in hybrid vehicle
one has the advantage of an electric car, but not
the disadvantage.  Electric cars cannot be
recharged if their batteries run down at some
spot away from electric power.  But since all
hybrids have tanks containing liquid fuel,
plug-in hybrids have no such disadvantage.

The “vast majority of the most fuel-hungry trips
are . . . well within the range” of current
(nickel-metal hydride) batteries’ capacity,
according to Huber and Mills  (The, Bottomless
Well, 2005, p. 84).  Current Toyota Priuses sold
in Japan and Europe have a button, which Toyota
has disconnected for some reason on American
vehicles, that permits all-electric driving for
up to a kilometer.  Basically what is needed is
to equip such hybrids with adequate batteries so
that this capability can be extended.  Over half
of all US vehicles are driven less than 30
miles/day, so a plug-in hybrid that can obtain
that range on overnight electricity alone might
go for many weeks without visiting a gasoline
station.  It is important that whether with
existing nickel-metal-hydride batteries or with
the more capable lithium-ion batteries now
commercially available for computer and other
applications, it is important that any battery
used in a plug-in hybrid be capable of taking
daily charging without being damaged and be
capable of powering the vehicle at an adequate
speed.  Some of the electric vehicles used in
California in the late 90’s (indeed hundreds are
still in use) provide useful data on current
battery capabilities.  An electric vehicle would
typically have a battery several times the size
and capability of a plug-in hybrid battery. The
experience of Southern Cal Edison with its
all-electric fleet of Toyota RAV-4’s is very
promising in this regard.  A number of these
electric vehicles’ nickel-metal-hydride batteries
have been charged thousands of times, daily for
years, and still provide sound performance.

Indeed the California experience with electric
vehicles (EV’s) in the 1990’s suggests that we
are so close to being able to have plug-in
hybrids that small businesses may move soon to
converting existing hybrids.  At U. Cal. (Davis)
Professor Andy Frank has been designing and
operating plug-in hybrids for years that now,
with commercially-available batteries, operate
all-electrically for 60 miles at up to 60 mph
before the hybrid gasoline-electric feature needs
to be used. Whether development is needed for
some improvements to lithium-ion batteries or
only financial incentives for mass production of
them or the more mature nickel-metal-hydride
batteries, such efforts should have the highest
priority because plug-in hybrids promise to
revolutionize transportation economics and to
have a dramatic effect on the problems caused by oil dependence.

Moreover the attractiveness to the consumer of
being able to use electricity from overnight
charging for a substantial share of the day’s
driving is stunning. The average residential
price of electricity in the US is about 8.5
cents/kwh, and many utilities sell off-peak power
for 2-4 cents/kwh (id at 83).  When one takes
into consideration the different efficiencies of
liquid–fueled and electric propulsion, then where
the rubber meets the road the cost of powering a
plug-in hybrid with average-cost residential
electricity would be about 40 per cent of the
cost of powering the same vehicle with today’s
approximately $2.50/gallon gasoline, or, said
another way, for the consumer to be able to buy
fuel in the form of electricity at the equivalent
of  $1/gallon gasoline.  Using off-peak power
would then equate to being able to buy 25-to-50
cent/gallon gasoline. Given the burdensome cost
imposed by current fuel prices on commuters and
others who need to drive substantial distances,
the possibility of powering one’s family vehicle
with fuel that can cost as little as one-tenth of
today’s gasoline (in the U.S. market) should
solve rapidly the question whether there would be
public interest in and acceptability of plug-in hybrids.

Although the use of off-peak power for plug-in
hybrids should not require substantial new
investments in electricity generation for some
time (until millions of plug-ins are on the
road), greater reliance on electricity for
transportation should lead us to look
particularly to the security of the electricity
grid as well as the fuel we use to generate
electricity.  Even though plug-in hybrids would
be drawing power from the grid to charge their
batteries and drive the first 30- or so miles
each day, ongoing studies suggest their use would
sharply reduce global warming gas emissions
compared to driving the same amount of mileage on gasoline.

Conclusion

   The dangers of dependence on conventional oil
in today’s world require us both to look to ways
to reduce demand for it and to increase the supply of alternatives.

   The realistic opportunities for reducing demand
soon suggest that government policies should
encourage hybrid gasoline-electric
vehicles,  particularly whatever battery work is
needed to bring plug-in versions thereof to the
market, and modern diesel
technology.  Light-weight carbon composite
construction should also be pursued. The
realistic opportunities for increasing supply of
transportation fuel soon suggest that government
policies should encourage the commercialization
of alternative fuels that can be used in the
existing infrastructure:  cellulosic ethanol,
biodiesel/renewable diesel, and (via plug-in
hyrids) off-peak electricity.  Both of the liquid
fuels could be introduced more quickly and
efficiently if they achieve cost advantages from
the utilization of waste products as feedstocks.

The effects of these policies are
multiplicative.  All should be pursued since it
is impossible to predict which will be fully
successful or at what pace, even though all are
today either beginning commercial production or
are nearly to that point.  Incentives for all
should replace the current emphasis on automotive hydrogen fuel cells.

   If even one of these technologies is moved
promptly into the market, the reduction in oil
dependence could be substantial.  If several
begin to be successfully introduced into
large-scale use, the reduction could be
stunning.  For example, a 50-mpg hybrid
gasoline/electric vehicle, on the road today, if
constructed from carbon composites would achieve
at least 100 mpg. If it were also a Flexible Fuel
Vehicle able to operate on 85 percent cellulosic
ethanol, it would be achieving hundreds of miles
per gallon (of petroleum-derived fuel).  If it
were also a plug-in, operating on either upgraded
nickel-metal-hydride or newer lithium-ion
batteries, so that 30-mile trips could be
undertaken on its overnight charge before it
began utilizing liquid fuel at all, it could be
obtaining in the range of 1000 mpg (of
petroleum). If it were a diesel
utilizing  biodiesel or renewable diesel fuel its
petroleum mileage could be infinite.

   A range of important objectives – economic,
geopolitical, environmental – would be served by
our embarking on such a path.  Of greatest
importance, we would be substantially more secure.


http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Testimony&Hearing_\
ID=1534&Witness_ID=4343
Ms. Susan Cischke
STATEMENT OF:
Susan M. Cischke
Vice President of Environmental and Safety Engineering
Ford Motor Company
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
"The Goal of U.S. Energy Independence"
Tuesday, March 7, 2006

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE:

My name is Susan Cischke and I am the Vice
President of Environmental and Safety Engineering
at Ford Motor Company. Energy security is a
significant issue facing our nation. I appreciate
the opportunity to share with you Ford Motor
Company's views on this issue. Energy is
literally the fuel that powers the industrial and
manufacturing growth of the United States. The
energy supply disruptions of last summer,
increases in global demand, and geopolitical
concerns with some of the oil rich regions of the
world led to significantly higher energy prices
and consumer angst at the fuel pump. It's our
view that action must be taken in all sectors of
course, if we are to meet these challenges as a nation.

At Ford, we recognize that we have a
responsibility to do something to help address
America's energy security needs, and we are
accelerating our efforts to develop innovative
solutions. As Bill Ford has said, "Ford Motor
Company is absolutely committed to making
innovation a central part of everything we do."
In our recent product announcements we committed
to increase our hybrid production capabilities to
a quarter-million units a year by 2010 and to
continuing our leadership in ethanol powered flexible fuel vehicles.

These new product initiatives are a strong
commitment for Ford and our customers, and they
recognize a changing marketplace. But there is a
limit to what we can achieve on our own. We
believe that our nation's energy challenges can
only be properly addressed by an Integrated
Approach: that is, a partnership of all
stakeholders which includes the automotive
industry, the fuel industry, government, and
consumers. The truth is that we must all accept
that these are long-term challenges and that we are all part of the solution.

So let me set out how we at Ford Motor Company
believe each stakeholder can play its part. I’ll
start with the automotive industry itself,
because we clearly have a central role to play.
The industry has taken significant steps in
improving the fuel efficiency of our products. At
Ford Motor Company we see this not only as being
socially responsible but a business necessity,
and we are moving ahead with a range of
technological solutions simultaneously -- because
there is simply no single solution, no “silver
bullet”. We know that when customers consider
purchasing a vehicle, they are concerned with
numerous attributes including price, quality,
safety, performance, comfort and utility. From
our perspective, no one factor can be ignored in
the highly competitive U.S. marketplace. As a
result, we are working to accelerate the
commercial application of all areas of advanced
vehicle technologies, including hybrids, flexible
fuel vehicles, advanced clean diesels,
hydrogen-powered internal combustion engines and
fuel cell vehicles. The portfolio approach that
we are taking ensures that we are able to offer
consumers a range of products that meet their
specific needs and circumstances. And make no
mistake; it will ultimately be the consumers who decide.

This diversity of customer needs within and
across markets is why we are investing in a
portfolio of solutions. The result is a period of
unprecedented technological innovation.
Innovation in matters of the energy, renewable
fuels, safety and design ­ is the compass by
which we are setting our direction for the future.

At Ford, we recognize that hybrids have an
important place within this portfolio of
solutions. They deliver excellent benefits in
lower speed stop/start traffic and offer many
customers breakthrough improvements in fuel
economy ­ up to 80% in city driving ­ without
compromise. And much of this technology is also
applicable to our fuel cell and ethanol vehicle
development efforts. In 2004, we launched the
world’s first gasoline-electric full hybrid SUV,
the Escape Hybrid. In 2005, we expanded this
technology to the Mercury Mariner Hybrid, and
have announced plans to offer this technology on
the Mazda Tribute SUV, and the Ford Fusion,
Mercury Milan, Ford Five Hundred and Mercury
Montego sedans, plus the Ford Edge and Lincoln
MKX crossover vehicles. Expansion of our hybrid
offering is now clearly an important part of our
overall innovation strategy which embraces our
recent commitment to increase our production
capacity to up to 250,000 hybrids per year by
2010 and to offer hybrids on half of our Ford,
Lincoln and Mercury products. Nevertheless, a key
challenge facing hybrids is the incremental costs
­ both in terms of higher prices for components
and engineering investments ­ that must be
overcome for this technology to transition from
"niche markets" to high-volume applications.

In addition to hybrids, we believe that greater
use of renewable fuels like ethanol, a
domestically produced renewable fuel, will help
reduce reliance on foreign oil. We applaud
Congress' efforts that resulted in the Energy
Policy Act of 2005, as well as the President's
recent commitment to address our nation's
addiction to oil. Ford has been building flexible
fuel vehicles (FFVs) for over a decade, and we
are an industry leader in this technology. These
"FFVs" are capable of operating on up to 85%
ethanol, or gasoline, or any mixture in between.

By the end of this year, Ford Motor Company will
have placed a total of nearly 2 million FFVs on
America's roads, and for 2006 this includes
America's best selling vehicle -- the (5.4L) Ford
F-150 FFV. As a whole, the U.S. automakers will
have produced a total of nearly 6 million
vehicles. If all of these vehicles were operated
on E85, over 2.5 billion gallons of gasoline a year could be displaced.

And we are not stopping there. A little over a
month ago we unveiled the Ford Escape Hybrid E85
research vehicle which marries two
petroleum-saving technologies ­ hybrid electric
power and E85 flexible-fuel capability. Though
there are many technical and cost challenges to
address, we believe that if just 5% of the U.S.
fleet were powered by E85 HEVs, oil imports could
be reduced by about 140 millions barrels a year.

But there is a problem. Even though the volume of
E85 vehicles continues to grow rapidly, there are
less than 600 E85 fueling stations in the U.S. ­
and that's out of over 170,000 retail gasoline
fueling stations nationwide. For ethanol to
compete as a motor fuel in the transport sector
and play an increasingly significant role
addressing our nation's energy concerns, we need
strong, long-term focus on policies that increase
U.S. ethanol production and accelerate E85
infrastructure development. At the same time, as
the President pointed out in the State of the
Union address, we need national research efforts
to pursue producing ethanol from more
energy-efficient cellulosic materials like rice
straw, corn stover, switch grass, wood chips or forest residue.

Ford is also working on advanced light duty
diesel engines. Today's clean diesels offer
exceptional driveability and can improve fuel
economy by up to 20-25%. This technology is
already prevalent in many markets around the
world -- nearly half of the new vehicles sold in
Europe are advanced diesels -- and Ford continues
to accelerate our introduction of diesel
applications in these markets. There are,
however, many hurdles that inhibit wide scale
introduction of this technology in the U.S. We
are working to overcome the technical challenges
of meeting the extremely stringent Federal and
California tailpipe emissions standards, and to
address other issues such as fuel quality,
customer acceptance and retail fuel availability.

Looking to the future, we are working on what we
think is an important transitional technology to
sustainable transportation ­ hydrogen-powered
internal combustion engines. Ford is a leader in
this technology. We think it's a "bridge" to the
development of a hydrogen infrastructure and,
ultimately, fuel cell vehicles, and we are in the
process of developing hydrogen powered E450 H2ICE
shuttle buses for fleet demonstrations in North
America starting later this year. Ford is also
working on applying this engine technology to
stationary power generators and airport ground
support vehicles to further accelerate the
technology and fueling infrastructure development.

Even further down the road, hydrogen powered fuel
cells appear to be another promising technology
for delivering sustainable transportation.
Hydrogen can be derived from a wide range of
feedstocks to increase energy diversity, and fuel
cells are highly energy-efficient and produce no
emissions. Our Ford Focus Fuel Cell vehicle is a
state-of-the-art, hybridized fuel cell system
sharing much of the same hybrid technology we
developed for our Escape Hybrid SUV. We have
already placed a small fleet of these vehicles in
three U.S. cities as part of the U.S. Department
of Energy's hydrogen demonstration program collecting valuable data.

As you can imagine, the R&D investment that goes
with all this work is a very big number --
certainly in the billions, not the millions --
and it will only grow in the future. Many of our
competitors and suppliers are also investing
heavily. But there is only so much we can achieve
without the help of others outside our industry.
We need an integrated approach.

It is clear that the solution to the energy
issues associated with road transport will need
to come from advances in fuels as well as vehicle
technology. We need the oil industry to endorse
an Integrated Approach here in the U.S., just as
they are beginning to do with automakers and
government officials in Europe. We at Ford are
clearly excited about the potential role of
renewable fuels. However, the fact is that
without the whole-hearted involvement of the fuel
industry, we cannot move forward far enough or
fast enough. We obviously need key partners like
the oil industry to invest in developing and
marketing renewable fuels like E85 ­ and we need
it to do so now and rapidly. We fully support
government incentives to encourage the industry
or others to accelerate this investment.

There is a great deal that policy makers can do
at all levels as well. We would like to see more
R&D support for vehicle technologies and
renewable fuels. Government incentives for
advanced technology vehicles and E85
infrastructure can accelerate the introduction of
these vehicles and fuels into the marketplace.
Government must play a critical role to promote
U.S. innovation and can do so by expanding and
focusing R&D tax credits for a broad range of
energy efficient technologies. We would also like
to see greater investment in improved road
traffic management infrastructure in order to
reduce congestion and save fuel. According to the
American Highway Users Alliance, about 5.7
billion gallons of fuel are wasted annually due
to congestion. Effective traffic light
synchronization is a good example of a change
that could lead to big reductions.

There is also a role for government in educating
the public on how to drive in an energy efficient
manner. In the end, it will ultimately be the
size of the car park, and consumers' choices of
vehicles, how many miles they drive, and driving
behaviors that will determine how much motor fuel
we consume. A person who drives in an
energy-conscious way ­ by avoiding excessive
idling, unnecessary bursts of acceleration and
anticipating braking ­ can enjoy much better fuel
consumption, today. And government can play a key
role to raise public awareness. We believe that
awareness is a simple and effective early step
which is why we have introduced driver training
programs in Europe and recently developed on-line
training for all Ford Motor Company employees.

Consistent implementation of an Integrated
Approach will allow us to achieve much more in a
shorter timeframe and at a significantly lower
cost than if each stakeholder were to pursue its
own agenda in isolation, however well-intentioned they might be.

The challenges are considerable but not
insurmountable, and there is an enormous amount
we can achieve if we act together in an
integrated manner. We have to ensure that our
business is sustainable by making vehicles that
continue to meet the changing needs of the 21st
century. That’s a responsibility we owe to our
customers, shareholders and our employees. But at
another level, all of us have the opportunity to
do something about energy independence ­ and
that’s a responsibility we owe future generations.

Thank you again for the opportunity to address the Committee.


http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Testimony&Hearing_\
ID=1534&Witness_ID=4345

How innovative technologies, business strategies, and policies
can dramatically enhance energy security and prosperity

Invited Testimony to United States Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Hearing on Energy Independence, SD-366, 0930–1130 Tuesday 7 March 2006

AMORY B. LOVINS , CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE
________________________________________________________________________

Both energy independence and its purpose, energy
security, rest on three pillars:

1. Making domestic energy infrastructure, notably
electric and gas grids, resilient.
2. Phasing out, not expanding, vulnerable
facilities and unreliable fuel sources.
3. Ultimately eliminating reliance on oil from any source.

Listing them in this order emphasizes that
achieving the third goal without the first two
creates only an illusion of security. Hurricane
Katrina might as well have read my 1981
finding  for DoD that a handful of people could
cut off three-fourths of the Eastern states’ oil
and gas supplies in one evening without leaving
Louisiana. We should worry not only about
already-attacked Saudi oil chokepoints like
Abqaiq and Ras Tanura, but also about the
all-American Strait of Hormuz proposed in
Alaska.  DOE policy that didn’t undercut DoD’s mission would:
* shift from brittle energy architecture that
makes major failure inevitable to more efficient,
resilient, diverse, dispersed systems that make it impossible;
* avoid electricity investments that are meant to
prevent blackouts but instead make them bigger and more frequent;
* stop creating attractive nuisances for
terrorists, from vulnerable LNG and nuclear
facilities to overcentralized U.S. and Iraqi electric infrastructure;
* acknowledge that nuclear proliferation,
correctly identified by the President as the
gravest threat to national security, is driven largely by nuclear power.

Each of these self-inflicted security threats can
be reversed by cheaper, faster, more abundant,
and security-enhancing alternatives, available
both from comprehensive energy efficiency and
from decentralized supply. For example, nuclear
power has already been eclipsed in the global
marketplace by resilient, inherently peaceful,
lower-cost, and lower-risk micro¬power.  That’s a
big win for national security and profitable
climate protection,  and a vindication of
competitive markets over central planning.

Energy independence is not only about oil. Many
sources of LNG raise similar concerns of
security, dependence, site vulnerability, and
cost: Iran and Russia won’t be more reliable
long-run sources of gas than Persian Gulf states
are of oil. Fortunately, half of U.S. natural gas
can be saved by end-use efficiency and electric
demand response with average costs below $1 per
million BTU—four times cheaper than LNG —making LNG needless and uncompetitive.

America’s oil problem is equally unnecessary and
uneconomic. Seventy-seven weeks ago, my team
published Winning the Oil Endgame—an independent,
peer-reviewed, detailed, transparent, and
uncontested study cosponsored by the Office of
the Secretary of Defense and the Chief of Naval
Research.  It shows how to eliminate U.S. oil use
by the 2040s and revitalize the economy, led by
business for profit. Welcomed by business and
military leaders, our analysis is based on
competitive strategy for cars, trucks, planes,
and oil, and on military requirements.

Our study shows how the U.S. can redouble the
efficiency of using oil at an average cost  of
$12 per saved barrel, and can substitute saved
natural gas and advanced biofuels (chiefly
cellulosic ethanol) for the remaining oil at an
average cost of $18 per barrel. Thus eliminating
oil would cost just one-fourth its current market
price, conservatively assuming that its
externalities are worth zero. Side-benefits would
include a free 26% reduction in CO2 emissions, a
million new jobs (three-fourths in rural and
small-town America), and the opportunity to save
a million jobs now at risk. America can either
continue importing efficient cars to displace
oil, or make efficient cars and import neither
the cars nor the oil. A million jobs hang in the balance.

The key to wringing twice the work from our oil
is tripled-efficiency cars, trucks, and planes.
Integrating the best 2004 technologies for
ultralight steels or composites, better
aerodynamics and tires, and advanced propulsion
can do this with two-year paybacks.  For example,
new low-cost carbon-composite manufacturing
techniques can halve cars’ weight and fuel use,
improving safety, comfort, and performance without raising manufacturing cost.

Oil elimination’s compelling business logic would
drive its eventual adoption. But sup¬¬portive
public policy could accelerate it without
requiring new taxes, subsidies, mandates, or
federal laws; this could be done administratively or by the states.

Many innovative policies could also transcend
gridlock. Size- and revenue-neutral
feebates  could speed the adoption of
superefficient cars far more effectively than
gasoline taxes or efficiency standards, and would
make money for both consumers and
automakers.  Novel policies could also support
automotive retooling and re¬train¬ing,
superefficient planes, advanced biofuels,
low-income access to affordable personal
mobility, and other key policy goals, all at zero net cost to the Treasury.

Early implementation steps are encouraging. Our
analysis led Wal-Mart to launch a plan to double
its heavy truck fleet’s efficiency and to
consider tripled efficiency a realistic
goal.  The Department of Defense is also
recognizing fuel-efficient platforms as a key to
military transformation. Military needs for
ultralight, strong, cheap materials can transform
the civilian car, truck, and plane
industries—much as DARPA created the Internet,
GPS, and the chip and jet-engine industries—and
thus lead the Nation off oil so we needn’t fight
over oil: negamissions in the Persian Gulf, Mission Unnecessary.

The surest path to an energy policy that enhances
security and prosperity is free-market economics:
letting all ways to save or produce energy
compete fairly, at honest prices, no matter which
kind they are, what technology they use, where
they are, how big they are, or who owns them.
That would make the energy security, oil,
climate, and most proliferation problems fade
away, and would make our economy and democracy far stronger.

http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Testimony&Hearing_\
ID=1534&Witness_ID=4344\

Testimony before the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
United States Senate
“Comments and Observations on the Topic
of U.S. Energy Independence”
March 7, 2006
A Statement by
FRANK VERRASTRO
Director and Senior Fellow, Energy Program
CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES,
1800 K STREET, NW,WASHINGTON, DC 20006
TELEPHONE: (202) 887-0200; FACSIMILE: (202) 775-3199 WWW.CSIS.ORG

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
today to discuss the broad ranging topic of
America’s energy independence. I currently serve
as Energy Program Director and Senior Fellow at
the Center for Strategic and International
Studies (CSIS), but my professional background
also includes a variety of energy policy
positions in the White House, and the Departments
of Interior and Energy, as well as senior
executive positions dealing with both upstream
and downstream issues in the energy sector, first
as Director of Refinery Policy and Crude Oil
Planning for TOSCO Corporation, and more recently
as a Senior Vice President at Pennzoil Company.
Given the composition of this morning’s panel,
the bulk of my remarks will be directed at the
issue of oil import dependence and prospects for
replacing and reducing petroleum demand for
transportation fuels, but more generally I will
also touch on the U.S. energy balance and proffer
the view that we would be well advised to pursue
a broader array of options for ensuring that our
energy needs are met. These options should include:
* stimulating additional supplies of conventional
and traditionally non-conventional fuel sources,
including renewables and alternatives;
* improving energy efficiency and conservation
efforts; promoting research and technology
development, and where applicable, accelerating
the deployment of useful technologies;
* addressing infrastructure needs to facilitate the delivery of fuel choices;
* pursuing the development of a more
comprehensive energy strategy that recognizes the
potential for simultaneously introducing
transformational policies while managing the
realities of our existing energy interdependence
in a global energy market, and performing the
above activities consistent with current investment and market practices.

I would also add that focusing on Energy
Independence, while politically attractive, may
in fact be a misguided quest and that we would be
better served by mapping out a strategy for
managing the transition to a different energy
future as our current path is clearly unsustainable.
<snip>
Global energy demand is projected to increase by
50 percent over the next 25 years, yet the
relative shares of the five major fuel groups –
oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear and renewables –
are expected to remain remarkably constant, with
fossil fuel consumption still accounting for over
85 percent of total energy demand in 2025. In the
developing world, that figure exceeds 90 percent
(see figure below), carrying obvious consequences
for consumer competition and the environment.

As we consider our energy options, I would
strongly urge that we not forget the substantial
contributions that conservation and improved
efficiency can make to achieving our future
energy goals. In the power generation sector, it
currently takes three to four units of primary
energy to produce one unit of delivered
electricity. Conservation, efficiency and
infrastructure delivery improvements coupled with
additional contributions from renewable energy
sources can obviate the need for additional,
incremental production of fossil fuels for power
generation purposes. Similarly, improving auto
efficiency and accelerating the deployment of
proven technologies into the auto fleet can, over
time, make a substantial contribution to reducing transportation fuel demand.

Analyzing this forecasted future leads to two
seemingly inescapable conclusions. The first is
that absent major technological breakthroughs,
significant changes in consumption patterns and
policies, or massive dislocations that alter the
course of events, the consumptions trends
depicted by this chart are simply unsustainable
for the long term. Secondly, even assuming a
significant contribution from a wide range of
alternative fuels, conventional energy sources
will continue to dominate the landscape for at least the next several decades.
<snip>
An Increasing Role for Alternative Fuels

Rising oil prices in recent years have heightened
interest in a variety of alternative sources of
liquid fuels. At present, two biologically
derived fuel forms, ethanol and biodiesel, are
used in the United States to supplement supplies
of conventional gasoline and diesel. In
principle, biodiesel can be blended into
conventional diesel or heating oil in fractions
compatible with the fuel system and/or its
construction materials. On the plus side,
biodiesel’s blending promotes flexibility and
reduces carbon monoxide emissions. Unfortunately,
depending on the precise chemical composition of
the solvent, too high a concentration can damage
certain plastics and rubber (system) components
and may contribute to increased emissions of
nitrogen oxide. Ethanol can be readily blended
into gasoline. Since the late 1970s, cars and
light trucks built for the U.S. market are
capable of running on a 10 percent ethanol blend.
A limited number (roughly 5 million) of the 220
million vehicles currently on the road are also
capable of running on blends of up to 85 percent
ethanol. Most fuel ethanol currently produced in
the United States is distilled from corn. Since
corn is also a food crop, however, there are
questions related to the volume of ethanol that
can be readily produced from corn without
affecting crop prices, as well as limitations on
the amount of acreage available to dedicate to fuel crop planting.

In addition, since only a portion of the plant
material can be used to produce ethanol, issues
have been raised about how to handle the residual
waste material – e.g., stalks, leaves and husks.
A partial answer to this dilemma has resulted in
research into what is called cellulosic ethanol,
but transportation and energy content issues
still remain to be resolved. For example, since a
gallon of ethanol contains less energy than a
comparable gallon of gasoline, poorer mileage
ratings and more frequent fuel stops are
impediments that need to be overcome.
Additionally, cold weather start problems and
transport in carriers other than pipelines may
complicate gasoline substitution on a national scale.

There have also been promising breakthroughs in
creating other forms of fuels from a wide variety
of sources, including biomass, agricultural,
industrial and municipal waste streams, coal to
liquids (CTLs), gas to liquids (GTLs), “synfuels”
made from oil sands, shale and extra heavy
crudes, and biomass to liquids (BTLs) processes
that derive fuels from waste wood and other non-food plant sources.

Biorefineries, digesters and other waste to
energy process facilities are clearly in the
sights of investors, although their most
significant supply impacts may be felt on a
regional rather than national basis, at least
until expanded distribution and delivery
infrastructure comes on line. In this regard,
better data collection would be most helpful. The
National Renewable Fuels Laboratory (NREL) and
EIA have been discussing data improvements to
better capture a more complete picture of how
biofuels activity is developing within the U.S.,
but resource limitations affecting data
collection and modeling have limited that effort.

It is worth noting, however, that based on
current government data, the capital investment
costs for most, if not all, of these synthetic
fuel technologies is considerably more than that
required for a traditional crude oil refinery
(see page 57, of EIA’s 2006 Annual Energy
Outlook). Further, for purposes of comparison,
EIA estimates that there is currently some
300,000 b/d of installed corn ethanol capacity in
the United States and an additional 12,000 b/d of
biodiesel capacity. Additionally, excluding
“pilot” facilities, the latest EIA statistics
indicate that there are currently no commercial
BTL, GTL or CTL plants in the United States. In
contrast, U.S. refining capacity currently
exceeds 17 million barrels per day and domestic
gasoline demand averages over 9 million barrels per day.

The mandated target of producing 7.5 billion
gallons of ethanol (fuel) by 2012 translates into
roughly 490,000 b/d, representing approximately 3
percent of projected domestic transportation fuel
needs in 2012 and less than 5 percent of total
gasoline demand. Analyses performed by EIA and
NREL estimate that even under optimistic
assumptions, alternative transport fuels
(excluding electric hybrid plug-ins) can be
expected to displace/replace a maximum of 10
percent of conventional liquid transport fuels by
2030, leaving petroleum based fuels, conservation
and improved efficiency gains to deal with the remaining 90 percent.

A 2004 report prepared by the bi-partisan
National Commission on Energy Policy came up with
similar results, projecting a 10-15 percent
reduction in U.S. oil consumption in 2025 by
substituting non-petroleum transportation fuel
alternatives in combination with the adoption of
more stringent CAFÉ standards for cars and light
trucks and providing incentives to encourage the
production and purchase of fuel efficient
vehicles. In reaction to the Commission’s report,
EIA analysis attributed a 7.3 percent reduction
in petroleum fuel usage to the adoption of
tougher fuel efficiency and CAFÉ standards.

In short, while contributions from alternative
fuels will be helpful as a component in meeting
increased consumer demand for transport fuels,
for at least the mid-term, absent significant
policy and regulatory changes to promote
increased fuel efficiency, major technological
breakthroughs, and substantial changes in
consumer/driver behavior (based on environmental,
security or foreign policy considerations),
petroleum based fuels will remain the
overwhelming fuel of choice for at least the next 20-30 years.

Given projections for increasing fuel demand, the
inescapable conclusion is that oil imports will
also be with us for decades to come. In that
context, we would do well to ratchet down the
political rhetoric surrounding the notion of
achieving energy independence and instead refocus
our efforts to deal with an inter-dependent
energy future and simultaneously prepare for the
(longer term) transition to a post-oil world, a
transition which former Energy and Defense
Secretary James Schlesinger has characterized as
“…the greatest challenge this country and the
world will face – outside of war.”
<snip>
And finally, at a time when policymakers are
intent upon encouraging specific types of large
scale energy investments, does it really make
sense to hamstring major industry players by
proposing tax changes that ultimately reduce
their ability to pursue those investments?
Altering the trajectory of future demand for
petroleum based fuels is prudent policy for a
wide variety of reasons. But in doing so, we
should not confuse displacing oil with the larger
objective of tempering overall consumption and
improving efficiency as the main priorities. Crop
growing also requires energy. Plug in vehicles
that run on electricity require energy sources to
generate that power – the bulk of which currently
comes from coal, although nuclear, natural gas
and renewables also play significant roles.
<snip>
This almost inevitable growth in reliance on
foreign supplies would, to the casual observer,
seem to be a call to action, to define and
implement policies that would concomitantly
expand domestic supplies while setting demand
management efforts in motion. To do so, however,
requires a certain political will on the part of
both the U.S. consumer and the government. And,
to date, despite higher energy prices, real and
threatened interruptions in supply, environmental
damage, hurricanes and blackouts, that critical ingredient remains lacking. .

All energy producer/exporters and
consumer/importers are bound together by a mutual
interdependency. All are vulnerable to any event,
anywhere, at any time, which impacts on supply or
demand. This means that the U.S. energy future
likely will be shaped, at least in part, by
events outside of our control and beyond our
influence. Calls for energy independence, absent
major technological breakthroughs and a national
commitment, ring hollow, and in the near term are
both unrealistic and unachievable. In the absence
of decisive political will to undertake those
steps necessary to improve efficiency, promote
conservation, encourage the development of
domestic energy resources and renewable energy
forms, learning to manage the risks accompanying
import dependency may be the only reasonable course of action.

--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
          http://www.calcars.org/news-index.html
      http://www.hybridcars.com/blogs/power
            http://www.eaa-phev.org
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story;jsessionid=B7087EA2AE87BC320\
A85592203C8C0F2?id=44254
Renewable Energy Access
March 3, 2006

Plug-In Hybrids: The New Focus for the Future of Transportation
New approach, available today, allows renewables to address
transportation needs

by Prof. Andrew Alfonso Frank, Univ. of Ca.-Davis

Recently there has been a lot of interest in the concept of the
Plug-In Hybrid Vehicle or PHEV. I have been researching this concept
for about 30 years. Over this time, there have been major
improvements in the basic components, such as the batteries, the
Continuously Variable Transmission or CVT, and computer control
technology in vehicles. As a result, the technology is now ready for
introduction to the mass market by the major car companies. We expect
that the public will begin to demand this type of vehicle now because
they have finally realized that the Hydrogen Economy won't happen in
less than 30 to 50 years -- if at all. The reason is that there is no
infrastructure for the efficient creation of hydrogen and the
transport of hydrogen will be a problem forever.

In contrast, the Plug-In Hybrid can use as much as 90% of their
driving energy from electricity using the currently available
electric sources already in our society, ie the standard outdoor
plugs at 120 volts and 1.5 KW in the US and 220 volts at 2 KW in much
of the rest of the world. The rest of the energy for these
automobiles can come from liquid fuels such as gasoline, Diesel or
ethanol from biomass. In addition, the vehicles can be charged
directly from small wind and solar systems on top of our homes and
workplaces. Of course, large wind and Solar systems could also be
used much more effectively. Since wind and solar generators are
intermittent, they need an energy storage mechanism to be effective.
The batteries of the PHEV's can provide this storage capability at no
cost to the Utility companies.

The reason the PHEV is so attractive now is that at the current cost
of gasoline is $2.50 and rising whereas the average cost of
electricity is stable at about 8 cents/kWh. This translates to about
the equivalent of 75 cents a gallon of gasoline when used in a PHEV.
In addition, in most places in the US, outdoor plugs are available
everywhere in our society. Thus, in contrast, to the much touted
hydrogen economy, there is no need for massive infrastructure
development and construction. The PHEV allows us to immediately
transition from our dependence on oil for transportation to one where
we can begin to transition to cleaner and more efficient electricity
without a need for new infrastructure.

A major difference between the PHEV and the Electric Cars of the past
is that the PHEV does not have to be charged since the car is
designed to operate the same whether the batteries are fully charged
or at its maintenance state of charge, SOC, about 20% to 30%. With
this reserve SOC the batteries are always available for extra power
when needed. In addition, most cars in the US and the world are used
about 3 to 4 hours a day, meaning it is parked somewhere for 20 to 21
hours a day. Thus the PHEV can be plugged in somewhere to charge its
batteries most of the day. We have constructed vehicles that use
about 200 to 300 watt-hrs /mile. Thus a 60-mile range requires 12 to
18 kWh. Or at 1.5 kW from the 120 volt plug 9 to 12 hours is required
to achieve 60 miles of range for a small car to a full size SUV.

In terms of practical applications to our vehicles, we have designed
and constructed at UC Davis eight vehicles in the last 15 years that
show that the concept applies equally to small cars up to full size
SUVs that do everything a conventional vehicle does in the US
including towing trailers while running mostly on electricity from
the wall plug or from wind or solar systems. In fact, we have shown
that a 60 mile All Electric Range PHEV full size SUV generates less
than one half the CO2 emissions of a compact car and uses less than
one quarter the liquid fuel of a compact sedan. In addition, these
PHEV's have one quarter or less of the moving parts and weigh no more
than the conventional car because they have much smaller engines
(about one third the conventional) and much simpler and lighter
transmissions. This technology can be transferred to industry for
high volume manufacturing now.

The reality today is that the car companies have been focused on
ever-larger trucks and vehicles that get lower and lower fuel economy
but do meet stricter emission standards. They are however emitting
more CO2. The PHEV can reverse these trends since the vehicles that
we have constructed show not only zero emission operation on a daily
basis but when using gasoline only, the fuel economy is more than
double the conventional car. If a vehicle travels 40 miles a day
commuting to and from work and the vehicle travels 15,000 miles a
year the effective gasoline mileage for a PHEV is over 250 miles a
gallon. Or compared to conventional car, the PHEV will use about
1/10th the liquid fuel. This fact makes bio-fuels such as ethanol
from cellulostic materials and biodiesel practical since we can
supply 1/10th of our current oil energy use from croplands and waste
agricultural products. In addition, as batteries improve, the
electric range of the PHEV can increase reducing the need for liquid
fuel further.

Finally, the bigger battery packs of the PHEV can be used to power
the house or provide relief for the need for peak power in the middle
of the day. The key to this direction of energy flow from the vehicle
back to the grid or V2G is to do it at a low power level so that the
efficiency of energy transfer is high. Then to affect the overall
grid, we would use more vehicles, ie if there is a need for 1MW of
electricity at a certain time, it could be supplied by 1000 vehicles
at one KW or by 100 vehicles at 10 KW. We are saying that 1000
vehicles is the choice because of efficiency and infrastructure cost.

Conclusions:

The PHEV concept is now ready for development by the major car
companies, since all the necessary technology is available. A few of
these technologies need further development to bring the cost and
durability to a level demanded by the car companies and the consuming
public. These requirements mean that the batteries, the CVT, and all
the powertrain components must be maintenance free and warranted for
15 years and 150,000 miles, and they must be within the range of the
cost of a conventional vehicle of today while providing a profit to
the car companies and their suppliers. In addition the public must be
educated to demand that these vehicles be built to reduce the risk to
the car companies for their investment in the PHEV concept.

It would appear that the low cost of electric energy (1/3 to 1/4)
compared to liquid fuels, the fact that the electric drive technology
can provide even greater performance than conventional gasoline
engines, the fact that big battery pack can begin the integration of
the transportation and the stationary energy sector, and the
availability of home fueling would be enough incentive to attract the
current price difference. However, a car company needs to be assured
that they will be able to recover their initial investment in the
technology and ultimately make a profit in a short term.

The best way to do this is to make the information about the benefits
of the PHEV available to the public and to have the public demand be
voiced in "soft orders" which basically says "build them, we will buy
them!!" to the car companies. The effort by Austin Energy, EPRI,
CalCars various magazines and newspapers is beginning to get the
message about PHEV's out. Our US president recently mentioned
biofuels and the PHEV as a necessary part of our strategy to
immediately begin to reverse the trend of increased oil consumption.
This will hopefully get our industry to begin to take the potential
up coming oil crisis seriously. This is the "New Game" that we all
need to focus on today!

About the author...

Professor Andrew Alfonso Frank is Director of Hybrid Vehicle Research
at the University of Californai-Davis. He holds the following
degrees: B.S. (1955), University of California, Berkeley, M.S.
(1958), University of California, Berkeley, M.S. (1965), University
of Southern California, Ph.D. (1968), University of Southern
California, Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering.

--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
          http://www.calcars.org/news-index.html
      http://www.hybridcars.com/blogs/power
            http://www.eaa-phev.org
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/03/06/roberts/index.html?source=weekly
Grist Magazine: Environmental News and Commentary
a beacon in the smog (tm) ©2006.
Main Dish: Hard-Hitting News, Thought-Provoking News and Inspiring Interivews
You're a Good Man, Lester Brown
An interview with the founder of Worldwatch and Earth Policy Institute
By David Roberts
06 Mar 2006

There are few titans remaining in the
environmental world -- figures that command
respect not only inside the movement but in the
larger global political milieu as well. Lester
Brown is one of them. In 1974, he founded the
Worldwatch Institute, one of the first think
tanks to focus on the global environmental
situation (its agenda-setting yearly reports,
State of the World, remain required reading among
the green set). In 2001, he left Worldwatch to
start the Earth Policy Institute, a small outfit
dedicated to envisioning an "eco-economy" and figuring out how to get there.

In 2003, EPI released Plan B, a book synthesizing
research on the earth's multiple converging
ecological crises and laying out a step-by-step
plan (including a budget -- if you're curious,
it's $161 billion) for how to transition to a
sustainable path. Reception was enthusiastic;
mogul Ted Turner was one of many influential
figures to buy dozens of copies to send to friends.

Late last year saw Plan B 2.0, a revised,
expanded edition incorporating the many
developments -- good and bad -- of the
intervening two years. In addition to your local
bookstore, the book is available in its entirety
as PDF or HTML on EPI's website.

Brown's been globe-trotting since the book's
release, promoting the plan. Weeks before I met
with him, he spoke to world leaders in Davos,
Switzerland, at the World Economic Forum, at the
invitation of founder and executive director
Klaus Schwab. He and I met in a small cafe in
Seattle and, over omelets, discussed biofuels,
plug-in hybrids, China, the Bush administration,
and sudden, unpredictable social change.


Q: What was the genesis of Plan B?

A: Our goal was to give a sense of what an
environmentally sustainable economy would look
like. If you don't know where you want to go,
there's a good chance you won't get there. And
within the environmental community there was no global vision.

Q: Do you envision regular two-year updates?

A: Things are happening fast enough now, in terms
of new opportunities, new technologies, new
success stories, new problems developing, new
understandings of climate change, and so forth.
So I'm beginning to think this is going to be an every-two-year effort.

Even since this book came out, Goldman Sachs got
in the wind-energy business big time. A year ago
it bought Horizon, which was a small company
building wind farms, and now that company has
5,000 megawatts of generating capacity under
construction or in the planning stage. That's
equal to 17 typical coal-fired power plants.

Q: What trend in the world is most alarming?

A: One is climate change and the other is population growth.

On population growth, close to 3 billion people
will be added between now and mid-century, the
vast majority in countries where water tables are
already falling and wells are going dry. That's not a happy situation.

China's growth is illuminating, but it's just
that they're growing faster than most of the rest
of the world. In that sense they're doing us a
favor: they're telescoping history so that we can
see what the future looks like.

Q: You discuss nuclear energy very little in the
book. What are your thoughts on it?

A: I've tried to love nuclear, but I haven't been
very successful. I don't think it can get beyond
the economics. If we insist that utilities bear
the full cost of nuclear power -- and that's
something we need to do -- they have to set aside
money for decommissioning and include that in the
rates. That would cost as much or more than
construction. They have to deal with the waste
issue. And they have to find an insurance company that will insure them.

There are other questions as well. If we decide
to go nuclear, do we mean all countries can have
nuclear power? Do we have an A-list and a B-list?
If so, who makes that list? Who enforces it?
Looking at Iran and North Korea right now, I'm
not sure we're very good at that.

Q: Do you consider biofuels a permanent solution or a bridge?

A: I think we're going to need almost all
agricultural resources to produce food. We keep
forgetting the water issue, which is a sleeper.
Half the world's people live in countries where
water tables are falling. We may wake up one
morning and there won't be enough grain to go
around, and not enough water to produce enough grain.

We've always been concerned about the effect of
high oil prices on food-production costs, and
those are very real, given the oil intensity of
world agriculture today. But more important is
the effect of high oil prices on the demand for
agriculture commodities. Once oil gets up to $60
a barrel, it becomes profitable to convert
agricultural commodities into automotive fuels.
In effect, the price of oil becomes a support
price for agricultural commodities, and therefore
food prices. If at any point the food value of
the commodity drops below the fuel value, the
market will move that commodity into the energy economy.

I don't think we yet quite grasp the effect of
$60-a-barrel oil on food prices, because the
capacity to distill ethanol and produce biodiesel
is not yet large enough to really have an impact.
But it's exploding all over the world. Up until a
year or two ago, all the government programs here
[in the U.S.], in Europe, and in Brazil were
driven by government subsidies. In Brazil there
are no more subsidies. Ethanol investment is just
exploding; it's entirely a market-based operation.

There's enormous investment in this country in
ethanol distilleries and biodiesel refineries.
Most people aren't even aware that on Jan. 1 a
year ago, we adopted a $1-a-gallon subsidy for
biodiesel. But we're setting up competition
between supermarkets and service stations for the same commodities.

There is a very attractive alternative
automotive-fuel model: gas-electric hybrids with a plug-in and wind energy.

Q: Is it scaleable quickly enough?

A: Oh yeah. There's a lot of momentum building
behind plug-in hybrids. There was a conference
organized [a month] ago in Washington on
plug-ins. It was organized by the Environmental
and Energy Study Institute, the NGO that
organizes these things for Congress. [Sen.] Orrin
Hatch [R-Utah] left the Alito hearings to come and make a statement.

The interesting thing about the plug-in effort is
that the neocons and the environmentalists are
both supporting it, and that's a unique
combination. There were more neocons speaking at
the conference than environmentalists; they want
to break dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

Q: What are your thoughts on this idea of
breaking our dependence on Middle East oil?

A: Middle East oil accounts for 15, at most 20
percent [PDF] of our oil. But it's far more
important to other parts of the world, and we're
all in this together. We have to think about it broadly.

One of the attractive features of moving toward
gas-electric hybrids and wind power is that we
have the infrastructure already in place. In Plan
B, the original, I talk about a hydrogen
fuel-cell automotive-energy economy. And that may
come, but it's a generation down the road. With
the gas-electric hybrids, you need gasoline
service stations and you need an electrical grid. We have both.

It's relatively easy to increase wind-generating
capacity tenfold. The companies are there, the
technologies are there -- it's just a matter of
incentives. We might not even need many of those
now. We could start doubling each year.

One of the neat things about the gas-electric
hybrid plug-in is that the batteries in the
vehicle fleet become a storage facility for wind
energy. And there's a tank of gasoline as
additional backup. So it's really an ideal
marriage, a great way of rapidly exploiting wind.
And wind is such a huge resource.

Q: Is there a reason that you seem so much more
enthusiastic about wind than solar?

A: It's mostly timing. If you look at the cost
curves, wind is roughly a decade ahead of solar. It's just a matter of time.

Q: One knock you often hear on environmentalists
is that they care more about flora and fauna than
human beings. But it strikes me that your book is
extremely humanist, centered on human welfare.

A: One of the strengths of the book is that it
integrates economics and the environment in a
socially responsible way. One of the important
developments of the past year was Jared Diamond's
book Collapse. He legitimized the discussion of
early 21st century global civilization, in terms
of where we're headed and what the prospects are.
You can talk about that now in a way that you couldn't before.

Q: How do you maintain your optimism?

A: Social change comes rapidly and unexpectedly sometimes.

The Berlin wall coming down was essentially a
bloodless political revolution in Eastern Europe.
There were no articles in political science
journals in the '80s that said, hey, keep an eye
on Eastern Europe, big change is coming there.
But one morning people woke up and realized the
great socialist experiment was over.

What if we'd been sitting at this table 10 years
ago and I had said, "I think that the tobacco
industry is going to cave"? It was the most
powerful lobby in Washington. It controlled
committee chairs. But there was a steady flow of
articles on smoking and health over a period of a
few decades, along with persistent denial. The
industry just lost its credibility.

The two things looming large are oil -- security
of supply, disruptions around the world, a vague
notion that China's out there now competing for
it, the price of gasoline, the price of home
heating oil -- and the climate issue, the steady
drumbeat. Every week or two another major study
comes out, nailing down another piece of the
climate puzzle. People are beginning to feel uncertain now.

Q: Is it frustrating to you that people seem to
need human enemies, human bogeymen?

A: To a very substantial degree that's a
cultivated anxiety. It doesn't exist in Europe,
or elsewhere, the way it does here. They're
concerned, but they're not preoccupied with it.
And if I had to make a list of the top 10 threats
to our future in the world, terrorism would be on
the list, but it would be in the lower part of the list.

All this leads me to sense that we're moving
toward one of those thresholds that are hard to
define, at least until you cross them. Among the
manifestations are the 100 mayors -- maybe more
than that now -- who've signed on to the Kyoto
Protocol. This is a grassroots political revolution.

I don't think we realize yet what Katrina is.
Most of us had assumed the first climate refugees
would be from Tuvalu and the Maldive Islands. But
it's the U.S. Gulf Coast. There are a few hundred
thousand environmental refugees there -- climate refugees.

Q: One of the lessons of Katrina is how grossly
unprepared we were for something that could
easily be worse next time, or happen two places simultaneously next time.

A: The interesting thing about this current
administration is they don't seem to be
interested in governing, in trying to make things
work. FEMA's a classic case, symbolic of this entire government.

Q: Plan B seems deliberately apolitical.

A: I didn't want it to be a political tract. But
I could happily have weighed in on [politics].
When societies are in trouble, sometimes they
have a Nero and sometimes they have a Churchill.
One of the questions is how this administration
will respond to the mounting pressure to do something about these issues.

Q: However little competence they've shown in
other areas, they've certainly demonstrated an
amazing talent for avoiding moments of
accountability. It's like performance art.

A: It's a public-relations operation with a hidden agenda.

Q: Does anybody know the concrete political,
media, and advocacy steps needed to pull off a
fundamental transition to a sustainable economy?

A: In order for these changes to occur, we have
to cross a social threshold, and societies don't
cross those easily or quickly. Things have to
build up enough steam ... and then suddenly it just goes.

And when you cross them, it's not always clear
what the response will be; there's enough energy
driving things that it can go in many directions.
You can't plan that change. You can offer a new
model for an automotive fuel economy, and these
sorts of things, so when the time comes there'll be some sense of what to do.

Q: It's at least as possible that Americans will
react with retrenchment, defensiveness, trade
barriers, and military buildup -- an island mentality.

A: Right. It could happen that way. The reason
for doing a book like Plan B is to make it clear
that we're all in this together. If our
civilization goes down, it's not going to be
pieces of it here and there -- the whole thing's going to go down.

Q: Does it concern you that many of your book's
exemplary solutions come out of semi-authoritarian political situations?

A: I was looking for success stories, whether
it's breakthroughs in fish farming in China or
dairy production in India overtaking the U.S.
Wind energy in Western Europe. Solar-cell
manufacturing in Japan. Reforestation in South
Korea. I didn't look at the form of government to
sort out what would work. Carp polyculture's
roots go back 2,000 years; it doesn't require a one-party dictatorship.

I remember when the Soviets beat us into space
with Sputnik. A lot of Americans were despairing,
and said the Soviets have a command economy, they
can beat us at anything they want. But what that
system lacked was a free flow of information and
ideas, and in the end that's what really weakened
them. We were on the moon 10 years later, and now
it's been almost half a century and the Russians still haven't gotten there.

Q: Does it worry you that China's ultimate
success may be hampered in the same way, by
inhibited flow of information and political freedom?

A: The answer is, I don't know. They're having
great trouble. We tend to think of China as this
monolith: You have the party in Beijing sending
down regulations. But at the grassroots there are
no enforcement mechanisms. The Chinese EPA is at
most 600 people. That's a tiny organization. They
can't do anything about this in any meaningful
way. There are hundreds of thousands of factories
to be monitored. They're a long way from doing that.

Q: What's the most important thing for humanity to start doing?

A: Get the market to tell the ecological truth.
Calculate the cost of burning a gallon of
gasoline, for example, and incorporate the
indirect cost in the form of a tax. We're all
economic decision-makers -- consumers, corporate
planners, government policymakers, investment
bankers -- and we respond to market signals. But
the market's giving us bad information. I mean
grossly distorted information. So we're making
bad decisions and getting in more and more
trouble every day. Whether we can pull out of that or not, I'm not sure.

Q: What should I do? Talk to congressfolk? Write
a letter to the editor? Buy a hybrid?

A: Most of the people in audiences I'm talking
with have been asking themselves that question.
Recycle paper, buy a Prius, whatever -- lifestyle
changes. But we've reached the point where we
have to go beyond that. We now have to go for
systemic change; otherwise we're not going to
make it. That's why tax restructuring is so
important. (Incidentally, the Chinese authorities
are studying and working on a major tax restructuring just for this purpose.)

We're seeing signs that Republicans are beginning
to cross over on some of these issues, because of
the concerns of their constituents. We're getting
some major corporate crossovers. GE is now a
major player in wind energy. They are cranking up
300 turbines year before last, 600 last year,
1,200 this year -- they're just going. And
Goldman Sachs is beginning to invest heavily.
When I talk about Goldman Sachs, it changes the
way people think about wind energy.

Things may be starting to change.
- - - - - - - - - -
David Roberts is staff writer for Grist.

--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
          http://www.calcars.org/news-index.html
      http://www.hybridcars.com/blogs/power
            http://www.eaa-phev.org
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --

http://www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php?current
E/The Environment Magazine
EARTHTALK: Questions and Answers About Our Environment
Week of 3/05/2006

Dear EarthTalk: As I understand it, "hybrid" cars make use of an
electric motor that never needs to be plugged in. But what's up with
the proposed "plug-in" hybrids I've been hearing about? -- Jen
Seminara, Omaha, NE

The mass-market gasoline-electric hybrids made by Toyota, Honda and
others make use of an electric engine right under the hood next to
the gas engine. That electric motor creates fuel economy by kicking
into use during idling, backing up, slow traffic, and to maintain
speed after the gas engine has been employed for acceleration. The
car doesn't need to be plugged in because the on-board electric
battery is constantly being charged by the gas engine and by the
motion of the wheels and the brakes.

The so-called "plug-in hybrids," now in prototype stages of
development, take this technology a step further. By adding the
ability to charge up from a standard household outlet, typically
overnight, such cars relegate the gas engine to back-up status and
instead let the electric motor do most of the work.

Proponents claim that such "gas-optional" cars--if you don't take
long trips you can rely entirely on the electric motor--can be twice
as fuel efficient as hybrids, which already get double the gas
mileage of traditional vehicles. Additionally, they say, powering up
plug-in hybrids with wall sockets results in far less pollution (from
the power plants providing the electricity) than an equivalent
gasoline-powered car spews out its tailpipe. Meanwhile, plug-in
hybrids recharged from rooftop solar power systems might approach
being the world's first mass-market "zero emission" vehicles,
requiring no power from the grid at all.

Convincing a skeptical American public that plug-in hybrids are the
way of the future is the challenge of a loose network of advocacy
groups led by the California Cars Initiative (CalCars). Indeed, the
experimental electric vehicles of a decade ago and older required
re-charging every 25-50 miles, rendering them useless for anything
but short trips. The new breed of plug-in hybrids solves this problem
by employing much more sophisticated battery technology while still
keeping the insurance of gasoline (and a gas engine) on-board.

"It's like having a second small fuel tank that you always use
first--only you fill this tank at home with electricity at an
equivalent cost of under $1/gallon," reports the CalCars website. The
organization goes on to explain that with gas prices at $3/gallon,
traditional cars cost eight to 20 cents per mile, while plug-in
hybrids used for all-electric local travel and commuting would cost
only two to four cents per mile.

CalCars is lobbying the world's major automakers to introduce plug-in
options on future hybrid models, and has built showcase examples
themselves that achieve 100 miles per gallon using Toyota's Prius.
Meanwhile, a growing list of state and local governments say they
would seriously consider converting their fleets to plug-in hybrids
if such vehicles became available.

The website HybridCars.com reports that DaimlerChrysler has built a
handful of prototypes based on its 15-passenger Mercedes-Benz
Sprinter van. And analysts believe Toyota already has the technology
in place but may be waiting to gauge consumer demand before making
any production commitments. Only time--with a little guidance from
the price of gasoline--will tell.

CONTACT: California Cars Initiative (CalCars), http://www.calcars.org.

http://www.fcnp.com/552/peakoil.htm

Falls Church News Press
March 2-8, 2006
The Peak Oil Crisis
Your First Electric Car

By Tom Whipple

Whether peak oil arrives with a bang or just sort
of sneaks up on us, it is highly unlikely that
ten years from now there is going to be enough
liquid fuel to power all the world's cars,
trucks, buses, planes, trains, and boats. The
responses of governments to this situation will
vary by political temperament and circumstance.
Some will mandate draconian conservation
measures, some will impose rationing, and some
will let rationing-by-price direct dwindling fuel
supplies to those who can afford them.

Judging from the primal screams of
"I-can't-afford-to-farm-at-these-energy-prices"
that are appearing with increasing frequency in
rural newspapers, the issue will eventually come
down to eating or driving. This, of course, is
not a choice; even the most free-market
Congressman will soon get the message that there
are priorities for our dwindling supplies of
liquid fuels, and that gasoline for the privately
owned vehicles ranks close to the bottom of this list.

If world oil depletion comes as soon, and
supplies of liquid fuels disappear as rapidly, as
some of us suspect, gasoline-powered cars and
light trucks will soon be museum pieces. Liquid
fuels, be they from conventional oil, tar sands,
liquefied coal, or cellulosic ethanol, will be in
such short supply, they will have to be
restricted to vital-to-civilization uses such as
farming, mass transit, railroads, and countless
kinds of heavy industrial equipment.

Thus it seems obvious that cars and light trucks
will have to run on electricity if they are to
run at all. Electricity is nearly universally
available. Its availability can be quickly
increased either through conservation or by
building new generating stations— hopefully using
renewable fuels. Unlike hydrogen-powered
vehicles, this technology is here now, it’s cheap
and likely to get cheaper, and significant
improvements in electric cars such as much better
batteries and in-wheel motors may soon be available.

Anyone who looks into electric car technology
soon discovers the Achilles heel is the battery.
Until recently, batteries have been heavy, took a
long time to charge, and would not give us the
hundreds of miles of range we have been
accustomed to with liquid fuel vehicles. There is
nothing inherently wrong with an electric car
once the range is increased, or preferably, the
recharge time is reduced significantly. Given
that at some gasoline price, electric vehicles
are going to be the only affordable means of
transportation beyond a bicycle or walking, the
chances are they are going to become extremely popular very soon.

Currently, nobody is making electric vehicles
beyond the neighborhood variety that have very
limited range, speed and comforts compared to
gasoline-powered cars. This is about to change.

Many of you are aware that a few years back
several major manufactures, including GM, were
actually building and leasing in California what
a lot of people thought were quite satisfactory
electric cars. Why they no longer are available
is another story, but it does indicate the
manufacturers are perfectly capable of doing so
when they perceive that gasoline is no longer
affordable for most of their customers.

There are at least four flavors of "new
technology" batteries either available or showing
promise. The first of these, the nickel-metal
hydride battery, is already used to power hybrid
vehicles. They work well, but there are better
technologies in sight, and some believe there is
not enough nickel in world to power all the
world's cars with this type of battery.

Just coming on the market in a form suitable for
powering automobiles is the lithium-ion battery.
These batteries pack in considerable more energy
than previous types, but are very expensive at
current volumes. A handful of Toyota hybrids are
running around with after-market lithium-ion
batteries that are recharged by plugging into a
wall outlet. These vehicles are capable of going
30-40 miles at moderate speeds on electricity
alone or of achieving in excess of 100 mpg when
used in conjunction with the gasoline engine. A
Toronto firm has started to sell conversion kits for existing hybrids.

Even President Bush recently has been touting the
lithium-ion plug-in hybrid as a partial solution
to imported oil. Automobile manufacturers,
however, claim to be skeptical of the lithium-ion
battery's durability in an age when car buyers expect 100,000-mile warranties.

Several manufacturers are working on this
technology and Mitsubishi is talking of selling a
lithium-ion electric vehicle (in Japan of course)
in 2010. Mitsubishi is aiming for a top speed of
93 mph and a range of 93 miles on a single
charge. There is even talk of very fast recharge times.

When we move beyond the "available now" category
to the "just announced" category, we come to
Peoria and Firefly Energy, a spin off of
Caterpillar Tractor. These folks have just
received a US patent on a completely new form of
battery in which the heavy lead battery plates
are replaced with lightweight graphite foam. It
sounds too good to be true, but Firefly claims
their battery can provide the performance of
nickel metal hydride batteries at one-fifth the
cost and fraction of the weight. If all this pans
out, affordable plug-in hybrids and all electric
cars just might be available in the near future.

Another interesting battery technology, which has
just been announced by MIT, is an improvement on
the lithium battery. By modifying the crystal
structure, scientists have found that a battery
can be recharged ten times faster. This would
open the possibility of all electric cars, with a
reasonable range of 100 miles or so, that can be
recharged in 5 or 10 minutes from an electric
outlet. When you look at the alternatives, all
this is starting to sound pretty good provided we
have enough resources left to build them.

The transition from the liquid fuel cars and
light trucks to electrically powered vehicles is
not going to be pretty and will take decades.
Worldwide, there are now over 600 million cars
and over 200 million trucks and buses. When it
comes, peak oil will be a worldwide phenomenon
and is likely to arrive with little or no
warning. Thus, except where governments move to
subsidize fuel, prices will inexorably ratchet up and up and up.

At each price increase, some share of the owners
of these 800-900 million vehicles (especially
those that can not pass along the fuel costs)
will park their vehicles and begin a desperate
search for alternative forms of transportation.

Sales of liquid fueled cars and trucks will have
nowhere to go but way down. Whether the worldwide
automobile industry will be able to respond to
this challenge is an interesting question.
Collectively, we have trillions of dollars
invested in the current vehicle fleet. Perhaps
with a little ingenuity, some portion of this
huge investment could be converted to electric
power and not be simply left to rust along the
roadside, or on driveways, or in parking lots.

As there seems no realistic alternative, the
demand for electric vehicles will quickly
overwhelm the ability of manufacturers to
produce. As this will be a worldwide problem,
filling domestic needs are likely to take
priority, so exports may slow for a while. The
need for personal transportation will be so
great, the manufactures resources so limited, and
personal wealth so reduced, luxury vehicles are
likely to disappear for a time as the industry
strives to produce utilitarian vehicles in large quantities.

Welcome to peak oil!



--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
          http://www.calcars.org/news-index.html
      http://www.hybridcars.com/blogs/power
            http://www.eaa-phev.org
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/03/AR2006030302046.\
html
An Energy Pearl Harbor?
A Near Miss in Saudi Arabia Hints at Future Shocks

By Gal Luft
The Washington Post
Sunday, March 5, 2006; B02

"We call our brothers in the battlefields to direct some of their
great efforts towards the oil wells and pipelines. . . . The killing
of 10 American soldiers is nothing compared to the impact of the rise
in oil prices on America and the disruption that it causes in the
international economy." -- A jihadist Web site

The two cars that exploded a week ago outside the inner perimeter of
Abqaiq, an oil processing facility in Saudi Arabia that is the
world's largest, could have caused more loss of life and economic
devastation than the two planes that crashed into the World Trade
Center on Sept. 11, 2001.

Had the terrorists succeeded in penetrating the guarded facility and
detonating their bombs inside, they might have turned the complex
into an inferno, releasing toxic chemicals that could have killed and
sickened thousands of locals and expatriates, including many
Americans, who work and live nearby.

The damage to the world economy also would have been severe because
the oil market today resembles a car without shock absorbers: The
tiniest bump on the road could send consumers and prices bouncing off
the ceiling.

That wasn't always the case. Once there was enough wiggle room in the
oil market to deal with occasional supply disruptions. As recently as
2002, some oil producers, chiefly Saudi Arabia, had the spare
production capacity to provide liquidity to oil markets. But due to
the sudden growth in demand in developing countries in Asia and
continuing profligacy in industrialized nations such as the United
States, oil output is largely spoken for. In 2002, there were about 7
million barrels a day of spare production capacity, or about 10
percent of world consumption. Today, spare capacity amounts to about
1 million barrels a day, less than 2 percent of world consumption.

That's a lot less than what would have been lost if the car bombers
had succeeded at Abqaiq. The attack would have removed 4 million to 6
million barrels a day of supply from an already tight oil market.
That loss would have exceeded all of the oil taken off the market by
the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries during the 1973
Arab oil embargo. Depending on the extent of damage to the site, it
could have taken months or even years to fix the facility, where
two-thirds of Saudi crude oil is processed. Without extra supplies,
the only mechanism left to restore the market to equilibrium would be
a rapid and uncontrolled increase in prices.

This vulnerability isn't lost on radical Islamic terrorists. They
have identified the world energy system as the Achilles' heel of the
West and have made attacking it a central part of their plan.

Osama bin Laden's strategy is based on the conviction that the way to
bring down a superpower is to weaken its economy. We "bled Russia for
10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw [from
Afghanistan] in defeat," bin Laden boasted in his October 2004
videotape. "We are continuing in the same policy to make America
bleed profusely to the point of bankruptcy." His logic, feasibility
aside, is simple: Bring the United States to a point where it can no
longer afford to preserve both its military and economic dominance.
Then, as the United States loses standing in the Middle East, the
jihadists can gain ground and topple regimes they view as corrupt and
illegitimate, while defeating other infidels who inhabit the land of Islam.

Striking oil, which jihadists call "the provision line and the
feeding to the artery of the life of the crusader's nation," is
relatively easy and effective. Terrorists no longer need to come to
the United States to wreak havoc here. They can hit our energy supply
near the source, where they enjoy strong support on the ground.

Politically motivated attacks on oil pipelines in Iraq have kept more
than 1 million barrels per day off the global oil market. Had this
oil been in the market, the price per barrel would have been $10 to
$15 lower, according to most energy analysts. For the United States,
an importer of more than 11 million barrels a day, the terrorist
premium alone costs $40 billion to $60 billion a year. Higher oil
prices mean a transfer of wealth of historical proportions from
oil-consuming countries -- primarily the United States -- to the
Muslim world, where 70 percent of global oil reserves are
concentrated. The windfall also benefits jihadists as petrodollars
trickle their way through charities and government handouts to
madrassas and mosques.

How vulnerable is the Saudi oil industry to kamikazes bent on
sacrificing their lives for the sake of disrupting the world economy?
Despite Saudi assurances that their facilities have the best
protection in the world, the terrorists were still able to penetrate
the outer perimeter of Abqaiq before they were killed.

And what about an air attack? A suicide terrorist hijacking an
airplane in Kuwait or Dubai in an attempt to crash it into one of the
facilities would leave the Saudis very little time to respond.
Al-Qaeda's statement following the Abqaiq attack that "we shall not
cease our attacks until our territories are liberated" must be taken seriously.

To compensate for the erosion in OPEC's spare capacity, major
oil-consuming countries need to create new cushions against possible
oil shocks. At its current capacity of 700 million barrels, the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) can mitigate supply disruption to
the U.S. market, but it isn't big enough to tide over the global
economy if there were a severe disruption of oil supplies. If,
however, the SPR were expanded and Europe and Asia encouraged to
establish similarly large oil banks, the oil-consuming nations could
withstand a catastrophic failure of the Saudi system. It would make
the oil weapon less effective, and less alluring to terrorists.

Reducing petroleum consumption, especially in the transportation
sector, where two-thirds of U.S. oil is consumed, could also help
restore some wiggle room to oil markets. By shifting to domestically
produced transportation fuels like ethanol and methanol, or by
driving more efficient hybrid vehicles, Americans can reduce their
vulnerability to supply disruptions. Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles
could tap into the grid and use made-in-America electricity; unlike
in the 1970s, today only 2 percent of U.S. electricity is generated
from oil. In many cases of national security, the best defense
against foreign foes begins at home. Technology may not be able to
wean us from oil altogether, but it can reduce U.S. vulnerability to
an energy Pearl Harbor.

Gal Luft is the executive director of the Institute for the Analysis
of Global Security and co-chair of the Set America Free Coalition, an
alliance of national security, environmental, labor and religious
groups promoting ways to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil.

--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
          http://www.calcars.org/news-index.html
      http://www.hybridcars.com/blogs/power
            http://www.eaa-phev.org
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/02/the_anatomy_of_1.php

The Anatomy of the Plug-In Hybrid—Part 1: What the Heck is it?
February 28, 2006 12:20 PM - Jacob Gordon, Los Angeles, CA

You wake up in the morning and get ready for
work. You go to your car, unplug it from the
outlet in the garage (the same one the power
drill is plugged into), and off you go. You go to
work, stop for groceries on the way back home,
pick up your kid, and then go out to dinner, and
even though your car is a hybrid, the gasoline
engine never goes on. You do your daily driving
purely on electricity. The car is almost silent
and even though there’s a tailpipe, nothing’s
coming out of it. After dinner you decide to go
to a movie. Between the restaurant and the
theater the electric batteries finally run out of
juice so…the regular hybrid system kicks in and
you’re back to getting 40 or 50 mpg on gasoline. Until tomorrow.

This is what life might be like with a plug-in
hybrid electric vehicle, or PHEV. With additional
battery packs added to a conventional
gas/electric hybrid, a car can run on electric
power alone for somewhere between 20 and 60
miles, at which point it switches over to the
hybrid system. Plug-ins, which are not a new
idea, may present a logical link between
gas/electric hybrids and pure electric vehicles,
offering greater efficiency and cleaner emissions
than a hybrid, without the risk of running out of
juice like a pure EV, or a need for an electric
charging infrastructure. According to the
Electric Power Research Institute, half of
American drivers commute 25 miles or less each
day. If these people drove plug-ins, going to the
gas station might be something they do only on
long trips, and could typically do months of local driving between fill-ups.

Plug-ins are just beginning to come on the
market, and their future is still unclear. The
first plug-in conversion kit has just recently
become available and more are poised to launch
soon. For most advocates, though, plug-in
retrofits are just a means of leveraging
automakers into adopting plug-in technology on a
large scale. Conversion kits are not cheap:
around $10,000 each. But plug-in hopefuls claim
that if automakers would adopt the technology,
mass production and accelerated R&D would bring
down the price tag to a few thousand dollars more
than a typical hybrid, which now cost few
thousand more than conventional internal combustion cars.

Most plug-in hybrids that have been created get
100 mpg or more, and because they charge at night
when most utilities have lower rates, they cost
an equivalent of a few cents per gallon. Plug-ins
run on lithium ion (Li-ion) or nickel metal
hydride (NiMH) batteries, and recent advances in
battery technology, like MIT’s new lithium
battery recipe, may improve the charge duration
and lower the cost of batteries for plug-ins. If
plug-ins attract enough public interest and
research dollars, hopes are that it could pave
the way for batteries good enough to make pure
electric vehicles more practical and affordable.

Support for plug-in hybrids appears to be ramping
up fast. The Bush administration’s new Advanced
Energy Initiative sets aside $30 million to speed
up improvements in hybrid and PHEV batteries, and
Austin, TX, a leader in plug-in advocacy, has
already set aside $1 million in rebates for
consumers who are ready to “plug it in.” A
notable stereotype-defying advocate has been
James Woolsey, former head of the CIA, who has
been repeatedly outspoken about the role plug-ins
can play in national energy independence. Plug-In
Partners, an Austin group calling for plug-ins,
has assembled an impressive list of supporters
including cities, mayors, non-profits, and, of
course, electric utilities, that would supply
much of the power that plug-ins will consume.

But with plug-in kits costing $10,000 and up,
mass production by car companies seems to be one
of the only ways plug-ins will become any major
part of daily life. But, despite strong hybrid
sales, automakers aren’t terribly keen on the
plug-in notion at the moment. After convincing
consumers that gas/electric hybrids don’t need to
be plugged in like their EV cousins, they fear
the idea of a plug-in hybrid could be confusing.
Carmakers also claim that battery technology is
not far enough along and that long-term
performance is untested. Toyota did include a
plug-in Prius as part of its concept dream house,
however, signaling that the technology is well on
the radar, if still being considered in the “dream” category.

--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
          http://www.calcars.org/news-index.html
      http://www.hybridcars.com/blogs/power
            http://www.eaa-phev.org
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --

http://grassley.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressReleas\
e_id=5009&Month=3&Year=2006

For Immediate Release March 1st, 2006

GRASSLEY BILL OFFERS BUSINESSES SIGNIFICANT TAX
BREAKS TO BUY FUEL-EFFICIENT ALTERNATIVE ENERGY VEHICLES

WASHINGTON – Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the
Committee on Finance, today introduced bipartisan
legislation to significantly increase tax
incentives for business owners who buy
fuel-efficient alternative energy vehicles. The
Grassley bill will make certain that businesses
receive tax benefits for buying more efficient,
cleaner alternative energy vehicles just as they
now receive for the purchase of sport utility
vehicles (SUVs).  Grassley introduced the bill
with Sen. Max Baucus, ranking member of the Committee on Finance.

If enacted, the proposed changes would be the
biggest incentives for the business purchase of
alternative energy vehicles ever to emerge from
the Finance Committee and possibly alter the way
businesses approach their vehicle purchases.  The
alternative energy vehicles include electric
cars; hybrid cars that run on part-fuel,
part-electricity; and vehicles that run entirely
on alternative fuel such as compressed natural gas.

“The tax code shouldn’t favor SUVs over
alternative energy cars for business owners,”
Grassley said. “Some business owners will want to
use SUVs and some will want to use hybrid cars.
The choice should be theirs and the tax code
should be consistent. The purchase of either kind
of vehicle will help business growth, especially
for small businesses, which create most of the nation’s jobs.”

[Not from Sen. Grassley's press release, here's
what Senator Baucus was quoted elsewhere as saying:]
"At a time when America needs to shake its oil
addiction, Congress needs to do all it can to
encourage the purchase and use of alternative
fuel vehicles. America’s small business owners
are looking for ways to reduce their energy
consumption and costs, and the tax code should
provide benefits for those who can choose and use
clean, lean alternative-fuel vehicles.'

The bill, the America’s Business Choice (ABC)
Act, exempts passenger vehicles eligible for the
alternative motor vehicle credit and the credit
for qualified electric vehicles from the
limitation on depreciation for “luxury” automobiles.

Under current depreciation rules, a business
owner who buys an SUV gets a deduction for the
depreciation not subject to the limitation for
“luxury” automobiles.  The Grassley bill will
provide the same depreciation deductions for
business owners who buy alternative energy vehicles.

In addition, the Grassley bill allows small
business owners to use the tax benefit of
expensing of up to $100,000 for their alternative
energy vehicles. Under current law, business
owners have not been able to use expensing if
they purchased a passenger vehicle that costs
more than $10,585 (adjusted for inflation to $14,800 for 2005 purchases).

--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
          http://www.calcars.org/news-index.html
      http://www.hybridcars.com/blogs/power
            http://www.eaa-phev.org
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --

This is going to be fun and important.
First the press release from O'Reilly's
publicists, then text of my blog posting.

FOR RELEASE:
CONTACT:
Mark Ballard                    Rachel Sussman
mark@...           rachel@...
212.255.8455 ext. 25            212.255.8455 ext.31

MAKER FAIRE Gets GREEN!

CalCars.org to modify Toyota Prius to "plug-in" hybrid at Maker Faire

"…when we eventually run out of oil, have a
worldwide computer crash, or another global
catastrophe, it's the sort of people who will
subscribe to Make who will help us all survive."
- Knoxville News Sentinel

Sebastopol, CA (March 1, 2006)- Following
President Bush's recent endorsement of advanced
hybrids, and coinciding with Earth Day weekend,
The California Cars Initiative (CalCars.org) will
publicly convert a Toyota Prius hybrid into a
"plug-in" hybrid during the inaugural Make magazine Maker Faire, April 22-23.

Over two days, CalCars engineers, along with a
cadre of volunteers, will build and install a
battery pack and make hardware and software
adjustments to the stock Toyota Prius.  The
finished "PRIUS+" will drive back to Seattle,
Washington after the Faire with a 10-mile
low-speed all-electric range in addition to its regular hybrid extended range.

Unlike a standard hybrid, which uses the gasoline
engine to power its battery, a plug-in hybrid
adds a larger battery that can re-charge from a
household 120-volt outlet.  The result: a 100+
MPG plug-in hybrid fueled with gasoline plus
cleaner, cheaper, domestic electricity.

Coming to the San Mateo Fairgrounds in San Mateo,
CA, Maker Faire is a celebration of science and
technology projects and the new Do-It-Yourself
(DIY) mindset.  "Make was created to expose the
fun of technological hacking and discovery - and
what could be more fun, not to mention
worthwhile, than hacking a real world solution to
our world's energy woes?" explained Make magazine
publisher Dale Dougherty.  CalCars.org founder
Felix Kramer added, "If a handful of independent
experimenters can create a plug-in hybrid over a
weekend, imagine what auto-makers could do in a few months."

In addition to the CalCars project, other Maker
Faire highlights include: 6 exposition & workshop
pavilions (Weird Science, Ultimate Garage,
Robotics, Digital Entertainment/Gaming, Green
Tech & Electronics Recycling, Ultimate Workshop),
5-acre outdoor midway, over 100 exhibiting
Makers, hands-on workshops, demonstrations, DIY
competitions, crafting for Makers, Make: Movies,
and the very latest in tools, kits and DIY resources.

The Details:

* When: Saturday, April 22, 2006 (10am - 6pm)
Sunday, April 23, 2006 (10am - 5pm)
* Where: The San Mateo Fairgrounds
2495 South Delaware Street, San Mateo, CA
* Admission:    $12/Adult; $5/Teens; $25/Family; Under 12 free
For the very latest information and updates, please visit:
www.makezine.com/faire

For press information and registration please
contact Mark Ballard at 212-255-8455 or Mark@....
For more information on CalCars.org, please
contact Felix Kramer at 650-520-5555 or fkramer@....

About CalCars
The California Cars Initiative www.calcars.org is
a Palo Alto-based nonprofit startup focused on
technology and advocacy. It's a group of
entrepreneurs, engineers, environmentalists and
other citizens promoting high-efficiency,
low-emission cars and harnessing buyer demand to
help commercialize advanced technologies. Formed
in 2002 by entrepreneur Felix Kramer, CalCars'
Technology Lead is Ron Gremban, a CalTech
engineer who helped build and drive one of the
competitors in the first transcontinental
electric car race between MIT and CalTech in
1968.  CalCars.org's efforts for "100+MPG
hybrids" began to be noticed in 2005 with
coverage in major national print and broadcast
media. Since then, support for PHEVs has grown
among many constituencies, including President
Bush's Advanced Energy Initiative. CalCars is
investigating strategies, including sponsoring a
for-profit company to partner with one or more
automakers to meet the high fleet demand for PHEVs.

About O'Reilly Media
Founded in 1978 and based in Sebastopol, CA.,
O'Reilly Media is the premier information source
for leading-edge computer technologies. The
company's books, conferences, and web sites bring
to light the knowledge of technology innovators.
O'Reilly books, known for the animals on their
covers, occupy a treasured place on the shelves
of the developers building the next generation of
software. O'Reilly conferences and summits bring
alpha geeks and forward-thinking business leaders
together to shape the revolutionary ideas that
spark new industries. From the Internet to XML,
open source, .NET, Java, and web services,
O'Reilly puts technologies on the map.  www.oreilly.com

# # #

  From our FAQ, Power, Plugs and People at Hybridcars.com:
<http://www.hybridcars.com/blogs/power/prius-makeover-at-maker-faire>

See a Prius Makeover at Inaugural Maker Faire

CalCars' next project is quick: we'll convert a
Prius in a weekend. This will be fun and important.

Our partner is MAKE, the acclaimed year-old
magazine from O'Reilly Media. The venue is MAKE's
Inaugural Maker Faire
<http://www.makezine.com/faire> at the San Mateo
Fairgrounds, April 22-23. See their press release
at our page,
<http:/www.calcars.org/makerfaire.html>. At that
page, we'll follow up this announcement soon with
additional details: what we'll be doing; a look
at our All-Star Conversion Team; how you can help.

This PHEV will recharge in hydropower-rich
Seattle. It's a dry run for the EAA-PHEV effort
(see <http://www.eaa-phev.org>) That project is
developing Open Source (non-proprietary)
electronic designs, instructions and recommended
components so experienced engineers can complete
"do-it-yourself" conversions on their own. Along
with the two private companies now about to offer
after-market installed retrofits, this will put
some plug-in hybrids on the road. Meanwhile, we
plug away at getting the car-makers to do it
right: bigger, better and cheaper and of course,
bigger -- bringing PHEVs into the fleet faster
and more broadly than all the conversions anyone could envision.

Here's a run-down of our current programs (see
also our 2006 Goals <http://www.calcars.org/2006.html>:

ADVOCACY AND PARTNERSHIPS most important first:
* We remain focused on our main goal: encouraging car-makers to build PHEVs.
* We're trying to partner with an open-minded but
skeptical car-maker to supply some PHEVs to
fleets and high-visibility early adopters -- to
stretch at least as far as DaimlerChrysler is
going for larger commercial vehicles with its Sprinter Van PHEVs.
* We're building support for the fleet-purchase campaign of Plug-In Partners.
* We continue a broad range of efforts to
increase visibility and support for plug-in
hybrids -- talking to journalists, presenting at
events, trying out new communications strategies
and tactics, and meeting with public- and private-sector decisionmakers.

TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS in chronological order
* We're documenting the everyday performance of
our original PRIUS+, the first converted hybrid.
* We're troubleshooting/refining and improving
our conversion in Connecticut with Electro
Energy, Inc. using bi-polar nickel-metal hydride batteries.
* We're exploring partnerships with other
battery-makers to show that while PHEVs can be
built now, they can be even better in the future.
* We're awaiting a conversion any week now by EDrive Systems.
* We're hoping to get one of Hymotion's early retrofits for evaluation.

Comments and suggestions appreciated. (Before you
ask, "how can I get one?" or you say, "PHEVs
bad," etc., please, first at least look at the
CalCars FAQ <http://www.calcars.org/faq.html>.)

To see comments/add yours, go to:
<http://www.hybridcars.com/blogs/power/prius-makeover-at-maker-faire>.


--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
          http://www.calcars.org/news-index.html
      http://www.hybridcars.com/blogs/power
            http://www.eaa-phev.org
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/03/01/opinion/01friedman.html?hp
The New York Times
March 1, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
Who's Afraid of a Gas Tax?
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

My gut told me this was the case, but it's great
to see it confirmed by the latest New York
Times/CBS News poll: Americans not only know that
our oil addiction is really bad for us, but they
would be willing to accept a gasoline tax if some
leader would just frame the stakes for the country the right way.

I am sure one reason President Bush suddenly
chose to build his State of the Union address
around ending our oil addiction and moving toward
a renewable-energy future was because his private
polling told him the same thing. But Mr. Bush
simply occupied this ground rhetorically — before
Democrats could get there — without actually offering a real solution.

The only real solution is raising our gasoline
tax, which is a paltry 18.4 cents a gallon and
has not been increased since 1993. Only if the
total price of gasoline is brought into the
$3.50-to-$4-per-gallon range — and kept there —
will large numbers of Americans demand plug-in
hybrid cars that run on biofuels like ethanol.
When large numbers of Americans do that, U.S.
automakers will move quickly down the innovation curve.

"Impossible," campaign consultants say. "A
gasoline tax is political suicide." No, it all depends on how you frame it.

The poll reported yesterday found that 60 percent
of those polled, including one-third of
Republicans, disapproved of how Mr. Bush is
handling our energy crisis. Only 27 percent
approved. Most want real action — now. In the
poll, 87 percent said Washington should require
car manufacturers to produce more efficient cars.

Of course, when asked simply whether they'd favor
a gasoline tax, 85 percent said no and only 12
percent said yes. But when the gas tax was framed
as part of a national strategy to achieve energy
security and climate security, pollsters got a
very different answer. When the tax was presented
as reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil, 55
percent favored it and 37 percent said no. And
when asked about a gas tax that would help reduce
global warming, even more respondents supported
it — with 59 percent in favor and 34 percent opposed.

And that is without a single Democrat or
Republican leading on this issue! Imagine if someone actually led?

Many Americans now understand: the Energy
Question is the big strategic issue of our time,
overtaking 9/11 and the war on terrorism. If a
leader from either party would correctly frame
the issue — that a gas tax is the single most
important geostrategic move we could make today —
a solid majority would support it.

Taking on this issue is the only hope the Bush
team has for producing a legacy out of its
remaining years. And it is the Democrats' only
hope for taking on the Republicans with a big
idea — rather than relying on G.O.P. scandals to win.

Sadly, both sides fear the other will smear them
if they run on this issue. O.K., say you're
running for Congress and you propose a gas tax,
but your opponent denounces you as a wimpy,
tree-hugging girlie-man, a tax-and-spender. What do you say back?

I'd say: "Oh, really? I guess you think it is
smart, tough and patriotic for us to be financing
both sides in the war on terrorism — the U.S.
military with our tax dollars, and Al Qaeda, Iran
and various hostile Islamist charities with our energy purchases.

"Now how patriotic is that? I guess you haven't
noticed that today's global economic playing
field has been leveled and that three billion new
players from India, China and Russia have walked
onto the field, buying new cars, homes and
refrigerators. So if we don't break our addiction
to crude oil, we're going to heat up this planet
so much faster — enough to melt the North Pole
and make Katrina look like a summer breeze.

"Now how smart is that? I guess you don't realize
that because of this climate change and the
rising cost of crude, green technologies are
going to be the industry of the 21st century, and
a gasoline tax is the surest way to make certain
that our industries innovate faster and dominate
innovation in green cars, homes and appliances.

"Finally, I guess you haven't noticed that the
wave of democratization that seemed unstoppable
after the fall of the Berlin Wall has run into a
black counterwave of petro-authoritarianism. This
black wave of oil-financed autocrats — Venezuela,
Russia, Iran, Nigeria, Burma, Saudi Arabia — has
all the money in the world now to turn back the
democratic tide. And you think doing nothing to
reverse that is patriotic? Shame on you, you
unpatriotic wimp. Green is the new red, white and
blue, pal. What color are you?"

That's what I'd say.

--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
          http://www.calcars.org/news-index.html
      http://www.hybridcars.com/blogs/power
            http://www.eaa-phev.org
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --

Here On Earth <http://wpr.org/HereOnEarth/> is a global cultural
affairs call-in program from Wisconsin Public Radio, carried by 16
midwestern radio stations and heard online internationally.  Last
Saturday, the weekly program featured "A New Breed of Cars" . Host
was WPR Senior Broadcaster Jean Feraca
<http://wpr.org/HereOnEarth/bio.cfm>, a poet and 25-year veteran of
public talk radio. She interviewed Keith Johnston from GoinGreen in
London and Felix Kramer from CalCars.

GoinGreen's story is fascinating and encouraging. We were astonished
at the level of incentives and benefits drivers of electric vehicles
(and, we hope, soon plug-in hybrids) can get in London. And we had
fun talking about some subjects that don't usually come up -- like
the sounds of electric driving.

You can hear the stream from
<http://wpr.org/HereOnEarth/archive_060225k.cfm>, download a podcast
version, or go directly to
<http://clipcast.wpr.org:8080/ramgen/wpr/hoe/hoe060225k.rm> (52
minutes, Real Audio).
Here's the unofficial transcript (thanks to Greg Wiley and our second
anonymous volunteer).

"Here on Earth" intro ("Here on Earth" in several languages)
[Jetson's theme music][
Jean Feraca, host]: [0:38]
In the 1960s futuristic cartoon series "The Jetsons," produced for
television by Hanna Barbera, George Jetson's family got around in a
car that levitated! Well, we're not quite there yet - - but believe
it or not, NASA is working on it. In June, NASA unveiled its "Highway
in the Sky" navigation system, which is designed to make piloting
into a veritable video game - - moving us closer to the possibility
of sky-based commuting. Meanwhile, on the ground, the future is
already here - - with electric cars that are designed in California,
made in Bangalore, and driven in London. And, the new Plug-In
Hybrids, that average more than 100 miles per gallon. Would you buy
one? Maybe you already drive one...[1:35]

[Two Brits, from tape]
- "I do think it's very neat."
- "The engine's on, is it?"
- "The engine is on."
- "I didn't hear anything, though..."
- "That's because it's electric - - there's nothing to hear. That's
now in gear... all you do is and off you go."
- "Alright... extraordinary!"[1:57]

[Host] That's the BBC's Peter Day, taking a test drive in his new
electric car. And joining us now to talk about the electric cars,
that are becoming more and more popular in London, is KEITH:
JOHNSTON. He is the Managing Director of "GoinGreen," K's first
dedicated environmentally friendly car retailer.< http://www.goingreen.co.uk>

I'm JEAN FERACA. You're listening to "Here on Earth" - - radio
without borders, where this hour we are featuring the future of the
car. Keith: Johnston, welcome to Here on Earth.[2:32]

KEITH: Jean, good afternoon.

JEAN: The electric car, that Peter Day just got into and drove off...
that's your car!

KEITH: Yes it is. We started selling them in London just over 18
months ago now, and since then we've sold about 500. Now, that may
not sound like many, but we don't advertise at all; that's all been
done by word of mouth.

JEAN: And, who's buying them? People who are like Peter Day, who are
very much "in the know"? People who are educated into the
environmental and economic benefits of the car? What's it called, by
the way, this car?

KEITH: It's called a "G-Wiz".

JEAN: A "G-Wiz"... that's right.

KEITH: Yeah, I mean, in terms of the profile of our customers, it's
everyone from late teens to people in their late 60s. I guess as a
marketing person, the typical bullseye target audience is someone in
their late 30s, early 40s; it's people who obviously have an
environmental conscience, and are concerned about the impact that
cars are having on the world now and, you know, probably who have
children and want to make sure that there's something left for them
when they grow up.[3:56]

JEAN: But are they having FUN with the G-Wiz car?

KEITH: The G-Wiz is great fun! It's a little, small car, I mean I
guess if I could describe it, it's designed as an urban commuter car.
It's a two-door, two-plus-two seats, a hatchback; it's fully
automatic. It has a top speed of 40 miles an hour and a range of
about 40 miles. That doesn't sound like much, but in the UK, the
average journey is only eight miles, and in cities it's only two
miles, and something like 75% of all journeys are done under two
miles. So it's ideal as the urban runabout, and that's what it's
being used for. I mean, it's pretty much people who are leaving their
BMWs or Porsches or saloon(?) cars at home, doing the same journey on
our congested roads in London at the same speed, in the same time.
The difference is they're doing in completely emissions-free mode,
and at the same time, they're saving may 1000... what, say maybe
$1500 a month by doing so.

JEAN: So this is really a second car...

KEITH: Yes it is. That's because of the limitations of the
technology. I think that the way to think about it is it's like the
first computer. The first computer I had was a Commodore computer - -
it had games on it, it was a bit slow, and a bit clunky, you know,
and sometimes it didn't work as reliably as other computers do now,
but it was the first one, and that's the point - - it's available
here, it works, and people are buying it. It's the first generation,
and the technology is starting to change now... it's getting very
exciting. [One of] the critical components of an electric car is the
batteries, and the G-Wiz uses what are called Lead-acid batteries.
This is the old style of technology, that most cars with an internal
combustion engine will have to start the car in the first place.
They're very reliable, but their performance is limited, as I say 40
miles an hour in a 40 mile range. I mean if you go back, the very
first cars were actually electric. Not many people know this I think.

JEAN: And all the way back - - to the 1880s, or something like that...

KEITH: Well, it depends where you start, but in 1839, the electric
carriage was invented when they got rid of the horses and put in an
electric motor in the carriage instead. If you go to around the turn
of the 20th century, there were something like 35,000 cars in the
U.S., but almost all of those were electric, not gasoline. Dr.
Porsche's first car was electric, I believe. Many of the innovations
that you see in cars today are actually over 100 years old.
Hybrid-electric vehicles - - they're not a new thing: they were
around 100 years ago. Four-wheel-drive was around a hundred years
ago. What happened was, when the oil companies realized that this
fuel could be used to drive cars (and that everybody wanted a car),
they cozied up with the auto companies and made this very nice
duopoly, this very powerful one, which has lasted for 100 years now.
And they've just had the market tied up. So of course nobody got to
invest in the electric car or hybrid technology that was there all
that time ago.

JEAN: And so what are the forces that have brought it back to the
fore now? And tell us a little about your own company, GoinGreen...[7:24]

KEITH: Ok. Well, let me start by giving you a few numbers. I mean,
like I say, the whole market started 100 years ago. Cars started
then, but it was pretty slow to take off. By 1970, there were only
200 million cars in the world; but just 15 years later, that number
doubled to nearly 400 million, and then ten years after that, it had
gone up to about 500 million and today there's over 600 million cars.
And the forecast is that by 2020, it's going to double: there's going
to be about 1.2 billion cars and trucks in the world! The numbers are
crazy - - by that time, there'll be as many cars in China as there
are in the world today; traffic congestion is going to be about ten
times worse than it is today, if that's possible... I don't see how
that's going to happen in London: ten times worse would mean there
was just nothing moving at all.

JEAN: And what you mean is... go ahead

KEITH: Congestion is one of the things that's a driver, but it's not
just the volume of cars that's a cause for concern. I mean, not many
people realize that there choice of car has a greater environmental
impact than any other choice they make as a consumer. Transport is
now the single largest user of energy - - mostly oil of course - -
something like a third of all fossil fuels are used for transport.
And oil is running out; I mean, cheap oil is soon going to be a thing
of the past, and it's never going to come back. And we're still,
because we're burning so much carbon in our car engines, transport's
also the fastest growing source of greenhouse gases, of course.

JEAN: But doesn't electricity also depend on fossil fuel?

KEITH: Not necessarily, no. Here in the U.K., everyone who drives a
G-Wiz switches to green electricity tariffs, and in the U.K., this
effectively means wind. So, what happens is - - it's a bit of a fudge
at the moment - - but the utility companies, for every Kilowatt-hour
that's taken out and used to charge the car, they'll put a
Kilowatt-hour of clean energy in, wind energy into the system. So
there's this "brown electricity" as it's called, which is not the
ideal solution, but it's the first step, I think.

A couple of things about electricity is that it's not [necessarily]
dependent on fossil fuels to make it - - that's the point. You can
generate it from wind, from solar of course, and the big debate is
nuclear, you know. But, whichever you use, the point is it doesn't
[necessarily] rely on Carbon to generate it.[10:06]

JEAN: Um-hm. So the purpose of GoinGreen? What is it that makes this
unique? Why is it that... HOW is it that you're able to offer this
electric car at fairly reasonable rates? And by the way, how much
does a G-Wiz cost?

KEITH: It costs just under 8,000 pounds, which is what, about $13,000
U.S. I think? It came about three years ago when two of our founders
were actually in India on a leaders quest - - a personal development
course - - and they came across this prototype that had been designed
in California and was being made in Bangalore in fact. And, at that
time, we knew that here in London, the congestion charge was going to
be introduced. And this originally was a five pound per day charge,
that is now 8 pounds perday, 40 per week, just to travel into the
center of town. And, so what the guys did is we got this exemption
for electric vehicles, or for any emissions-free vehicle, which is
only electric at the moment.

JEAN: Let me just stop you for a moment. So, I want to make sure I
understand. In other words, it costs - - you have to pay a fine in
order to go into downtown with a regular car?

KEITH: Yeah. I mean, the U.K. has got amongst the most congested
roads in Europe now, and it's got so bad in London, that the mayor of
London introduced this in February of 2003. So, if you wanted - -
there are nine million of us in London, and a lot of people work in
Center City - - if you want to drive your car in now, you pay this
daily levy of eight pounds. [JEAN "I see..."] So this - - apart from
the fact that it's expensive - - this really annoyed a lot of people,
as you can imagine. They suddenly had to pay all this extra money
just to go to work. Or, you know, if you worked wherever it was...

So, that gave us the idea that now might be a good time for us to
launch an emission-free car. And of course, that, plus the whole
environmental debate as that started to come up the agenda, and here
in the U.K. it gets a lot of media coverage now. So it's this coming
together of factors, really, that gave us the right environment to
launch. The fact that oil is getting very expensive; the
environmental [problem] - - somebody has to do something about it.

Now, apart from a commercial interest and adventure, our social
purpose, really, with the business, is to combat climate change - -
by showing people, whether that's drivers, the government, or the
media, that it IS possible not only to travel cleanly without
incurring higher costs - - because most people don't want to pay a
premium to green their transport behavior. There's this thing called
the attitude-action gap: we know from research that awareness is very
high, but that people don't want to be the first to make the change
if it's going to cost them money. So we knew we had to find a way of
launching an electric car that didn't cost people more money. And
that was the key...

So we don't look much like a car company, really. What we've tried to
do is take the cost out as much as possible. So, I said the car is
made in Bangalore, so a manufacturer can make it much more
cost-effectively than in most other places. And, with us, we sell
direct to the customer - - we have no dealers; we have no showrooms,
[or] expensive real estate; we don't advertise at all - - it's all
viral or by word of mouth or from the media picking up on it. We
don't print brochures, we don't employ any car salesmen. It's all
done over the Internet at goingreen.co.uk, our website.[14:00]

JEAN: We're talking with KEITH: Johnston - - he's the Managing
Director of GoinGreen, UK's first dedicated environmentally-friendly
car retailer. They sell the G-Wiz, which is now on the road, being
driven by 500 Londoners. I'm Jean Feraca. You're listening to "Here
on Earth" - - radio without borders, where this hour, we are talking
about the future of the car, which is NOW. We're at 1-800-642-1234.
Would you buy an electric car? Do you already have one?

[Musical, commercial and station ID interlude][15:38]

JEAN: I'm Jean Feraca. You're listening to "Here on Earth," where
this hour we're talking about the future of the car. With us is
KEITH: Johnston, Managing Director of GoinGreen, UK's first
dedicated, environmentally-friendly car retailer. An joining us now
from - - I think it is Palo Alto, in California - - is FELIX KRAMER,
who is the Founder of Calcars, also a non-profit initiative working
to spur adoption of efficient, non-polluting automotive technologies.
Felix Kramer, welcome to "Here on Earth" [and] thank you so much for
being with us...[16:13]

FELIX: Hi Jean!

JEAN: Hi. Now you've been working on a new form of the hybrid car - -
something called the... ah... tell me...
FELIX: plug-in hybrid
JEAN: Thank you! Why is it I can't keep that in my head? The plug-in
hybrid! And, exactly, how is it different from the hybrid itself?

FELIX: Well, you start with understanding how a hybrid works: a
hybrid is an efficient gasoline car - - it uses electric technology
to make the gasoline go farther. So it does two things: When you stop
at a stop light, the car goes off entirely - - there's no idling. And
when it starts up again, it starts from the electric motor and then
the gasoline engine kicks in. That's the first saving.

The second saving is actually a greater saving: you spend a lot of
energy going up a hill. On the way down, in a conventional car, you
lose all that energy - - it just [disappears] out the window or to
your brake shoes, to friction. But in a hybrid car, you put that
energy back - - through what's called regenerative braking - - into a
battery, and then you use that with the electric motor. And you save
[recapture] about half of the energy that you used going up the hill.

So, a hybrid car - - all you can do is fill it with gasoline, but it
can double the miles per gallon of a gasoline car.

JEAN: Ok... I just want to go through this one more time. There's the
electric car that we've been talking about, that is already being
driven in London. The hybrid car combines the features of the
electric with the old-fashioned gas-fueled car...

FELIX: Well, as you said, you're already driving a car that has
electric components in it - - every car does. Every car has a starter
motor and a small battery. A pure electric car does away with all of
the gasoline components. A hybrid car has a larger battery and it can
drive very briefly - - some of them can drive briefly electric only,
but for just a very small distance. But they are, effectively - - the
only important thing to think about is where does the power come
from? All hybrids, it comes from gasoline; in a pure electric
vehicle, it comes from the power grid. And, as Keith: was saying, the
power grid can get cleaner and cleaner.

So now we go to the mixture of the two...[18:39]

JEAN: It gets cleaner and cleaner... how?

FELIX:
OK, my favorite thing about what people say about electric cars is
that an electric car is the only vehicle that can get cleaner as it
gets older - - because the power grid gets cleaner. Right now, 20
states in the United States are under a mandate to increase the
amount of renewable power that goes into the power grid; and all over
the world, people are figuring out how to make the power grid
cleaner. It's much easier to clean one electric power plant than
100,000 cars. So, if you transfer the energy production and so forth
to the power plants, rather than to the engine of a car, you've got a
much easier job. And in fact there are many ways you can make power
plants cleaner.

JEAN: And that is by increased use of wind and solar?

FELIX: Well, many things - - wind and solar; natural gas is cleaner
than coal. Very few power plants in the United States use gasoline,
but some do in other countries. But the trend is towards cleaner
electric power.

JEAN: So I'm imagining the possibility of all of us driving hybrid
cars, and what happens during a brown-out or a black-out?

FELIX: Well, a hybrid car doesn't help you very much. A plug-in
hybrid would, or an electric vehicle would. If you imagine... let's
just take this further and explain the plug-in hybrid and then we can
look at the whole picture of the three different vehicle types.
JEAN: OK

FELIX: A plug-in hybrid is the logical extension of the hybrid car.
If you take that hybrid car and you add a larger battery, and then
you add the ability to recharge that battery from the power grid.
Right now, in hybrids, the battery only gets charged, effectively,
from gasoline. But if you can plug that in, you now have two power
sources going into the car. So you can actually think of a plug-in
hybrid as having a small second fuel tank - - but instead of filling
that fuel tank with gasoline, you fill it with electricity. And you
do it - - you use it first, you fill it at home from an ordinary
socket, and the cost is equivalent to less than a dollar a gallon. So
you're filling it with electricity which is cheaper, cleaner, and
it's generally domestic power - - it's not imported from the Middle
East or from other places.

So now we have these three different situations. A plug-in hybrid is
an electric vehicle for your local travel, and it is a hybrid car, a
hybrid gasoline car, for your extended range. So let's say you have a
battery in your plug-in hybrid that has a 30 mile range, and your
daily commute is 20 miles.[21:15]

So in this case, you don't need two cars.

FELIX: You don't need two cars. With the G-Wiz, that's a commuter
car; that's a local-travel car. But if you want to take that out of
town, you run into the problem that electric vehicles have had
forever, which is extended range - - what's going to happen? Am I
going to run out of juice?

With the plug-in hybrid, you don't have that problem, because you
have the gasoline engine. So, under several circumstances - - if your
daily commute is under 20 miles and you have a 30-mile battery, you
could go for months without going to a gas station. But one day,
let's say you forget to plug it in - - you're at a friend's house or
it's just not convenient or you forget it; that next day, you're
driving a clean hybrid car! If you want to go to the mountains,
hundreds of miles away, you're driving a clean hybrid car - - a
pretty efficient car - - all those miles. But for local travel, it's
electric, and generally what this means is that about 80 or 85% of
the miles most people put on their cars will be electric miles, and
with all the advantages that that brings.

JEAN: So really this is much more adaptable to the American lifestyle?

FELIX:
Well, it's not actually even so much the American lifestyle - - it's
the American advertising message. Cars are sold in television ads as
being about freedom and the open road.
JEAN: ...see the USA in your Chevrolet! ... "
FELIX: That's right, that's right. And so even if it's your second
car - - most people say, 'supposing one day I want to travel hundreds
of miles in my second car?' They insist on having unlimited range - -
and what we at Calcars.org are saying is that there's the freedom of
the open road, but there's also the freedom of emissions of global
warming gases, and the freedom of [from] relying on imported power,
and a plug-in hybrid gives you those freedoms as well. And it doesn't
sacrifice anything - - it's the best of both worlds...

JEAN: So, are people actually driving them yet?

FELIX: There are a handful of people. We built some prototypes, and
other people have as well. One car-maker, DaimlerChrysler, has built
a large vehicle, a Sprinter, 15-passenger van, and it's interesting,
based on what Keith: was talking about, [that] one of the reasons
they were interested in this is that a lot central cities in Europe,
particularly, are starting to say you have to have a zero-emission
car in your center cities [JF, "or you can't come in..."] Yeah, and
so this Sprinter van, which can go unlimited range, when it's in the
city, can go all-electric, and when it's out on the highway, it can
be gasoline. So we're trying to get there, and our big point is to
get the car-makers to build them, but so far, it's a small number of
prototypes. A few people have built them, but there's been a
tremendous interest and last week, we had the President of the United
States talking about plug-in hybrids for the first time ever.

JEAN: And why was that, do you think? I mean, old oil man that he
is... why all of a sudden, this tremendous shift?

FELIX: Well, he joked about it - - he said 'you must be surprised to
hear a Texas oil guy talking about this...', and the reason is, [is]
that everybody in the United States right now is talking about
dependency on foreign oil. And a plug-in hybrid can be a 100+ mile
per gallon vehicle... and [aside], there's no free lunch here: it's
100+ miles per gallon of gasoline, plus electricity. And then if you
go the next step and you start switching the range-extender fuel - -
the fuel you use for your long distance - - from gasoline to a
mixture, for instance, of 85% ethanol / 15% gasoline, then you can
actually have a plug-in hybrid that's a
five-hundred-mile-per-gallon-of-gasoline car, with the additional
power coming from electricity and ethanol.[24:52]

JEAN: Now, is the President DOING anything to...

FELIX: He's doing a little, and he needs to do more. And what we
would love him to do best would be to call up the car companies and
say, 'hey - everybody wants these cars; how can we make it easier for
you to build them?' That's what Calcars.org is doing. We're promoting
these vehicles and we're partnering with other organizations; for
instance, there's a group called "Plug-In Partners" dot org, which is
organizing fleet buys among cities, and municipalities, and
corporations around the country to come up with a buy order to take
to a car company, saying 'You're saying nobody wants these cars'?
Well, here we are!

JEAN: How often do fleets change?

FELIX: Well, a fleet car... any car actually... the U.S. Fleet turns
over about 10% a year. And it's interesting that fleet managers are
the most hard-nosed people of all, and they look at a number that
almost no one else does, which is the total lifetime cost of
ownership of a car. And when you look at that number, which takes
into account the purchase price, all the cost of service, and the
fuel price over the whole lifetime of the car, a plug-in hybrid is by
far the best bet for those people. So that's why they're interested.
And I should say a plug-in hybrid car, if it's made in quantities by
a car-maker.

JEAN: Now, do you need more than an extension cord to plug in your
car at home, if you for instance, don't have an outlet in your garage?

FELIX: Well, for most people, that's exactly right. We have, the
former CIA Director, James Woolsey, made this comment a couple weeks
ago, 'The only infrastructure you need for plug-in hybrids is an
extension cord.' And that's phenomenal, and most people have that
situation; other people - - at the point where plug-in hybrids start
becoming widespread, there will be solutions for people. There may be
- - there are some parts of the United States now, for instance,
where parking meters are equipped with electric plugs so that in the
cold climates, people can keep their cars warm...[26:58]

JEAN: Oh yes... that's what they do in Alaska!

FELIX: [Yes, ] and then you've got garages, and garages can actually
get an income stream by providing places for people to plug in. And
then you've got companies where people can plug-in while they're at
work, and then you've got train stations, large parking lots at train
stations - - in the Bay Area, the Bay Area Rapid Transit system is
interested in this concept of allowing it. And actually, at that
point, if you have millions of these cars, they'll be plugged in 23
hours a day. At that point, it changes a lot more than just cars - -
because they become part of the power source of the entire power
grid, and what they do is they start leveling the load. They're
mostly charged at night, at a time when there's plenty of power, and
it's cheap, clean power, and in the daytime, the utility can borrow
some of the power for peak load from the parked cars and they
wouldn't have to build power plants to take care of the peak load for
air-conditioning in hot afternoons.

JEAN: Is it possible to convert a pre-existing car to function this way?

FELIX: We have converted a Toyota Hybrid Prius, and other people have
done that as well. There are now two companies that are going into
business just to do that. We're doing it to prove a point that a car
company can do it. Other people are doing it because they see a
business there, and we think the car companies will start building
these once we make it an irresistible offer for them - - saying, you
know, there's so many people out here who will pay for these cars...[28:35]

JEAN: We have Bill, joining us from Sun Prairie, and open lines for
anyone else who'd like to join this conversation about the future of
the car. 1-800-642-1234. You can also send your messages by email;
the address is hereonearth@.... And... Bill, thanks for your
call. Go ahead...

BILL: Thank you Jean, hi Felix, it's Bill Robbins, it's great to hear
you on the radio. I'm so excited about plug-in hybrids. And about
everything that's happening on the national scene that we're actually
getting some attention. I wanted to mention that Wisconsin public
power is one of the many utilities that has signed on to that
pluginpartners.org. And I also wanted to mention that there is a
hybrid car festival being put on in July in Madison called Hybrid
Fest, and I just encourage people to check out the web site
<http://www.hybridfest.com> to learn more about that and just a great
chance to see all the different hybrids that are on the market today
and take test drives and that sort of thing.

FELIX: That was really helpful to know. We're working with a group
experimenters and engineers and electric vehicle advocates from
around the country, and it's possible that by that time of that Fest
there will be some people that who right around there will have
converted their Prius' according to instructions that we're
developing using components that we recommend. So, maybe there will
be a plug-in hybrid at that Fest.

BILL: That would be great.

JEAN: Now, you mention the Toyota Prius. Wasn't that already the car
of the future when it came out and that wasn't very long ago?

FELIX: Well, hybrids have been climbing a kind of wall of skepticism.
Most auto makers dismissed them for a while and now they are
triumphant. Everybody is falling into line to build them and Toyota
is maybe five years ahead of anybody else. They have built the best
car, the best hybrids there are, and absolutely they are the cars of
the future. One of the things that they have going for them is that
they have electrified many more aspects of the car. Instead of using
mechanical components to do things like braking they're using wires
and (inaudible) and so forth.

In terms of building the car, they've built a hybrid that actually
doesn't have very far to go to make it a plug-in hybrid. So they're
heading there but they are resolutely saying number one, we don't
think our customers want this, they don't want to plug in, as if we
didn't all plug in our cell phones every day. They're saying it's too
inconvenient, you know, but this is a regular 120 volt outlet in the
United States and in Europe it's a 230 like Keith's car. So they're
saying that. They're saying people won't pay extra, and people are
paying extra all the time for features in cars but when somebody
spends two thousand dollars on leather seats no one says to them "why
did you do that, what's the payback on them, why did you do that?" So
there are millions of people that will pay for the environmental
features of a car.

JEAN: What's going to make these cars sexy?

FELIX: Well the Toyota Prius right now, there's many months long
waiting lists for that car, so it's already sexy, it's already
attractive. But we think that saying "this is the car that's 100+
miles per gallon", that gets a lot of people's attention. And,
building it on the Prius we hope that Ford will come along with the
Ford Escape hybrid and other hybrids they're building. We hope that
some of the foreign companies will as well.

We think that great technology is going to be the sexy car of the future.

JEAN: We are talking with Keith: Johnston, the managing director of
Going Green in the UK and Felix Kramer, founder of CalCars in
Palo-Alto. I'm Jean Feraca, you're listening to Here On Earth, radio
without borders where this hour we are focused on the future of the
car. Back to the future when we're talking about the electric car as
we've learned from KEITH: Johnston. And the future is now when we're
talking about the plug-in hybrid.

Lots of breakthroughs on this in the recent past, coming from
President Bush himself and also there's an evangelical thrust. 86
prominent Evangelical leaders formed a new alliance on February the
7th in Washington D.C. saying this is God's world and any damage that
we do to God's world is an offense against God himself.

What will it take, do you think to get us off the oil addiction?
[COMMERICAL BREAK][34:55]

JEAN: I'm Jean Feraca with Felix Kramer in Palo-Alto and Keith:
Johnston in London and we have been talking about very exciting
breakthroughs that are bringing us, in the case of the electric car,
a zero emission car. Keith: , I'm wondering, I'm seeing these little
green cars every once and a while going around town. Is that one of the G-Wizs?

KEITH: In London? It could be.

JEAN: No, right here in Wisconsin.

KEITH: Oh, I don't think so. There may be one or two that have been
imported but it would literally be only a handful.

JEAN: What do they look like? The G-Wiz?

KEITH: Well, they are about the same size as a smart car? Do you have
those in Wisconsin? From DaimlerChrysler?

JEAN: I'm not sure. Somebody who's listening will tell us.

KEITH: They're about 1.8 meters long and 1.3 meters wide. They are
small cars. I doubt if there's a car as small as that on the roads in
America. Well there isn't in the UK either, it's the smallest car on the road.

JEAN: American's don't like small you know?

KEITH: Well you will soon when oil gets very expensive. Can I just
cut in? Actually it's very interesting, the whole plug-in hybrid
debate because in two weeks time, Going Green are going to be selling
a plug-in hybrid as well. It's a conversion of the Toyota Prius, so I
very much agree with everything that Felix has said there. I think
that it's really going to come down to choice and price and
preference in the short term. We'll be selling a G-Wiz for less than
the price of a conversion to a plug-in Prius for the Toyota. So, it
really depends very much on what you need the car for, what kind of
car you want to travel around in and how much you're prepared to
spend on your transport.

JEAN: And how is it that you gain back the extra cost of the vehicle
to begin with?

KEITH: Well, in London you get it back in about 12 months. The
savings on the congestion charge is just over 2,000 pounds a year.
Then you can park for free on all the central London meters and the
pay-and-display bays on 23 of the big municipal car parks. And that's
worth a savings of just over 6,000 pounds a year on the season ticket
price never mind the daily ticket price.

JEAN: So you have policies already in place?

KEITH: We do in London only. Our political push is to get those
extended around the UK. And then the other big savings on the G-Wiz
is that the electricity costs just over 1 penny per mile. So it goes
the equivalent of 5 to 600 miles per gallon currently. So the easiest
way to think of that is for the price of a tank of fuel, of petrol,
you can drive a G-Wiz around London for a year.

JEAN: So do people miss the noise of the engine? The roar, you know,
the horsepower?

KEITH: Do you mean pedestrians?

JEAN: No, I mean when you drive an electric car, how is the
experience different?

KEITH: Well it's quiet. There's a slight whine from the electric
motor but there's no roar at all, because there's no engine, no
exhaust, there's none of that happening in the car. So, it's a much
quieter experience, that is you don't get road rage. I mean it's just
not possible.

JEAN: But do you get power thrust?

KEITH: Well the thing about driving a G-Wiz is you leave your ego behind.

JEAN: Oh, now we're down to the heart of the matter.

KEITH: When you buy a G-Wiz, you're not saying I'm big or I'm
powerful or anything like that, you're saying you care. It's a very
different statement

JEAN: Now we have to bring Felix back in here. How is that going to fly?

Felix: It's very interesting because some of the fastest vehicles on
the road are pure electric vehicles because they have incredible
acceleration and torque. So you can build an electric vehicle that
can go zero to 60 in about 3 seconds and burn rubber faster than
almost anybody.

What's nice about a plug-in hybrid actually allows you to downsize
the engine of the car that the plug-in hybrid is in, because the
electric motor provides all that additional power for your passing
power when you're getting onto the highway. So, you gain in another
way. But, I would go back to what Keith: was talking about. It is a
different experience to be in a silent car and most people get used
to it and love it. There are a couple of issues, one of them is that
blind people have been concerned about this because they don't get
the traditional sound.

JEAN: Oh, you can't hear it coming, of course.

Felix: Another thing is, yes they sell cars with Freedom. BMW spent
10 million dollars tuning the sound on their cars so it would sound
in a way that people would buy it. So, I don't know, you could say
that what we're doing is we're "green tuning" cars and maybe some of
the "green tuners" will actually add a hi-fi stereo system where they
have the nice ROAR sound that they can generate with their car even
though it doesn't need it. I don't know, people will have fun with
these things. But once the car makers build them, going back to some
of the things KEITH: was talking about, about cost. If you want to
buy a converted Prius now, yes the cost is extremely expensive, it
can be up to ten thousand dollars but we're saying that Toyota could
do it and sell it for about three thousand dollars more than the cost
of the existing hybrid and at that point you as a consumer would
benefit pretty quickly on the savings. I actually envy the situation
that KEITH: finds himself in, in London because that city has gone so
far in creating the circumstances to encourage the adoption of
electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles. And I hope that cities here
will do that as well.

JEAN: New York, that would be great. We have Lyman joining us from
Johnson Creek. Lyman, go ahead.

LYMAN: Thanks for taking my call, it's a great show and an excellent
topic. My question for your guest since he spoke a little earlier
about fleet managers reluctance, sort of their conservative nature in
approaching hybrid and alternative fuel cars. You'd mentioned that
there wasn't much of an investment required in terms of
infrastructure to deal with that conversion. But it seems to me there
are whole fleets of people who take care of fleets of cars and that
there would have to be a resulting human infrastructure conversion
also. Maybe if you could address that issue, and how the
municipalities might be able to address the costs and the human
reluctance to change our own education about these things.

JEAN: It's always tough when you're talking about a real paradigm
shift, which in essence this is, or maybe I've got that wrong. Felix?

FELIX: The service interval on an electric vehicle is very long
because electric motors basically don't need any service at all.
People in California driving Toyota RAV4 EVs bring their cars in to
rotate the wheels. That's about it. So if you're a service manager or
fleet manager and you have a fleet of plug-in hybrids, the car will
need the same kind of service that it always needs for the gasoline
engine, but the gasoline engine will be used a lot less, so the
intervals will extend.

Then you do need some special knowledge about the electric
components, but all cars are becoming complex computers at this
point, so the service people are getting an education in cars all the time.

JEAN: Thanks Lymon, we'll go to Susie next in Richfield. Hi Susie go ahead.

SUSIE: Hi Jean, I was just giggling when I was listening to your
questions about the macho factor in purchasing cars. I've been
driving a Prius since they first came out here in 2000 and it was a
new experience for me. I'm in my 50s and I had more young men in
Corvettes stop me at gas stations to admire my car. It's really been
fun. People are interested in buying these kinds of cars because it's
the right thing to do. And I'll take comments offline.

JEAN: OK, but what about the horse power, what about the bling,
bling. Are these cars going to satisfy that male need to identify
with the car as an extension of self? Who's going to take that? Felix.

FELIX: Well actually there have been three or four different magazine
articles called "Pimp My Prius" and people have been decorating them
and adding all sorts of things to them that satisfies that sort of
geek gadget impetus.

The macho thing, well there are, hybrids are being sold now in two
different kinds. One of them the car companies, I'm talking about the
gasoline only hybrids, they're taking all that extra efficiency you
get and they're turning it into MPG, like the Prius. Then other car
manufacturers are selling it for the macho factor. They're saying buy
a Toyota Lexus hybrid and you get a more powerful car with the same
size engine.

They sell the Honda Accord V6 and they say it's a V6 plus a hybrid so
you're getting a V6 but you're actually getting the performance of a
V8. So, all that is up in the air, up for grabs. I'm not happy about
the muscle hybrids and we do have a lot of work to do in this country
I think to address those issues of where do you get your source of
satisfaction when you drive a car?

JEAN: Well, you've raised an interesting question. What's going to
happen to the SUV?

FELIX: Well, the SUV, turn it into a plug-in hybrid and you
immediately have a safer car because the center of gravity in the car
gets lower because you've got the batteries in the low part of the
car. There's no reason why an SUV can't be a plug-in hybrid. There's
a professor at UC Davis, Andy Frank, who has taken a Chevy Suburban,
a huge car, and turned it into a 60 mile range plug-in hybrid and he
took out a 5 liter engine in the car and put in a 1.9 liter Saturn
engine because of the reason I mentioned before. because you don't
need that big engine for acceleration. So you've got this Suburban
which normally gets ten or twelve miles per gallon, on the highway,
not in electric mode at all, just tooling along at high speeds with
that small engine. That Suburban is now getting about 30 miles per
gallon. So there's no reason not to do that.

You've got utilities that are making plug-in hybrids for bucket
trucks, which are the kind of trucks that are in your neighborhood to
fix the wires. So they now have their own generator on board, they
don't have to be noisy. And let's go completely macho, the military
is very interested in plug-in hybrids for two reasons. First of all.
delivering fuel to the battlefield costs more than 100 miles a
gallon. Second of all, all these Humvees have a tremendous amount of
electronic equipment on them and they have to run the engine in the
car, in the Humvee, to power that equipment. And that means that it's
a hot car, which has a heat signature that enemy rockets and so forth
can find. If you turn it into a plug-in hybrid it no longer generates
that heat. So, there's a very interesting wrinkle on this whole
thing. They're interested in plug-in hybrids because it's a
battlefield vehicle.

JEAN: We have Jan joining us next from Lacrosse. Hi Jan, go ahead.

JAN: You know how Americans, they kind of like to gamble? I don't,
but the lottery kind of an effort, if you had a raffle and everybody
paid five bucks for a ticket, because new ideas like this they need
to be funded. And the winner would win a G-Wiz. I mean I would buy
several tickets and that was just my thought.

JEAN: That's an ingenious idea. And I think it raises another
question. I know you guys aren't into advertising, but how do you
create market appeal for these cars? Keith?

KEITH: Well, our strategy from the very beginning has been to keep
the price down, very very low. So, as I said at the beginning we try
to take as much cost out of the whole process of buying a car and out
of the car itself and part of that is not advertising, so my
background is actually advertising and marketing. I did 20 years in
advertising agencies before I started doing this and I don't
advertise at all. Now, the way we do it is it's completely virally
and so that's a very powerful thing nowadays.

JEAN: What is the satisfaction of the G-Wiz driver? Where does the
satisfaction come from?

KEITH: Well there are three types of satisfaction. The first is the
environmental satisfaction. Most of our owners have children and they
know that they're taking really positive steps, setting a good
example and you can't get better than emission free. I mean plug-in
hybrids are fantastic in that they allow you to go emission free in
the city centers but unfortunately they're still polluting elsewhere.
So that self satisfaction, smokeless in some cases is a very very
powerful incentive. [49:25]

Secondly you've got the financial incentive. A G-Wiz in London for a
commuter, when you get out of your car into a G-Wiz it reduces your
commuting costs by about 80%. It's actually cheaper to drive a G-Wiz
than it is to take the London Underground or the bus to go to work.
It's a massive savings.

The third is they're fun. These things are cute little cars that you
zip around town in and it really really is fun. It's like the fun of
a Dodgem or a Fab rather than driving one of those SUVs or 4 by 4s
which are difficult to park, difficult to maneuver. People get
annoyed at you, all of that stuff, you don't have any of that with a
G-Wiz. So there's lots of satisfaction.

JEAN: And of course there's the satisfaction of knowing that you're
saving the planet after all. I mean it really does come down to that.

KEITH: Exactly. We track this very carefully and it's pretty much an
even split 50/50 between exactly that, the satisfaction from saving
the planet and the satisfaction from the financial savings. And I
think that's why the G-Wiz is the first car that's actually made this
breakthrough, because it scores on both points. If it's scored on
just the one, I don't think it would work. Not so well in London anyway.

JEAN: I wonder just how much Jared Diamond, his influence has to do
with these breakthroughs. You know he's made the case for
environmental salvation so clear in his book Collapse: How Societies
Choose to Fail or Succeed.

I think the message is finally being driven home, and I want to thank
you both very much for being with us this hour.

KEITH: Johnston the managing director of Going Green in the UK and
Felix Kramer in Palo-Alto, the founder of CalCars.

For more information about both of these organizations you'll find
links to Going Green and CalCars when you visit our web page
HereOnEarth.org. Plus you can post your thoughts at our web forum and
subscribe to our Podcast.

If you'd like a copy of the program, call the radio store at
1-800-747-7444. Ask for program number 225K

I'm Jean Feraca, thanks for listening.

--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
          http://www.calcars.org/news-index.html
      http://www.hybridcars.com/blogs/power
            http://www.eaa-phev.org
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --

This story appeared different days in different papers of the
national Knight-Ridder chain....it never made it into the print
edition of our hometown San Jose Mercury News.

<http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/13926319.htm>
Oil independence is possible, but does America want it bad enough?
Posted on Tue, Feb. 21, 2006
BY KEVIN G. HALL
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - President Bush's State of the Union pledge to end
America's oil "addiction" and his tour of emerging energy technology
centers this week have touched off a national debate on how to
achieve energy independence.

"The answer is pretty simple. We will never get to energy
independence while we are using oil as the major fuel," said Severin
Borenstein, director of the University of California Energy Institute
in Berkeley.

There are ways to break America's oil addiction, experts say, but it
won't be easy. Cures include stricter conservation, higher
fuel-economy standards, alternative fuels made from common crops and
next-generation batteries for hybrid cars that could get more than 100 mpg.

These and other options are promising, but all would require
sacrifice and trade-offs. And, importantly, none are yet
cost-competitive with oil. That's the biggest challenge to escaping
America's oil-based economy. Although growing global demand has
strained supplies, oil remains widely available and relatively cheap,
even at today's high prices.

In November 1973, President Richard Nixon announced "Project
Independence" to end U.S. reliance on foreign oil by 1980. He asked
William Hogan to help lead the crusade. Hogan spent the ensuing
energy crisis years as deputy director of the forerunner to today's
Department of Energy. But Americans are now more dependent than ever.

Here's what Hogan thinks of Bush's pledge to end America's oil addiction:

"My honest reaction was I wish he hadn't said it."

Hogan believes energy independence is illusory. Oil remains the
world's most cost-efficient fuel and is likely to remain so
indefinitely. The real goal, he believes, should be reducing
Americans' vulnerability to price and supply shocks.

The problem is "there's still all this oil in the Middle East" said
Hogan, now a Harvard University professor. Because the Middle East is
home to most of the world's proven oil reserves, it's expected to
remain the low-cost oil producer for decades. And oil is likely to be
the fuel of choice as long as it remains cheaper than alternatives, Hogan said.

If America went cold turkey, it would mean switching to higher-priced
or heavily subsidized alternative fuels, which Americans and the
government have resisted since Ronald Reagan won the presidential
election in 1980.

And there's still the question of how quickly the nation could
replace the 136 million gasoline-powered cars that cruised America's
highways in 2004, the latest year Federal Highway Administration data
are available.

During his State of the Union address, Bush called for reducing
three-fourths of the oil that the United States purchases from the
Middle East by 2025. A day later, his energy secretary clarified the
goal - it's actually to reduce oil imports from anywhere by the
equivalent of 75 percent of projected Middle East imports.

The Energy Department projects that Middle East oil imports will
total 6 million barrels per day in 2025, so Bush's goal means
displacing 4.5 million barrels a day by then.

That's more like a bartender taking away the glass but leaving the
bottle. The United States would still be consuming nearly 23 million
barrels per day of oil, and about 13 million barrels a day would come
from abroad.

Bottom line: Under Bush's approach, America would remain addicted to
foreign oil and still vulnerable to price shocks in a global market.

The surest way to break oil addiction is to make gasoline much more
expensive. High gasoline taxes have helped Europe discourage
consumption and promote more fuel-efficient cars.

In that vein, Americans for Energy Independence proposes a gradually
rising import energy tax. The revenue it would generate "would be
used for incentives to spur the move to plug-in hybrids (gas-electric
cars) and a national bio-fuels campaign," said Chris Wolfe, the
group's president.

Logical, perhaps, but likely?

"That's a non-starter, not just with Republicans but Democrats," said
Borenstein of the University of California. He doubts that
politicians have the stomach to impose a so-called "sin tax" on oil.

California may soon test that. A signature drive is under way there
for a referendum on taxing oil to create incentives for alternatives.

Another option is to sharply increase mileage standards for new cars.
During the 1970s, Congress imposed standards on carmakers, and fuel
efficiency for passenger cars jumped from an average 12.9 mpg in 1974
to 27.5 mpg in 1985. The requirements for cars haven't been raised
since, and they're lower for trucks, including SUVs.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said in 2004 that raising
minimum mileage requirements for cars to 31.3 mpg could reduce
gasoline consumption by 10 percent. But, the CBO warned, that would
increase the average car price by $900.

The CBO said a 10 percent cut in gasoline consumption could be
achieved at lower cost by raising the gas tax. The last time the gas
tax was raised was in 1993, when President Clinton persuaded the
Democratic-led Congress to increase it by 4.3 cents per gallon. But
Republicans blasted the tax hike and Democrats lost control of
Congress in the 1994 elections.

The Rocky Mountain Institute, a Snowmass, Colo.-based energy research
organization, offers a blueprint on how to attain oil independence by
2025. Its 2004 book "Winning the Oil Endgame" said U.S. oil
consumption could be halved by 2025 with alternative fuels and
conservation measures.

The institute recommends making cars from lightweight materials such
as carbon-fiber composites. It also suggests "feebates," which
combine steep fees on vehicles with poor gas mileage and government
rebates for fuel-efficient vehicles. Owners of gas-guzzling SUVs
would pay fees, while drivers of gas-electric hybrids or vehicles
running on ethanol would get tax rebates.

"To achieve this does not require a revolution, but merely
consolidating and accelerating trends already in place," wrote Nathan
Glasgow and co-authors.

Bush's proposals spotlight two alternatives to gasoline: new battery
technologies for electric cars and mass production of enzymes that
convert plant fiber into ethanol fuel.

Consumers are snapping up hybrid cars by Toyota, Ford and Honda.
Those cars have two motors, one powered by gasoline, the other
electric. The gasoline motor recharges the battery. The cars achieve
roughly double the mileage of a gasoline-only engine.

Some 200,000 hybrids were sold last year, about 1.2 percent of the 17
million cars sold in the United States.

The next big thing is expected to be plug-in hybrids whose batteries
are recharged by the gasoline motor, but also can be plugged into any
120V electrical outlet for charging. Once perfected, these stronger
batteries could achieve 100 mpg or more.

"You're substituting electricity for gasoline - that's the big
benefit," said Felix Kramer, founder of CalCars.Org, a nonprofit in
Palo Alto, Calif.

CalCars believes that if all U.S. vehicles in 2025 were hybrids, and
if half were plug-ins - two big ifs - U.S. oil consumption could fall
by 8 million barrels a day, or 30 percent. Hybrids that run on
alternative fuels could cut oil consumption even more.

Bush also backs cellulose-to-ethanol technologies. Corn-based ethanol
production is expected to reach 6 billion gallons next year;
researchers estimate a maximum production potential of 15 billion
gallons per year. That's about 12 percent of the projected 120.4
billion gallons of gasoline that the Energy Department estimates
Americans will consume annually in 2025. Hardly independence.

But mass production of biologically engineered enzymes that can break
down virtually any plant fiber for conversion to ethanol offers hope.
Add these to the mix and suddenly ethanol's production potential
leaps to 100 billion, approaching levels needed for independence.

"I think it's very doable. But it depends on whether policymakers
provide the incentive to get it done," said Georg Anderl, director of
operations for Genencor International, a Palo Alto, Calif.-based
biotechnology company.

No one has built a costly large-scale commercial bio-refinery. Anderl
believes the industry is waiting for Washington to help.

"What we need to have is a system-level integration of all the
technology that's needed ... to make ethanol from crop waste. ...
What's going to be required is government funding to really provide
the impetus and bring that together," he said. "No one company is
going to do that alone."

Even then, huge infrastructure hurdles would remain. Currently, fewer
than 700 filling stations nationwide sell ethanol. More than 167,000
sell gasoline.

Infrastructure hobbles another hope: hydrogen fuel cells. A few years
ago, hydrogen was viewed as the heir apparent to gasoline.
Hydrogen-powered cars rely on electric motors powered by fuel cells
that store pressurized hydrogen.

Experts believe it could take up to 20 years before hydrogen fuel
_cf_s are affordable and reliable enough to market. Then there's the
challenge of building a national distribution system, because liquid
hydrogen must be stored at temperatures under minus 400 degrees Fahrenheit.

With so many obstacles to energy independence, Jens Mueller Belau,
Shell's global technology manager, thinks gasoline will still
dominate 20, 30, even 50 years from now.

"However, the diversity of fuels will be growing in the next few
years," he said.

Shell's U.S. fuels marketing manager, Dan Little, says all the
emerging alternatives will help reduce America's dependence.

"If you put them all together, they're all going to play an important
role in overall fuel solutions," he said.

---

For more on President Bush's Advanced Energy Initiative go to:

<http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/energy/>www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/energy/

For a PDF version of "Winning the Oil Endgame" go to:

<http://www.oilendgame.com/ReadTheBook.html>www.oilendgame.com/ReadTheBook.html

For more information on Plug-In hybrids, go to:

<http://www.calcars.org/vehicles.html>www.calcars.org/vehicles.html

For more on cellulose-to-ethanol technology, go to:

<http://www.ethanolrfa.org/resource/cellulosic/>www.ethanolrfa.org/resource/cell\
ulosic/

--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
          http://www.calcars.org/news-index.html
      http://www.hybridcars.com/blogs/power
            http://www.eaa-phev.org
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --

At the Annual Meeting of the 39-year-old Electric Auto Association
<http://www.eaaev.org>, we were honored. Here's the awards speech:

Hi, I'm Jerry Pohorsky EAA Board Member and chairman of the Plug-In
Hybrid Special interest group <http://www.eaa-ev.org>.

2006 is the year of the plug-in hybrid.

Last year, the Keith Crock award went to UC Davis Professor Dr. Andy
Frank, father of the modern plug-in Hybrid.

Unfortunately, the impressive plug-in Hybrids developed by Andy and
his students have never gone beyond the prototype stage.  However,
they have proven the value of the technology and provided a strong
foundation for others to build upon.  Since then, four California
entrepreneurs have built on this foundation and developed a way to
move plug-in hybrids from the test track onto the public streets and highways.

It started with the discovery that 2004 and 2005 Toyota Priuses sold
outside of the United States had an EV mode switch.  This switch
allows the Prius to operate using only the electric motor until the
car reaches a speed of 34 miles per hour.  There is a catch,
however.  The batteries that come standard with the Prius only have
enough energy to go about a mile in this mode.

Here's where our 4 entrepreneurs got creative.  They found a space in
the back of the Prius where additional batteries could be easily
added.  Tapping into the Toyota computer system, they monitored the
data under various driving conditions and discovered how the system
worked.  Using this information they were able to make the system go
much longer distances in EV mode by taking advantage of the extra
battery capacity.  They also added a battery charger so that
electrical energy from a common wall outlet could charge the
batteries over night - unlike the stock Prius that only charges the
batteries from regenerative braking and from the gasoline motor-generator.

By now you may have guessed the identity of these 4
entrepreneurs.  The first two are Felix Kramer and Ron Gremban of
CalCars, a non-profit organization.  The second two are Greg Hanssen
and Peter Nortman of Energy CS - a for-profit company.  CalCars is
best known for their promotion of Plug-in Hybrids in the mass
media.   Felix has done most of the publicity work while Ron Gremban
has built the Prius+ prototype that is used to demonstrate the technology.

A key component of the CalCars Prius+ system is a CAN bus interface
that was developed by Greg Hanssen at Energy CS.  Greg and his
partner Peter Nortman have also built a plug-in Prius.  They shipped
their plug-in Prius to Monaco where they displayed it and presented a
technical paper at the prestigious EVS-21 conference.  Since the
conference, they have partnered with two other companies to form
E-Drive systems.  E-Drive is in the business of converting the 2004
and 2005 Prius models into plug-in Hybrids.

CalCars hopes to convince a major manufacturer (such as Toyota) to
build plug-in Hybrids at the factory.  So far this has been an
elusive goal. Meanwhile, they have been overwhelmed by requests from
do-it-yourselfers who want to build their own plug-in Prius.  Ron
Gremban has asked the EAA to help with these requests so he can focus
on making the design ready for mass production.  The EAA board voted
to establish a special interest group (called the PHEV SIG) to meet this need.

Last October, we launched the PHEV SIG with a steering committee
consisting of EAA board members Marc Geller, Jerry Asher and
myself.  Thanks to the efforts of Ryan Fulcher of the Seattle EVA, we
now have a website and a mailing list where people can subscribe to
receive email messages posted to the list.  So far, we have 53
subscribers to the email list and 66 messages have been posted.  In
addition to the messages, there is much technical documentation and
photographs that give do-it-yourselfers the information they need to
convert their own hybrid to plug-in operation.

We are working to have a plug-in Prius ready to display at the EAA
5th EVer all-chapters conference in May 2006.  In the meanwhile, the
EAA board would like to acknowledge the contributions of these 4
pioneering entrepreneurs, by giving the 2006 Keith Crock award to
Felix Kramer, Ron Gremban, Greg Hanssen and Peter Nortman.  The EAA
is proud to honor these major contributors to the commercialization
of plug-in hybrids and electric drive technology.  We all know the
value and importance of electric drive technology and the commitment
and determination involved in bringing this exciting technology to
the commercial market.  This technology is an exciting prospect - to
bring electric drive technology to a mass market. Here to accept the
award on behalf of CalCars and Energy CS is Felix Kramer. Felix,
would you please come up to the microphone and say a few words?

   (My response was unscripted, but I thanked EAA for their consistent
support since 2004, described the range of activities going on at
CalCars and the other groups involved in promoting and developing
PHEVs <http;//www.calcars.org/partners.html> -- and agreed that 2006
is The Year of the Plug-In Hyvrid.

--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
          http://www.calcars.org/news-index.html
      http://www.hybridcars.com/blogs/power
            http://www.eaa-phev.org
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --

The writer clearly defines the challenge:
"For ethanol or other biofuels to have a major
impact, they need to be used in more efficient
vehicles - dramatically more efficient. For this,
President Bush called for more research on better
batteries for hybrid and electric cars, with a
special nod to something new: plug-in hybrids."

<http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/story/14222687p-15048021c.html>

OPINION: The carbohydrate economy
As technology improves, biofuel sources are everywhere
By Mark Braly -- Special To The Bee
Published 2:15 am PST Sunday, February 26, 2006
Story appeared in Forum section, Page E1

A cliché and seeming footnote, the denunciation
of the U.S. addiction to oil was the hit of the
former oilman's State of the Union. President
Bush, noted for his past indifference to
renewable energy alternatives, went on to name
what probably are the nearest-term solutions: biofuels and plug-in hybrids.

Buzz is rising about home-grown ethanol and other
biomass fuels - the only renewable liquid fuels
for transport available. Practical hydrogen fuel is decades away.

Loyd Forrest, chief of a leading biomass energy
consulting firm, TSS Consultants in Rancho
Cordova, says he has never seen such interest by
big-time investors in biomass energy. Bill Gates
put $84 million into Pacific Ethanol, a company
headed by former California Secretary of State Bill Jones.

Ninety-three ethanol plants are in operation
today, most of them in the Corn Belt. Fifteen are
under construction and another 40 to 50
announced. Production is less than 2 percent of
gasoline demand. Because of last year's Energy
Policy Act, this will rise to perhaps 7.5 percent
by 2012. As a gasoline additive, ethanol makes a
huge market, but it won't be putting Saudi Arabia
out of business any time soon.

The excitement comes from new technology that
could create more energy from organic sources.
Two California biotech firms, both Danish-owned,
have been working to reduce the cost of making
fuel out of cellulose materials - crop wastes,
weeds, forest underbrush, urban garbage or nearly
anything organic. Novozymes' bioenergy operation
in Davis says it has proved a 30-fold reduction
in the cost of the enzymes needed to break down
cellulose material for fermentation into alcohol.

Glenn Nedwin, president of Novozymes' biomass
operation, thinks the technology is almost here.
He sees two to five more years of work on
reducing costs of other steps of the ethanol
process. But even today cellulosic biomass energy
might be competitive, depending on the cost of
oil and corn: "Corn costs $40 a ton, but garbage might be free."

The technology has been demonstrated in a pilot
plant by a Canadian firm, Iogen.

It appears these feedstocks exist or could be
cultivated economically in such abundance that
oil independence by mid-century is possible.
Equally important, the benefit for climate change
and the environment is so evident that
environmentalists, who have been leery of Midwest
corn ethanol because it consumes so much fossil
fuel to grow, are coming on board.

The National Resources Defense Council concluded
in their 2004 report, "Growing Energy," that
cellulosic biomass energy - not made from crops
like corn but from waste or grass, among other
things - could replace about half of current
transportation petroleum in 40 years, raise
farmers' incomes and reduce the nation's fuel
bill and trade deficit, while cutting
transportation greenhouse gas emission by more than 80 percent.

The United States already has the world's second
largest ethanol industry and 5 million flex-fuel
cars, which run on gasoline or 85 percent ethanol, on the road.

"This is nothing they haven't been doing in the
hills of Kentucky for 200 years," said Terry
Kulesa, vice president of Pacific Ethanol, as he
briefed a busload of experts and enthusiasts at
the construction site of the firm's new Madera
plant, 10 miles north of Fresno. It was better known as moonshine then.

But biomass fuels on the scale of America's need
would seem like a pipedream if it weren't for
Brazil. The Latin American giant, having
committed itself to ethanol in the 1970s, expects
to be energy independent this year. The industry,
using sugar cane, supplies more than 40 percent
of its gasoline demand and is growing so fast it
is looking for $10 billion in new investment
capital to expand. Even Ford makes a flex-fuel
car in Brazil that will run on gasoline, ethanol or both.

Meanwhile, gasoline consumption in the United
States keeps growing. For ethanol or other
biofuels to have a major impact, they need to be
used in more efficient vehicles - dramatically
more efficient. For this, President Bush called
for more research on better batteries for hybrid
and electric cars, with a special nod to something new: plug-in hybrids.

Hybrid electric and gas vehicles such as Toyota's
hot-selling Prius don't have to be plugged in to
recharge their batteries. But if they were, and
had a better battery, they could run mainly on
electricity. A range of 30 miles would cover most
of the driving most people in the United States
do in a day. State-of-the-art lithium ion
batteries would double electric-powered miles and
weigh half as much, but they would add thousands of dollars to the price.

Andy Frank, a UC Davis professor of mechanical
engineering, is probably the father of the
plug-in hybrid. He recognized the potential
almost 30 years ago. He and his students have
converted several American-made SUVs to plug-in
gasoline-electric hybrids and are working on an
ethanol plug-in with a lithium battery. He thinks
lithium ion batteries for vehicles are close to
commercial. (Computers and cell phones use them
now.) With a little more refinement and mass
production they might add only about $4,000 to
the price of a car, "what some people pay for a
sunroof and fancy navigation system." For that,
he figures, you'd get the equivalent of a gallon of gasoline at about 70 cents.

Daimler Chrysler has made a few plug-in hybrid
versions of its Sprinter delivery van, but Toyota
says it has no plans. It has just managed to get
across to its customers that the Prius doesn't
have to be plugged in, as did the failed GM
electric cars that could leave you stranded about
70 miles from home. But UC Davis' Frank thinks
Toyota may be working on plug-in hybrids now:
"They said they weren't going to make hybrids until they started selling them."

A cautious Toyota spokesman noted, correctly,
that electricity is only as clean as the fuel
used to generate it. U.S. electric utilities burn
oil to generate only 3 percent of their power,
but more than half comes from coal. This will
grow as natural gas becomes more precious.

The fuel mix for California power plants is much
cleaner, but it could get better with biomass
fuels. A new report from the California Biomass
Collaborative and state Energy Commission
concludes that the state currently has available
enough biomass material to generate 12 percent of the state's demand.

Led by UC Davis Professor Bryan Jenkins, the
researchers saw biomass conversion as an
economical opportunity to deal with the state's
100 million-ton production of biomass, a growing
disposal and environmental problem. This
potential biofuel comes in about equal parts from
agriculture, forestry and urban waste.

The forestry portion suggests an overlooked
opportunity to reduce the growing economic losses
and environmental impact of wildfires, driven by
the small trees and uncollected deadwood that
litter forest floors. Collecting this for energy
could slash the more than $1 billion annual cost
of fighting wildfires and repairing damage.

Converting urban waste to energy has a long,
contentious history in the state. Fierce public
opposition to incineration and the unfriendly
regulatory climate have stopped new projects. But technology has improved.

Despite Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's commitment
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote
renewables, California has not resolved
regulatory hurdles. The state's Integrated Waste
Management Board is bound by law to promote
recycling over energy recovery from waste. And
the state's Air Resources Board thinks that low
blends of ethanol in gasoline could increase some
smog ingredients. Biodiesel, which is made from
vegetable oil, or even used restaurant grease,
requiring little refinement, is stalled by
similar concerns. With pure ethanol or high
blends, such as the E85 mixture sold in the
Midwest, these emissions do not seem to be a problem.

"There is no perfect fuel," Energy Commissioner
John Geesman ruefully remarked at a biomass conference in Fresno.

The sight of 110-car trains rolling into
California weekly with 110,000 tons of Midwest
corn to feed Pacific Ethanol's Madera plant may
raise hackles in these parts. But, the firm's
Kulesa cheerfully asks: "Would you rather get
your energy from the Middle West or the Middle East?"

Could California make its own energy? Maybe. Bill
Jones, whose firm is building the Madera plant,
says he is out to break the hydrocarbon monopoly:
"You want fuel diversified so that people have a
choice when they drive up to the pump. Gasoline or ethanol? Which is cheaper?"

The Madera plant itself could use half of
California's current feed-corn crop. The state,
says Jones, is already a net importer of corn,
mostly for animal feed. What his firm is doing is
diverting some of this to make ethanol before the
cattle get it. This co-product of the ethanol
plant is a high-protein animal feed left over
after ethanol is distilled from the grain, and it is 20 percent of revenues.

The state also has 1.5 million acres of idle
degraded farm lands that could grow salt-tolerant
energy crops, according to the UC Davis report.
Elsewhere in the United States, switch grass is
considered a prime candidate for a biomass crop
along with other fast-growing, high-yielding
trees and grasses. Switch grass is a native
prairie grass that is a perennial crop, needs
less water and fertilizer and actually improves
soil. The president's mention of it brought
prestige to what is considered a weed by most farmers.

All this suggests that a government interested in
energy independence will have to come up with
some serious money to bridge the gap between the
possible and the commercial. The money could come
from a transfer of agricultural subsidies, which
are under attack anyway from the World Trade
Organization and developing countries.

The nation's 35 million-acre U.S. Agricultural
Department Conservation Reserve now pays farmers
an average of $48 an acre a year to grow
soil-building crops that are not sold, cutting
down on traditional crop surpluses. Energy crops
such as switch grass would do the soil-building and could be sold.

Many advocates of increased energy
self-sufficiency have called for a government-led
Apollo-or Manhattan-type project to create this
better energy future sooner rather than later.
But those efforts sought to create technology out
of basic science and dreams. The technology that
could bring us energy relief is much closer, if not here.

Rather, the daunting task is to put the world's
largest economy on a different energy footing.
This will mean reconciliation of interests so
complex they are almost impossible to sort out.
It will mean reallocation of government budgets,
smart interventions in the marketplace,
redirecting consumer demand and dealing with
economic, bureaucratic, economic and
environmental interests that are difficult,
perhaps impossible, to align. This will be much
harder than locking our best scientists and
engineers in a room and throwing money at them.

What it does have in common with those past
heroic national efforts is the need for inspiring, galvanizing leadership.

About the writer: Mark Braly has followed
environmental and energy issues for 30 years. He
was director of Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley's
energy office during much of the 1970s energy
shocks. He sits on the City of Davis Plannning
Commission and is a freelance writer. Reach him at mbraly@....


--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
          http://www.calcars.org/news-index.html
      http://www.hybridcars.com/blogs/power
            http://www.eaa-phev.org
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --

4 items: global warming flyer/video/updated talking points/32-page brochure

You can now view the Feb 21 ABC Good Morning America 2:45 minute clip
featuring Pres. Bush plus a brief appearance by Felix Kramer. See the
link in "Quick-Takes" on the CalCars home page, or in the News &
Events section of CalCars. (You need the Apple QuickTime viewer for
Windows or Mac.)

http://www.calcars.org/calcars-globalwarming-22feb06.pdf
We encourage you to download and distribute our new one-page flyer,
"120V+ E85   Plug-In Hybrids Plus Ethanol: We Can Tackle Global Warming"

We may update this document further, but we're very happy with it in
its current state.
Its most essential component is the following endorsements
(organizational affiliations listed for identification only)

"Vehicle emissions are the greatest challenge that we must overcome
to stabilize climate. The plug-in hybrid approach, as being pursued
by CalCars, seems to be our best bet for controlling vehicle CO2
emissions in the near-term."
--James Hansen, Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies

"Moving to these highly efficient plug-in gas-electric hybrids could
cut U.S. gasoline use by 85%. Even more important, it could cut
automobile carbon emissions by some 85%, making the United States a
model for other countries." -
-Lester Brown, President, Earth Policy Institute, author, "Plan B 2.0

"We should have a national program to promote plug-in hybrid cars
running on electricity and biofuels. I'm happy that initiatives are
coming from entrepreneurial groups like CalCars.org and from state
and local campaigns."
--Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Senior Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council

"When entrepreneurs and venture capitalists focus on environmental
challenges, we can create whole industries and change behaviors.
Innovative campaigns like CalCars' for plug-in hybrids hold up a
guiding light to steer our efforts."
--Sun Paul, co-founder, BrightMail, Power Lunch for Bay Area Entrepreneurs

"As California leads on climate change policy, the transportation
sector holds they key. PHEVs are ready to be rolled out, starting
with corporate and local government fleets."
--Gail Slocum, former Mayor, Menlo Park, Climate Change Regulatory Attorney

"[Plug-in hybrids equal] more energy security and less global warming."
--Nicholas Kristof, New York Times, February 5, 2006, "100 M.P.G.
Cars: It's a Start"

"[Plug-in hybrids'] potential in terms of national policy, and in
terms of global warming, ought to be focused on by anyone paying over
$2 a gallon. And yes, there is an infrastructure investment. Each
family would need an extension cord."
--James Woolsey, Former Director, Central Intelligence Agency

We've made our 10 Talking Points for PHEVs more concise. New PDF is
at the CalCars/About/Downloads page
http://www.calcars.org/downloads.html  and the text version is below.

Finally, an updated version of  our "Recommended Mix" of flyers and
news clips is now available at the same place. It includes the global
warming flyer, the new Talking Points and updated pages from Plug-In Partners.


10 TALKING POINTS FOR PLUG-IN HYBRIDS
February 12, 2006

1. WHY PLUG-IN HYBRIDS? Today's hybrids are efficient because they
don't idle, they recapture braking energy into a battery, and they
use smaller engines. They"re a great step forward -- but they're
still 100% gas-fueled. Use a larger, rechargeable battery and you add
a second cleaner, cheaper, domestic energy source: electricity.

2. SPEND LESS TIME -- AND MONEY -- AT THE PUMP. A plug-in hybrid
(PHEV) is like having a second fuel tank you always use first. Fill
up at home from an ordinary socket, at a cost equivalent to less than
$1/gallon. [See box]

3. USE NO GAS FOR SHORT TRIPS, STILL HAVE UNLIMITED RANGE. If your
batteries have a longer range than your commute, you'll almost never
need gas. But if you forget to plug in, or take a longer trip, you
have the same range as always from a gas engine -- but in a clean,
efficient hybrid.

4. NEO-CONS AND GREENS AGREE. PHEVs have been endorsed by an alliance
of environmentalists and conservatives who see it as the best way to
cut our foreign "oil addiction." Republicans and Democrats, Senators
Hatch, Lieberman and Obama, former cabinet members Shultz and
Woolsey, and recently President Bush have endorsed PHEVs. Use E85 and
100+MPG PHEVs become "flex-fuel" PHEVs getting 500 MPG of gasoline (+
electricity + ethanol).

5. KEEP THE EARTH COOL. Even though coal powers half the nation's
electricity, driving electrically produces 45% lower greenhouse gases
than a gas-only car. This will only improve as utilities use cleaner,
renewable energy.

6. LEAD CAR-MAKERS OUT OF THE WILDERNESS. US car-makers missed the
boat on hybrids; now they"re playing catch-up. PHEVs offer one
company the chance to leapfrog its competitors. Today's batteries are
good enough; they will improve and get cheaper as production increases.

7. SAVE MONEY IN THE LONG RUN. In high volumes, car-makers could sell
PHEVs for under $2,000-$5,000 more than current hybrids. Just as car
buyers pay for large engines or leather seats without expecting a
return on investment, early adopters will pay extra for the PHEV
"green feature." The bonus? Projections based on experience from
electric car fleets show PHEVs have a lower lifetime cost of
ownership than any other vehicle.

8. POWER YOUR HOUSE WITH YOUR CAR. Hybrids and PHEVs can be used as
mobile generators after disasters and outages, providing low-emission
120-volt back-up power for days to emergency centers and individual homes.

9. PHEVS ARE ALREADY HERE. For 10 years, Dr. Andy Frank at UC Davis
has converted Ford/GM cars and SUVs. DaimlerChrysler is now testing
PHEV versions of the Mercedes Sprinter 15-passenger commercial van.
Last year, non-profit CalCars.org built the first Prius PHEV. This
year EDrive Systems, LLC will sell Prius conversions.

10. DEPLOY THE FLEET. Fleet buyers are leading the way on many
fronts. Plug-In Partners is a national campaign for a large fleet
buy. To slash battlefield costs and get the no-heat "footprint" of
electric vehicles, the military may be a big buyer. New tax credits
and company benefits can help buy down extra costs. Other incentives
are on their way from all levels of government. And CalCars hopes to
partner with a car company, converting an existing hybrid to meet a
fleet market demand we estimate at 10,000-100,000 vehicles.

ASSUMPTIONS FOR POINT #2:
Here's another way to think about it: At $3/gallon of gas, driving a
non-hybrid car costs 8-20 cents/mile (depending on your
miles/gallon). With a PHEV, local travel and commuting can drop to
2-4 cents/mile.
Toyota Prius: 260 Watt-hours/electric mile at "off-peak" (overnight)
electricity rate (8.8 cents/kilowatt hour) equals a cost of 2.3
cents/mile. Multiply this by the 45 MPG of a typical Prius to get the
equivalent of $1.03/gallon.
Typical Non-Hybrid SUV: 400 Watt-hours/electric-mile at the off-peak
rate equals a cost of 3.5 cents/mile. Multiply this by the less
efficient SUV's average of 18 miles/gallon to get an even better
$0.63/gallon. (SUVs get low mileage, so they improve even more!)


--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
          http://www.calcars.org/news-index.html
      http://www.hybridcars.com/blogs/power
            http://www.eaa-phev.org
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --

Hymotion, an Ontario, Canada company with offices in the US, has
announced they're about two months away from offering conversions,
initially for large fleet orders.

In the past month, we've seen the launch of the national Plug-In
Partners Campaign and rapidly increasing support for PHEVs, further
fueled by President Bush's Advanced Energy Initiative. Now this
"independent commercialization" announcement, and any sales
information we see in the coming months, add one more influence on
car-makers to consider offering their own plug-in hybrids.

In addition to the  information in the press release (below) and the
downloadable fact sheets, the company has also told CalCars:
* Though they showed only the Prius at the Toronto Auto Show, they
have a working Escape on the road now.
* They will soon announce more information on the batteries, being
made to their specifications in Asia,
* The price for Prius systems is $9,500 for orders of 100 units,
$6,500 for orders of 1,000.
* They have not released prices for Escape systems, but it will be
considerably higher.
* They are beginning with fleet orders to accumulate durability test
miles before selling to the consumer market at undisclosed prices.
* They have not provided information on warranty and other issues.
* They will announce installation locations in the coming months.
* They're also planning flex-fuel versions, but no information is yet
available.

We'd make the following further comments.
* Lithium polymer cells are flat lithium-ion cells with the
electrolyte embedded in polymer separators, which have some
performance advantages, but have until now been more expensive than li-ion.
* Their system can be thought of as an "add-on" rather than a
replacement. The new battery operates until it reaches a
mostly-depleted level, then the car reverts to hybrid operation using
the stock battery.
* It's a source of considerable satisfaction to us that we can leave
it to Hymotion <http://www.hymotion.com/products> and EDrive Systems
<http://www.edrivesystems.com/faq.html> (who until now were the only
ones publicly working on Prius conversions), to differentiate
themselves both publicly and to prospective customers, and to back up
their performance expectations.

You can read a report, including comments that attempt to compare the
two systems and reconcile conflicting information about net weight
changes and range, at:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/02/hymotion_unveil.html
and also see comments at:
http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=communique&newsid=11098


http://www.hymotion.com/index.htm

Hymotion unveils Plug-in Hybrid Technology at the Canadian
International Autoshow in Toronto

"We, as a green technology company, believe that Plug-in Hybrid is
the most favorable ecological solution for the future in the
automotive industry." President Ricardo Bazzarella said today.

Toronto, ON. February 21, 2006: This week at one of the premier
international auto shows in the world, Hymotion unveiled its Plug-in
Hybrid Technology.

This groundbreaking technology moves the Hybrid industry into the
next level.  The PHEV (Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle) will now be
even more fuel efficient and easier to use.

The Hymotion PHEV has an additional battery system that can be
recharged by plugging it into a regular household electrical outlet.
This extra battery system in turn, allow the hybrid car to travel
longer distance solely on battery power, while still allowing it to
operate as a normal hybrid car. Therefore, PHEV is a pure electric
and zero-emission car for your local travel.

What does this mean for the future? A production hybrid gets about
double the fuel economy of a conventional car; A Hymotion Plug-in
hybrid will get again about double the fuel economy of a hybrid.
While conventional Hybrid obtains its energy from gasoline, the
Hymotion PHEV acquires most its energy from the electric grid during
off peak hours.

According to the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), half the
cars in the U.S. are driven just 25 miles a day or less. "A plug-in
vehicle with even a 20-mile range could reduce petroleum
fuel  consumption by about 60 percent," says Bob Graham, Manager of
EPRI's Electric Transmission program.

Zero Emissions, when the PHEV drives on battery power alone, it
produces zero emissions, making it very environmentally friendly.
Hymotion PHEV system can go longer on battery power alone, and
combusting gasoline inside the engine became optional.

Anthony Wei, Vice-President Business Development explains: "The
secret ingredient to the 100 plus miles per gallon performance is the
Lithium Ion Polymer technology in our PHEV battery. It's smaller,
lighter, and more powerful than the NiMH batteries currently use in
all Hybrid vehicle. This is the future."

Hymotion is a green technology company with headquarters and research
and development lab in Toronto, Canada. The company also has offices
in Boston, USA, and five subcontractor facilities across North America.

For media contact/press kit/photos: anthony@... Tel: 857-991-2439
You may also visit www.hymotion.com


--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
          http://www.calcars.org/news-index.html
      http://www.hybridcars.com/blogs/power
    http://www.seattleeva.org/wiki/EAA-PHEV
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --

Today the President essentially moderated a panel of NREL staff
people and others working on related problems. He said "we're close"
to getting PHEVs and he heard from GM's point person on hydrogen and
from an NREL staffer how far away we are from fuel cell cars. The
excerpts below don't include slightly modified versions of statement
in speech.
(When you read the following, you may be tempted to say, "so what" --
until you remember who's saying it!) Full text at URL:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060221.html
President Participates in Energy Conservation & Efficiency Panel
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado
February 21, 2006 9:19 A.M. MST

THE PRESIDENT:  Congress wisely increased the tax credit available to
those who purchase hybrid vehicles. In other words, we're trying to
increase demand for hybrid vehicles. You can get up to a $3,400 tax
credit now if you buy a hybrid vehicle.

The new technological breakthrough, however, is going to be when we
develop batteries that are able to enable an automobile to drive,
say, the first 40 miles on electricity alone.

The ideas is to have an automobile, say, that can drive 40 miles on
the battery, as I mentioned. But if you're living in a big city,
that's probably all you're going to need for that day's driving. And
then you can get home and plug your car right into the outlet in your
house. This is coming. I mean, we're close to this. It's going to
require more research dollars. The budget I submitted to the Congress
does have money in it for this type of research for new types of
batteries. But I want the people to know we're close. The hybrid
vehicles you're buying today are an important part of making sure you
save money when it comes to driving. But they're going to change with
the right research and development. Technology will make it so that
the hybrid vehicles are even better in getting us less addicted on
oil, and making it good for the consumer's pocketbook.

And as our fellow citizens begin to think to whether or not it makes
sense to spend research, imagine -- dollars on this technology,
imagine people in the desert being able to grow switch grasses that
they can then convert into energy for ethanol for the cars that
they're driving there in Arizona. All of a sudden the whole equation
about energy production begins to shift dramatically. And we're going
to hear a lot about cellulostic ethanol.

THE PRESIDENT: See, what's changed is the global supply for fossil
fuels is outstripping the -- the global demand is outstripping the
global supply, and so you're seeing a price of the feedstock of
normal energy going up, and technology driving the price of
alternatives down. And that's why this is a really interesting moment
that we're going to see. It has changed a lot of thinking. The price
of natural gas and the price of crude oil has absolutely made these
competitive alternative sources of energy real. And the question is,
do we have the technological breakthroughs to make it such that it
can get to your gas tanks.

THE PRESIDENT: Larry Burns, why don't you explain to folks what you
do for a living.

MR. BURNS: I'm responsible for research and development and strategic
planning for General Motors. And I've been doing that, working for
General Motors for 37 years, actually.

THE PRESIDENT: We're spending $1.2 billion over a five-year period on
-- or 10-year period for hydrogen research. I would warn folks that I
think the hybrid battery and the ethanol technologies will precede
hydrogen. Hydrogen is a longer-term opportunity. It's going to take a
while for hydrogen automobiles to develop, plus the infrastructure
necessary to make sure people can actually have convenience when it
comes to filling up your car with hydrogen. But, nevertheless, I'm
pleased to hear that GM is joining the federal government on the
leading edge of technological change.

MR. BURNS: The important part about that battery, too, is it's a
stepping stone to the fuel-cell vehicle. We imagine our fuel-cell
vehicles will have some form of storing energy, because as your car
slows down, you want to capture that energy and store it. So it's not
like we're making one investment here that doesn't help another one.
They all come together -- the ethanol, the batteries and the fuel
cells are really one and the same road map to get to the future that
offers a lot of alternatives for our nation.

THE PRESIDENT: Bill Frey, straight out of Delaware, is that right?

MR. FREY: People have mentioned bio-refinery -- I think probably
everyone so far has mentioned bio-refinery -- and we're working very
closely with NREL -- NREL, of course, has had a number of years of
being in the space looking at renewable energy, doing a lot of the
foundation work that allows us to now look at how we're going to
commercialize cellulosics. So we're doing a lot of work in the area
of bio-refinery with NREL, looking at how we can take a process
which, today, has challenges associated with the economics of doing
it, so it's an issue of economics. It's not a technology issue, the
technology works. It's the economics of that technology. So we're
spending a lot of time on trying to solve those problems.

THE PRESIDENT:  Welcome. Dale, step forth. (Laughter.) [RE HYDROGEN]

MR. GARDNER: So here's what we're doing. The major technological
challenges -- I can boil them up into three areas. There are many,
but here is a good way to think about it. The first is production of
hydrogen. Hydrogen, even though it's the most common element in the
universe, here on Earth it's not found freely. It's bound up into
these larger molecules and, therefore, it takes us energy and dollars
to break it free. So that's the main thing.

MR. GARDNER: The second area is storage. This is really an
interesting one. Because hydrogen is the simplest element, it has the
complexity that affects us in terms of using hydrogen in vehicles. We
have to go put hydrogen in a tank, just as we do gasoline. Well,
because it's so light, and its density is so low, it's really hard to
pack enough of it into a tack that's not the size of your whole
trunk, such that we can get 300 miles down the road. And for Larry to
sell a car to one of us, we want to go at least 300 miles more,
especially when you're driving in Texas, a long way between filling
stations. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: So you've been looking at this for three years. Is
this like science fiction, or are we talking about something that you
think will come to fruition?

MR. GARDNER: This is going to happen.

THE PRESIDENT: Pretty exciting, isn't it?

MR. GARDNER: It's going to be out in the middle of the century. It's
not going to be something that's going to happen in the next 15 or 20
years, but it's going to be the way our kids and our grandkids view
the energy structure of our country. It's very exciting work.

THE PRESIDENT: Finally, Pat Vincent, the President and CEO of --

MS. VINCENT: Public Service Company of Colorado.

THE PRESIDENT: So like when you analyze the wind turbine technology,
is it advancing rapidly? Is there more advances being made -- or am I
getting you out of your lane here?

MS. VINCENT: No, it's advancing rapidly. And what we're finding is
like Dan talked about, the demand for solar, is that the demand for
the turbines is starting to outstrip the supply. And a lot of it's
going overseas. The production tax credit really helps us here
because it kind of goes in boom and bust cycles, so that has really
helped us levelize the demand and make them commercially feasible.
And people like GE are making big strides in wind technology.

THE PRESIDENT: By the way, this may interest you if you are -- these
people manufacturing photovoltaic products can't make enough. I mean,
the demand for these things is huge. And there's just not enough
capacity. The plant we were at yesterday is going to double in size.
They're making neat roofing materials, by the way. I'm not their
marketing guy -- (laughter) -- just happens to be on my mind. What's
interesting about the discussion is the utility industry needs
alternative sources of energy in order for them to be able to do
their job. I think that's what you're saying.

THE PRESIDENT: Managing peak electricity loads with alternative
sources of energy makes a lot of sense.

THE PRESIDENT: So that's why we're here, to talk about a variety of
options to achieve a great national goal. And there's no doubt in my
mind we're going to achieve it. And it's exciting. It's exciting
times to be involved with all aspects of this strategy. And you heard
some of our fellow citizens describe to you what they're doing to be
a part of this giant effort, giant effort to change the way we live,
so that future generations of Americans will look back at this period
and say, thank goodness there was yet another generation of pioneers
and entrepreneurs willing to think differently on behalf of the country.

--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
          http://www.calcars.org/news-index.html
      http://www.hybridcars.com/blogs/power
    http://www.seattleeva.org/wiki/EAA-PHEV
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --

We hope to have a streaming version online in a day or so. Below you'll find:
1. PARTIAL transcript--a bit more than half of the story.
2. Related story at GMA's website
3. Column by EVWorld's editor

Good Morning America, Feb 21, 2006
Addicted to Oil: Bush's Energy "Breakthrough"
Aired 7:07 AM, approx 2:45 minutes

DIANE SAWYER: We're going to turn now to the
Preisdent's escalating plan for what he's calling
America's addiction to foreign oil. We first
heard the PResident talking about this in the
State of the Union address. But now he's talking
about cars that get 100 miles per gallon?
Weekend editor Kate Snow joins us this morning from Airmont, NY.

KATE SNOW: Diane, Good morning, more than 200,000
people bought one of these hybrid cars last year.
It's a car that runs on both gasoline and
electric battery. And one of the things the
President is saying is if more Americans would
drive cars like these we could significantly
reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
PRES. BUSH: "I know it came as a shock to some to
hear a Texan stand here in front of the country
and say "we got a real problem: America is addicted to oil."
SNOW: For Americans passionate about alternative
fuels and clean energy, the President's new message has been startling.
BUSH: The ultimate goal is to have solar
technology on your home and that home will become
a little power generating unit unto itself.
SNOW: The world's most famous ex-oil man is suddenly speaking their language.
BUSH: Plug-in hybrid--is to make it initially go
40 miles on electricity alone."
FELIX KRAMER: It's wonderful. In about a year,
everybody in America is starting to hear about plug-in hybrids

SNOW: Felix Kramer is with a grassroots group in
California pushing for these cars that plug into
the wall and use even less gas than the hybrids
on the road today. America now must import 10
million barrels of oil a day. One group says
imports could be slashed by 8 million barrels a
day by the year 2025 if every car on the road
were a hybrid and half of them were the kind that
plug in. But that's not so easy to achieve.
Detroit has been slow to embrace hybrids, leaving
consumers willing to spend a few thousand dollars
more for hybrid technology with few options.
Critics say the Bush Administration isn't putting
enough money behind his energy ideas.

[Graphics show President visiting Johnson
Controls, speaking; Felix Kramer speaking,
Kramer/CalCars.org ID, photos of Felix, Ron
Gremban from
<http://www.calcars.org/photos.html>, graph of SetAmericaFree.org chart.]

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1643665&page=1
Bush Pushes for Alternative Energy
He's Advocating Hybrid Cars and Solar Power

Feb. 21, 2006 — - President Bush is turning a lot
of heads this week with another big push for alternative sources of energy.

In the State of the Union address, he spoke about
hydrogen-powered cars and fueling cars with
switchgrass and wood chips. Now he's talking about hybrid cars.

More than 200,000 Americans bought a hybrid car
last year -- they run on both gas and an electric
battery. The president said that if more
Americans drove them, the nation could
significantly decrease its dependence on foreign oil.

"The plug-in hybrid, they estimate, can initially
go 40 miles on electricity alone," the president said.

"I know it came as a shock to some to hear a
Texan stand up there in front of the country and
say, 'We've got a real problem; America is addicted to oil,'" Bush said.

Today, Bush is expected to visit the Energy
Department's Renewable Energy Lab in Colorado.

Some environmentalists are shocked, but pleased,
that the world's most famous former oil man is
suddenly speaking their language.

"It's wonderful. In about a year, everyone's
going to hear about plug-in hybrids," said Felix
Kramer, a member of a California grass-roots
group that is pushing for cars that can plug into
a wall and that use even less gas than the hybrids on the road today.

The United States imports 10 million barrels of
oil a day to meet current demand. One group said
imports could be slashed by 8 million barrels a
day by 2025 if every car on the road was a hybrid
and half of them were the kind that plug in.

But Detroit has been slow to embrace hybrids,
leaving consumers with few options. Some say the
president needs to push even harder to get the
new technology on the road. Critics say the
president is putting enough money behind his energy ideas.

"We think the president could be bolder," Kramer
said. "He could call up the president of a car
company and say, 'Make this happen now.'"

The president also said that wind turbines could
supply up to 20 percent of the nation's
electricity, but Democrats say his budget for
wind energy hasn't increased since 2001.

"This is mostly a rhetorical offensive more than
it is a spending offensive," said Jerry Taylor of
the CATO Institute, a Washington think tank.

Much of what the president is proposing is years,
even decades, away from happening. But even
Bush's harshest critics have trouble arguing with
the president's newfound passion for alternative sources of energy.

To learn more about Felix Kramer's organization,
visit the web site at www.calcars.org.


[I couldn't resist sending this out...the
"insider" column goes only to subscribers of
EVWorld.com; I urge all to sign up for $29/year;
it's a resource worth supporting]
http://www.evworld.com/general.cfm?section=directory&page=insider
EVWorld Editor Bill Moore
INSIDER PERSPECTIVE
Published: Monday, 20 Feb 2006

George Bush Is Starting to Sound Like Felix Kramer

Have you been following what George Bush has been
saying since his State of the Union address? It's
absolutely amazing. If I didn't know any better,
I'd swear that CalCar's Felix Kramer is whispering in the man's ear.

First the president not only references flexible
fuel vehicles in the State of the Union but he
also spoke out on the need to develop better
batteries for both plug-in hybrids and electric
cars. Okay, you figure, he satisfied the neo-con
hawks and environmental tree-huggers who've been
urging just this course of action. Now he can get
back to pushing for drilling in ANWR.

Instead, the man goes to Florida for a tour of
CENTCOM or some such place and again calls for
plug-in hybrids. Then he does his weekly radio
talk and repeats the same message. Of course,
there's also the pitch for more nuclear power,
which has little chance of succeeding without
massive federal guarantees from a government that
is seriously financially strapped.

This week, he's off in Air Force One touring the
country, including stopping in Denver to visit
the National Renewable Energy Laboratory -- where
several dozen people were recently let go -- to
again make his energy independence pitch. And I'd
wager you a Guiness that he'll talk about biofuels and plug-in hybrids.

Now if only Congress appropriates the money and
Detroit gets off its… ah, fence.

[I've gotten some criticism from people who
thought I was unduly positive about the
President's new statements -- muted somewhat
since our statement at
<http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/calcars-news/message/305>.
At least this column doesn't say Kramer is sounding like Bush...]


--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
          http://www.calcars.org/news-index.html
      http://www.hybridcars.com/blogs/power
    http://www.seattleeva.org/wiki/EAA-PHEV
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --

Text below. First, CalCars' response:

TWO-SENTENCE VERSION:
We're delighted the president is now "plugging" plug-in hybrids. But
why wait? We hope he'll call the CEOs of car companies and find out
how he can help them build PHEVs right away.
LONGER VERSION:
We're delighted that Pres. Bush is now "plugging" plug-in hybrids.
The President is right to say that "hybrids are a good deal for
consumers" and that "plug-in hybrids will make a big difference" so
drivers can fuel with cleaner, cheaper, domestic electricity.
Continued R&D funding is welcome -- but why wait? We already have the
"amazing breakthroughs" the President cites. DaimlerChrysler plus
volunteer engineers and entrepreneurs have already put a few plug-in
hybrids on the road. Mercedes, UC Davis, CalCars.org and EDrive
Systems all use batteries we have right now. Plug-In Partners has
fleet buyers asking for cars now.
We hope the President will call up the CEOs of car companies and find
out how he can help them build PHEVs right away.

Comment at:
<http://www.hybridcars.com/blogs/power/pres-bush-endorses-phevs-amazing-breakthr\
ough>

TOP QUOTES FROM THE PRESIDENT'S SPEECH:
* Hybrid vehicles are a good deal for consumers and the American
people are figuring it out.
* Start picturing what I'm talking about: you've got your car, you
pull in, you plug it right in the wall. (Laughter.) Development will
make a big difference in the performance of hybrid cars and trucks.
Instead of depending on the gasoline engine to recharge the electric
battery, the plug-in hybrids will have fully charged batteries as
soon as you get in the automobile. And that means plug-in hybrids
will be able to travel much greater distances on electricity alone,
thereby saving more gas for our consumers, thereby making us less
dependent on oil.
* Ethanol, by the way, can be used in hybrid vehicles.
* solar technology has the potential to change the way we live and
work, if you really think about it.
* I am telling you I recognize the importance of wind power.More than
$3 billion worth of equipment to generate electricity from wind was
installed in America last year. In other words, it's a new industry,
it's beginning to grow -- $3 billion is a good investment, good
amount of investment.Obviously, people think there's potential when
it comes to wind energy.

LONGER EXCERPTS BELOW -- from intro/PHEV/ethanol/conclusion -- the
entire speech is at
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060220-1.html>

President Discusses Advanced Energy Initiative In Milwaukee
Johnson Controls Building Efficiency Business
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
February 20, 2006 11:43 A.M. CST

THE PRESIDENT:
I want to talk to you about the fact that I think we're in an
important moment in history, and that we have a chance to transform
the way we power our economy and how we lead our lives. That's what
I'm here to talk about. It's a good place to come to talk about it
because, the truth of the matter is, in order to seize the moment,
this country has got to remain technologically advanced.

We're seeing new develops all the time -- new developments --
advanced battery technology allows cell phones to last about 50
percent longer than they did just five years ago. In your laboratory
we're seeing -- firsthand seeing the progress being made because of
your scientists and engineers in lighter, more potent battery
technology. Lightweight parts and better engines allow cars to travel
60 percent farther on a gallon of gas than they did three decades ago.

I know it came as a shock to some to hear a Texan stand up there in
front of the country and say, we've got a real problem, America is
addicted to oil. But I meant it, because it's a true fact, and we've
got to do something about it now. Oil is the primary source of
gasoline; it is the primary source of diesel; it is the primary
source of jet fuel. And that means that oil accounts for virtually
all energy consumption in the vital transportation sector of our economy.

Our nation is on the threshold of some new energy technologies that I
think will startle the American people. It's not going to startle you
here at Johnson Controls because you know what I'm talking about.
(Laughter.) You take it for granted. But the American people will be
amazed at how far our technology has advanced in order to meet an
important goal, which is to reduce our imports from the Middle East
by 75 percent by 2025, and eventually getting rid of our dependence totally.

The first objective is to change the way we power our cars and
trucks. Today's cars and trucks are fueled almost exclusively by
gasoline and diesel fuel, which, of course, comes from oil. To
transform the way we power the vehicles, we have got to diversify
away from oil. I just gave you a reason from a national security
perspective, as well as economic security perspective why reliance
upon oil is not good for the United States.

And so here are three ways that we can do that, change our reliance
from oil. First, invest in new kinds of vehicles that require much
less gasoline. It's a practical thing to do. Secondly, find new fuels
that will replace gasoline and, therefore, dependence on oil. And,
finally, develop new ways to run a car without gasoline at all.

The most promising ways to reduce gasoline consumption quickly is
through hybrid vehicles. Hybrid vehicles have both a gasoline-powered
engine and an electric battery based on technologies that were
developed by the Department of Energy. In other words, this
technology came to be because the federal government made a research
commitment. That's why I think it's double -- important to double
research as we go down the next decade. The gasoline engine charges
the battery, which helps drive the vehicle. And the twin sources of
power allow hybrid cars and trucks to travel about twice as far on a
gallon of fuel as gasoline-only vehicles. That is a good start when
something that can go twice as far on a gallon of gasoline than the
conventional vehicle can.

Hybrid vehicles are a good deal for consumers and the American people
are figuring it out. More than 200,000 hybrids were sold in the
United States last year -- the highest sales on record. There's
growing demand for hybrid automobiles. And working with the Congress,
we came up with an additional incentive, and that is we provide a tax
credit up to $3,400 per hybrid vehicle purchaser. In other words, we
want to stimulate demand. In the marketplace when there is demand,
suppliers will meet that demand, and that's positive, because if you
can go twice as far on a gallon of gasoline than otherwise it means
we're becoming less dependent on oil. Hybrid vehicles on the road
today are delivering impressive gasoline savings.

But there is more to be done, and that's why I'm here at Johnson
Controls, because engineers here are working on ways to replace the
current hybrid battery technology with advanced lithium ion batteries
that are now used in cell phones and laptops. These batteries are
lighter, they are more powerful, and they can be recharged quickly.
Using new lithium ion batteries, engineers will be able to design the
next generation of hybrid vehicles, called plug-in hybrids, that can
be recharged through a standard electrical outlet. Start picturing
what I'm talking about: you've got your car, you pull in, you plug it
right in the wall. (Laughter.)

Development will make a big difference in the performance of hybrid
cars and trucks. Instead of depending on the gasoline engine to
recharge the electric battery, the plug-in hybrids will have fully
charged batteries as soon as you get in the automobile. And that
means plug-in hybrids will be able to travel much greater distances
on electricity alone, thereby saving more gas for our consumers,
thereby making us less dependent on oil.

The plug-in hybrid, they estimate, can initially go 40 miles on
electricity alone. So you've got a lot of folks living in cities like
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, who generally don't drive more than 40 miles a
day. Therefore, within 40 miles you'll be on electricity and using no
gasoline. Eventually, plug-in hybrids with lithium ion batteries will
be able to get 100 miles per gallon. And now all of a sudden you're
beginning to see the effects of this important technology on our
national security and on our economic security. But, more important,
for the pocketbook of our consumers.

Plug-in hybrids are a really important part of the strategy I've
announced, and we're going to provide $31 million to speed up
research on these advanced technologies -- this is a 27-percent
increase over current funding levels. In other words, we like to --
the experts tell me this is a very good chance to have major
breakthroughs and we want to accelerate those breakthroughs. And,
again, I want to thank you all for being on the leading edge of change.

We're also supporting the development of advanced fuels that can
replace regular gasoline. Here again I'm talking to folks who know
what I'm talking about -- I'm talking about ethanol. You've got a lot
of it here in Wisconsin because you've got corn. Ethanol is produced
-- primarily produced from corn; it's blended with gasoline to
produce clean and efficient fuel. And blends with that ethanol
concentration of less than 10 percent, ethanol can be used in any
vehicle. With minor modifications -- I emphasize "minor
modifications" -- cars and trucks can become what we call flex-fuel
vehicles that run on a fuel blend called E85, which is a mix of 85
percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. That's a positive development.

Ethanol, by the way, can be used in hybrid vehicles. So the more
ethanol we use, the less crude oil we consume. And using ethanol has
the added benefit of supporting our farmers. I like to kind of tease
in a way, but beneath the tease is serious -- it will be good one day
when the President is given the crop report. (Laughter.) It says,
"Mr. President, corn is up." (Laughter.) And we're less dependent on
foreign sources of energy.

America produced a record 3.9 billion gallons of ethanol in 2005, was
the record levels. That's twice the level produced when I got sworn
in first time. There are five ethanol that plants up and running here
in Wisconsin, and more are coming. We offer a tax credit to ethanol
blenders of 51 cents per gallon. We're committed to ethanol. It makes
sense. Ethanol benefits a lot of folks, but, most importantly, it
benefits those who are driving cars.

Now, we're on the edge of advancing additional ethanol production.
New technology is going to make it possible to produce ethanol from
wood chips and stalks and switch grass, and other natural materials.
Researchers at the Energy Department tell me we're five or six years
away from breakthroughs in being able to produce fuels from those
waste products. In other words, we're beginning to -- we're coming up
with a way to make something out of nothing. And this is important
because it's -- economics are such that it's important to have your
ethanol-producing factories or plants close to where the product is grown.

That's why E85 has spread throughout the Midwest, that's where you're
growing the corn. Pretty soon, you know, if you're able to grow
switch grass and convert that into ethanol, then you're going to have
availability for ethanol in other parts of the country. I mean,
there's a lot of stuff that gets thrown away that may be converted
into fuel, but it's not just located in one part of the country --
it's located around the country. And one of the goals is to make sure
that ethanol is widespread. If we want to affect our consumption of
oil, we want ethanol to be readily available for consumers outside
certain parts of the -- certain regions of the country.

And so we proposed spending $150 million for government and private
research into these homegrown fuels. It's an important initiative. We
want to provide our consumers with reasonable, cost-effective ways to
help us become less dependent on foreign sources of oil.

<fuel cells/hydrogen/coal/natural gas/nuclear power>
<photovoltaic solar power and wind power>

I think you're beginning to get the drift of what I'm talking about.
We're on the edge of some amazing breakthroughs -- breakthroughs all
aimed at enhancing our national security and our economic security,
and the quality of life for the folks who live here in the United
States. And so, therefore, now is the time for Congress to join me in
spending this money. I think it's a good use of your money, to help
us achieve major breakthroughs in how we live and how we can reduce
our dependency on oil. This is an issue that Republicans and
Democrats can, and must, come together on. It's an issue that -- (applause.)

Think about how your children or your grandchildren may be able to
spend a President's Day in the future. If you're planning a trip to
visit relatives, you can plug in your hybrid car the night before and
drive the first 40 miles on your lithium ion battery. If you've got
more distance to go, you can fill up at your local ethanol station.
If you're in Wisconsin, you'll be filling it up with corn product. In
Crawford, it may just be switch grass. (Laughter.) You may decide to
travel in a hydrogen-powered minivan, and refuel at a station with
hydrogen generated by a local nuclear power plant. When you finally
make it to where you're going, you can sit at a house that is lit by
clean coal, or wind energy, or solar-powered roof over your head.

We're close. We're close to having this vision realized in America.
And by the way, this can all be done -- the whole trip can be done
without consuming a single drop of oil. It's within our reach. There
was a lot of time when most Americans would never have imagined that
we'd be traveling long distance in our automobile instead of a buggy,
or sending emails instead of letters. In the life of this nation we
have seen incredible and rapid advances in technology -- in the
history of this country.

I believe the greatest advances are yet to come. And I want to thank
the good folks here at Johnson for helping them come. Thanks for your
time. God bless. (Applause.)

--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
          http://www.calcars.org/news-index.html
      http://www.hybridcars.com/blogs/power
    http://www.seattleeva.org/wiki/EAA-PHEV
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --

We're still waiting to get a transcript of the
President's speech this morning, where he picked
up where he left off on Friday
<http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/calcars-news/message/302>.
So far only scattered comments (this holiday
weekend) at the blog posting I put up Friday
night
<http://www.hybridcars.com/blogs/power/pres-bush-endorses-phevs-amazing-breakthr\
ough>.
We're glad the discussion continues to reach
higher levels. We're aware of the distance
between words and acts; many of the statements
need corrections and comments, and we're looking
to the day when CEOs of auto companies address
the subject. We'll have more to say in the coming days....


Below is the text of the relevant sections of
today's White House 7-page paper on the Advanced Energy Initiative.
If you go to the URL, you'll be surprised, as we
were, that to show that PHEVs already exist, the
White House has taken the liberty of borrowing
our photo of the world's first plug-in hybrid
Prius -- the CalCars PRIUS+ (with old,
almost-readable signs, our bumper sticker and GAS
OPT plates), sitting in Ron Gremban's garage.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2006/energy/index.html#section3

Changing the Way We Fuel Our Vehicles
Accelerating Future Technologies

To significantly improve our future energy
security, we must do more to reduce our future
demand for oil and refined gasoline and diesel
fuels. The President’s Advanced Energy Initiative
proposes significant new investments and policies
in three promising areas: (1) advanced batteries;
(2) cellulosic ethanol; and (3) hydrogen vehicles.

1.  Advanced Batteries

Accelerated consumer adoption of hybrid-electric
vehicles offers the potential to significantly
reduce oil consumption in the near-term. Further
gains are possible with a “plug-in hybrid
vehicle”: a hybrid-electric vehicle that can run
either on electricity from its own batteries or
on gasoline. Unlike current hybrid vehicles,
which can use only the gasoline engine to charge
the on-board battery, a plug-in hybrid can be
plugged into a common household electrical outlet
to recharge its batteries. This allows a consumer
to drive as an electric vehicle for the majority
of driving that takes place within 40 miles of
home. For longer trips, the gasoline engine kicks
in, and the vehicle drives like a regular
hybrid-electric vehicle. As a result, fuel
efficiency of plug-in hybrids could exceed 80 or
more miles per gallon, particularly when the
hybrids are driven in urban areas. Plug-in
hybrids would generally be charged at night, when
electric utilities have spare generating capacity available.

Current battery technologies used in today's
hybrid-electric vehicles store only enough energy
to drive the vehicle in an electric-only mode at
low speed for a very short range (1-2 miles).
Simply adding additional batteries is not
practical – according to some estimates, each
hybrid-electric vehicle battery adds an
additional $2,000 to $4,000 to the price of the
hybrid-electric vehicle. To address these issues,
advanced battery technologies such as
“lithium-ion” batteries, similar to batteries
used in cellular phones and other consumer
electronics, can be adapted for vehicle use.
These batteries, coupled with the development of
advanced electric-drive technologies, will enable
the commercialization of plug-in hybrids that can deliver the desired range.

To help bring down the cost of these
highly-efficient vehicles, the President’s 2007
Budget includes $31 million in new research
funding to support advanced battery research, a
27% increase over 2006 levels. In addition to the
gasoline savings they make possible, plug-in
hybrids represent a practical step toward
hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles, which have some of
the same electric-drive and power-management
technologies. Through the large-scale replacement
of gasoline with electricity and hydrogen
produced from clean coal, nuclear, and renewable
technologies, we could dramatically reduce future
oil use, balance-of-payment deficits, and
emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases.

2.  Cellulosic Ethanol

Transportation fuels derived from biomass can be
produced either by the conversion of sugar or
starch crops to ethanol, or by conversion of
soybean or other plant oils to produce biodiesel.
These clean-burning fuels are currently mixed
with gasoline or diesel fuel in small amounts (up
to 10% for ethanol and up to 20% for biodiesel)
and used in conventional vehicles to help reduce petroleum demand.

The 3.4 billion gallons of ethanol blended into
gasoline in 2004 amounted to about 2% by volume
of all gasoline sold in the United States.
Greater quantities of ethanol are expected to be
used as a motor fuel in the future, in part due
to two federal policies: an excise tax exemption
of $0.51 per gallon of ethanol used as motor
fuel, and a new requirement for at least 7.5
billion gallons of renewable fuel to be used in
gasoline by 2012 (included in the recently passed Energy Policy Act).

Virtually all domestically produced ethanol
currently comes from corn. However, corn and
other starches and sugars are only a small
fraction of biomass that can be used to make
ethanol. A recent DOE/USDA study suggests that,
with aggressive technology developments, biofuels
could supply some 60 billion gallons per year –
30% of current U.S. gasoline consumption – in an
environmentally responsible manner without affecting future food production.

To achieve greater use of “homegrown” renewable
fuels, we will need advanced technologies that
will allow competitively priced ethanol to be
made from cellulosic biomass, such as
agricultural and forestry residues, material in
municipal solid waste, trees, and grasses.
Advanced technology can break those cellulosic
materials down into their component sugars and
then ferment them to make fuel ethanol.

To help reduce the costs of producing these
advanced biofuels, and ready these technologies
for commercialization, the President’s 2007
Budget increases DOE’s biomass research funding
by 65%, to a total of $150 million. The
President’s goal is to make cellulosic ethanol
cost-competitive with corn-based ethanol by 2012,
enabling greater use of this alternative fuel to
help reduce future U.S. oil consumption.

--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
          http://www.calcars.org/news-index.html
      http://www.hybridcars.com/blogs/power
    http://www.seattleeva.org/wiki/EAA-PHEV
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060220/NEWS05/602200326
Metro Detroit
Bush visit to heat up debates on energy
Critics say plans don't give enough immediate relief
February 20, 2006
BY JUSTIN HYDE and KATHLEEN GRAY
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITERS

George W. Bush will visit an Auburn Hills plant today.

President George W. Bush plans to tour an Auburn Hills plant today as
part of a campaign touting his energy proposals he says will lessen
American dependence on foreign oil in the future. But critics say the
plans will do little to reduce energy costs anytime soon.

Bush is set to visit United Solar Ovonic, which develops solar panels
as a subsidiary of Rochester Hills-based Energy Conversion Devices
Inc. On Tuesday, Bush plans to visit the U.S. National Renewable
Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo., and take part in a discussion on
energy conservation and efficiency.

With the prices of heating homes and fueling cars still sharply
higher than a year earlier, Bush has been eager to promote his
administration's efforts to find new sources of energy.

"We will pursue promising technologies that will transform how we
power our vehicles, businesses and homes -- so we can reduce our
nation's dependence on foreign sources of energy," Bush said Saturday
in his weekly radio address.

Although the president's 2007 budget proposal includes increases for
research on solar, nuclear, hydrogen and wind power, it also includes
cuts for research in other areas, such as improving the fuel
efficiency of cars and trucks. The proposed increase for the U.S.
Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Fuels is 0.2% -- $2.6 million over the previous year's $1.2-billion total.

And the energy lab Bush will visit Tuesday laid off 32 people,
including eight researchers, this month because of a $28-million
shortfall in this year's budget. Lab officials said the layoffs came
because Congress directed money toward energy research labs in other states.

Bill Prindle, policy director for the American Council for an
Energy-Efficient Economy, a nonprofit research center, said the
administration's budget focuses on long-term research at the expense
of short-term projects that might have a greater impact on energy costs.

"The administration appears to be shifting money around, but it's not
really moving the ball forward," he said. "To really transform the
American energy economy, you have to be spending several billion
dollars a year for a sustained period to really accelerate research,
development and deployment."

Congressional Democrats called Bush's proposals little comfort to
people who are paying dramatically higher prices for gas and heat.

"Unfortunately, while he's talking the talk about solutions, he's not
walking the walk by including adequate funding for these initiatives
in the budget he presented," said U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Menominee.
"Maybe a walk in Michigan's freezing conditions will help put into
perspective the fact that Michigan families are paying record-high
home energy costs and struggling to make ends meet."

An initial analysis of the energy budget by Democrats on the House
Committee on Energy and Commerce shows that the amounts Bush
suggested are actually $300 million less than those authorized in the
energy bill Congress passed last year.

It also notes that low-interest home energy assistance loans for
residential weatherization projects have been cut by $78 million, and
that the home heating assistance program for low-income residents is
funded at a level much lower than called for in the energy bill
Congress passed.

The Public Interest Research Group in Michigan said the president's
proposals take baby steps forward on advancing renewable energy
initiatives. But in an analysis, the group found that the budget
continues to fund "old, expensive, dirty technology at the expense of
faster, cheaper, cleaner methods," said spokesman Jason Barbose.

U.S. Rep. Vern Ehlers, R-Grand Rapids, said he's delighted that Bush
has focused on renewable energy sources.

"We need reasonable sources of energy, especially for the
transportation industry," he said. "What he has proposed is
desperately needed."

The proposal includes:

# $289 million for hydrogen vehicle and fuel technology, a
$56-million increase from this year's budget, with a goal of making
hydrogen vehicles available to consumers by 2020.

# $150 million for biomass and biofuels research, up $59 million.
This includes research to boost ethanol production toward a target of
replacing 30% of current gasoline demand by 2030.

# $148 million for solar energy research, $65 million more than last
year. The administration says it wants solar power to generate enough
electricity for 1 million to 2 million homes by 2015.

# $250 million for a new program, the Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership, aimed at encouraging nuclear power.

To offset those increases, the president's budget includes cuts
elsewhere. It calls for vehicle technology research at the Department
of Energy to be cut $16 million, to $166 million. More of the
remaining funds would be spent researching plug-in hybrid vehicles,
for which automakers have shown little enthusiasm.

Contact JUSTIN HYDE at 202-906-8204 or jhyde@....

President Bush's energy proposals
Subject to congressional approval
      * $281 million for development of clean coal technologies.
      * $54 million to develop emission-free coal plants.
      * $148 million for development of better solar panels to convert
sunlight to electricity.
      * $44 million for wind energy research.
      * $150 million to help develop bio-based transportation fuels
from agricultural waste products, such as wood chips, stalks and switch grass.
      * $30 million to develop improved vehicle battery technology to
extend the range of hybrid vehicles.
      * $289 million for development of hydrogen fuel cells and
affordable hydrogen-powered cars.
        What's been cut
      * $28 million from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_3527305
Lab puts energy into fuel options
By Dave Curtin
Denver Post Staff Writer
DenverPost.com
2/20/2006 01:00 AM

Michael Pacheco runs the third-largest brewery in Colorado - but he
doesn't make beer. He takes cornstalks and bark and turns them into
fuel for an automobile.

Nearby, John Rugh is trying to cool down a dummy named Adam, who
sweats distilled water while sitting in a Dodge Neon heated to 120
degrees Fahrenheit by banks of lights.

Both efforts are part of the Golden-based National Renewable Energy
Laboratory's attempt to change how much and what type of energy Americans use.

Tuesday, President Bush is coming to the NREL - the country's premier
alternative-energy lab - three weeks after saying in his State of the
Union address that the nation is "addicted to oil."

"It's one of the few places on the planet where you have scientists
brought together in all aspects of renewable energy," said Scott
Sklar, president of the Stella Group, an energy consulting group in
Washington. "It's everything from an idea factory to actual
application in the market."

Still, the NREL's budget dropped $22.5 million this year and was set
to fall another $11 million next year. Two weeks ago, 32 people were laid off.

But Sunday, the Department of Energy announced those jobs were
restored, effective immediately, by shifting unused funds from other accounts.

And the president is arriving with a revised budget that will boost
the lab's funding by $15 million as part of his Advanced Energy Initiative.

Funding for biofuels - for which Pacheco brews his cornstalk fuel -
is targeted to double to $27.5 million from its current level.

Meanwhile, the hybrid-car lab - home of Adam, the sweating dummy - is
looking at a cut of almost 40 percent for the next fiscal year.

It's a tale of two labs - both doing cutting-edge research but only
one getting new money.

The NREL began operating in 1977 and has 900 employees, including 600
scientists, working in eight major research labs on a 327-acre campus
off Interstate 70.

The lab is home to national centers for bioenergy, wind technology
and photovoltaics, which convert sunlight to electricity.

When Rugh, 42, enters the advanced-vehicle lab, where Adam the dummy
sits in the Dodge Neon, he dons sunglasses to deflect the rays of the
halide floodlights baking the passenger compartment.

Rugh's goal is to figure out how to better cool that compartment and
stop Adam - the Advanced Automotive Mannequin - from sweating.

"We get the question: Why are we working on air conditioning?" Rugh
says. "President Bush spoke of reducing reliance on foreign oil.
That's what we're working on."

The 237 million cars in the United States use 7 billion gallons of
fuel a year for air conditioning. That's 9.5 percent of foreign oil imports.

Air conditioning reduces fuel economy by 20 percent in conventional
cars, Rugh says. So scientists are trying to harness heat from the
engine and exhaust to produce cooling and reduce fuel devoted to air
conditioning by 75 percent.

The lab is also working on fuel- cell vehicles and plug-in hybrid
cars that can be recharged in your garage at night.

NREL scientists working with automakers helped bring today's 420,000
hybrids to the road beginning in 1999.

Scientists in the vehicle-technologies lab declined to comment on the
impact of the projected 38 percent cut in funding.

"Science is a long-term effort," NREL spokesman George Douglas said,
"and the uncertainty of funding is not the best way to go about it."

The bioenergy lab will fare much better under Bush's proposal.

Pacheco brews ethanol in 2,300- gallon tanks at the National
Bioenergy Center's two-story, $10 million refinery, which uses corn
husks, wheat straw, sawdust and other agricultural wastes.

"The process is similar to making beer. Instead of hops and grains,
we use nonedible biomass," says Pacheco, 49, director of the center.

Scientists cultivate yeast to ferment the concoction into fuel-grade
ethanol. The brew is the second generation of bioethanol fuel and
doesn't compete for the nation's corn supply.

"All the research is nonedible biomass, so we avoid the fuel-versus-
food competition," Pacheco says.

Today, about 100 plants around the nation make ethanol from corn
kernels, consuming 13 percent of the U.S. corn crop to produce 3
percent of the fuel supply, Pacheco says.

Bush is proposing that 30 percent to 40 percent of the nation's fuel
should come from ethanol and plans to double NREL biomass funds to
make it happen.

"Ethanol really is a good way to reduce the dependence on foreign
oil," Pacheco says. "That's why the president is getting behind it."

Critics question whether the energy savings from biofuel outweigh the
energy spent in collection, storage, transportation and production.

The NREL says the return on corn ethanol against energy spent is 40
percent, a finding similar to a Department of Agriculture study's.

It costs $2.50 a gallon to make ethanol from biomass. Pacheco's goal
is to reduce the cost in five years to less than $1.10 - the cost to
make corn ethanol.

"We're close to the finish line," Pacheco says. "We'll have it out
the door and commercialized in five years."

Staff writer Dave Curtin can be reached at 303-820-1276 or
dcurtin@....

Bush's energy push
Today: President Bush arrives in Colorado late this afternoon as part
of a mission to tout alternative energy sources. He begins the day
with a speech in Milwaukee, then tours a solar-energy plant in Auburn
Hills, Mich.
Tuesday: Bush visits the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden.

Apologies: the first time I sent this out, a few hours ago, titled
"Pres. Bush Calls Ethanol/PHEVS 'amazing technological
breakthrough..", I didn't stop to read the whole speech. In the Q&A
of his speech at the Port of Tampa, he answers two questions at
length and in a less scripted manner than the speech.

The Pres. will deliver a speech on the Advanced Energy Initiative
Monday at Johnson Controls <http://www.jci.com>in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin. (Johnson is in a lithium-ion battery joint venture with
French company SAFT, which produces the li-ion batteries in the
DaimlerChrysler Sprinter PHEV prototype.)

Please comment not by replying to this message but at our Blog,
http://www.hybridcars.com/blogs/power/pres-bush-endorses-phevs-amazing-breakthro\
ugh


http://www.earnedmedia.org/wh02171.htm
REMARKS by President Bush at Republican Party of Florida Dinner
  From the Christian Communication Networks' Christian News Wire

Remarks by President Bush at Republican Party of Florida Dinner

LAKE BUENA VISTA, Florida, Feb. 17 /Christian Wire Service/ -- The
following text is of remarks by President Bush at Republican Party of
Florida dinner:
5:50 P.M. EST

We can become independent from oil from the Middle East. In order to
remain a competitive nation, in order to remain a world leader, this
country has got to use technology to get us off being hooked on oil.
I know that may sound strange from a guy from Texas. (Laughter.) When
I sit there and think about the world on a daily basis, I see what
happens when there's instability in parts of the world from which we
get our oil. Listen, we're close to some amazing technological
breakthroughs that will enable us to drive automobiles fueled by
ethanol, or have a plug-in hybrid battery that will make it much
easier for you to use electricity when it comes to driving your cars.

Our party stands for innovation. Our party stands for change. And our
party is going to stand for economic and national security by doing
something about our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. (Applause.)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060217-4.html
President Discusses Global War on Terror Following Briefing at CENTCOM
Port of Tampa
Tampa, Florida
1:26 P.M. EST

In order for us to be competitive and lead in the world, we've got to
get -- we've got to get off of Middle Eastern oil. I know it shocks
some of you to hear a Texan say, we're addicted to oil. And we are,
and it's a problem. It's a problem. It's a national security problem,
and it's an economic security problem to be reliant upon oil from
parts of the world that may be unstable, or parts of the world that
simply don't like us. And so the best way to deal with that is to
continue to foster new technologies because of research and
development that will enable us to use different fuels in our cars,
for example.

There's Kennedy right there. Good to see you, Kennedy. The reason I
thought of him is because he's from a part of the world that's
growing a lot of crops that can be converted into energy. We're
close. We're close to technological breakthroughs that will enable us
to convert wood chips and sawgrass -- we already convert sugar, corn
and soy -- into fuel. And think about that. If this technology comes
true, which we believe it will, then pretty soon a President is going
to say, we're growing a lot of crops and we're less dependent on
Middle Eastern oil. There are 4.5 million cars today that are
flex-fuel cars that can either run on gasoline or ethanol. In other
words, the technology is available inside the automobile. And it's coming.

And we're making some great breakthroughs on battery technology. Next
week I'm going to travel around the country going to some of the most
innovative places around our country that are providing new
technologies to enable us to become less dependent on oil, which will
keep us a leader in the world.


Q Mr. President, you mentioned a trip next week to visit the sources
of renewable additional technology to reduce our dependence on
foreign oil. We have a not-so-renewable resource, which is our
precious Florida coastline. And because of your great brother, we do
have an unemployment rate of 3.3 percent. How can you work with us to
protect our Florida shoreline with respect to offshore drilling?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I made a commitment that nothing is going to
happen within a hundred miles of this coastline, and I'm honoring the
commitment. I don't care what people might be saying -- I guess maybe
they quit saying it after the '04 campaign -- but it's a commitment
that this government has -- at least my government has made, and I'm
going to honor it. When we say a hundred miles off the coastline, we
don't mean 99 miles or 89 miles, we mean a hundred miles. So rest easy.

Now, the thing about -- look, we've got to get off of hydrocarbons.
We just do. And I'm a believer in nuclear power. (Applause.) I think
it's a -- maybe some day, and I think we'll -- I'll figure out --
I'll find out how close we are when I visit with some of these solar
technology people, but it's very likely that you'll become a little
power generator in your own home, and that the excess power that you
do not use you feed back in the grid. Hybrid batteries -- batteries
for plug-in hybrid automobiles are pretty close, they tell me. And
I'm going to see firsthand -- sometimes the President gets the cook's
tour, I know it -- (laughter) -- but nevertheless, I'm going to see firsthand.

Now, what's interesting is, is that a lot of people in urban areas
are not going to drive more than 30 miles a day. And so we're
developing automobile engines that can run on electricity for 30
miles, and then if you go more, your gasoline kicks in. But it
requires a battery that has got good storage capacity and is easy to
recharge. It's coming.

And so there's a lot of technologies that are coming on the market,
and we're spending money. And it's a good use of taxpayers' money, it
seems like to me, in order to achieve some big objectives.

I'm going to India on March the 1st, around that period of time, and
I believe that it's good policy for the United States to encourage
these emerging economies to use clean energy, nuclear power, so as to
help reduce demand for kind of non-renewables. And so I'm going to
talk to them about development of a civilian nuclear power industry.
They're telling me China has got about 34 plants on the market, which
is good. But this expansion of nuclear power -- which is in our
interests, by the way; it's in our interests because of the quality
of the air, it's in our interests because it takes -- reduces demand,
global demand -- is going to create another issue, and that is, what
are we going to do with the spent fuel? This country doesn't
reprocess spent fuel; we should. Reprocessing spent fuel means that
we're able to continue to reuse the base material that went through
the burn the first time in a plant, and reduce the amount that we
have to then eventually store. And we chose not to do that in the
late '70s because of proliferation concerns. I'm convinced we can
work internationally to address those issues.

And so I'm just sharing with you -- we got a full strategy to help us
make us less dependent on energy -- on foreign sources of energy.


Q And my question is, you've talked a lot about our addiction to oil
today.You've also talked about advanced alternative fuel sources, in
particular for household vehicles as a potential mitigant to that
dilemma. But we have a very robust industrialized economy -- air,
rail, shipping, trucking -- that has depended on oil, frankly, for
generations to be successful and vibrant. So my question is, how do
we maintain the most advanced industrialized economy on Earth, and
actually reduce our dependency on oil going forward?

THE PRESIDENT:Well, I believe -- first of all, natural gas has driven
a lot of our industrialized growth, as you know.And we are -- we need
to have -- import liquified natural gas if we're going to be modern
and stay competitive.

Listen, we're going to need oil. The question is, are we able to
reduce dependency from certain parts of the world. And I think that
by relieving pressure on how we drive our cars, we'll, in fact, help
segments of our economy that are going to take a while to diversify
away from hydrocarbons, I guess is the best kind of macro look.

Things don't happen instantly; I understand that. But, nevertheless,
there are some practical ways that we can reduce our dependency, and
it seems like to me the most practical way is to change automobiles,
change how we drive.In the short-term, ethanol and hybrid batteries
makes the most sense to me. It's the most practical way, and most
economic way, to begin the reduction of dependency.

Now, listen, we've got a large fleet -- I told you, there's
four-and-a-half flex-fuel cars [sic]. That's good, except there's
about 200 million cars. And it takes a while for fleets to renew. And
so things don't happen instantly, but they will happen quicker as we
continue to press for innovation and technology.

Ultimately, I believe that we're going to be using hydrogen to power
our automobiles. But that's 15 years down the -- for the technology
to be applicable is 15 years down the road. And I guess what I'm not
only -- I guess I am, what I'm telling you is that we see
technological breakthroughs pretty darn quick when it comes to
ethanol and hybrid batteries, which is a positive development for the
people. And the interesting thing about ethanol is that the barriers
to entry are pretty low, when it comes to manufacturing -- if the
technology says that we can -- yields the capacity to convert
switchgrasses and refuses to ethanol, once that technological
breakthrough comes, the barriers to entry are pretty low when it
comes to building the manufacturing capacity that converts raw
material to ethanol. Much different from a big cracker refinery. And
so that's positive. So we've got the car technology, hopefully have
the breakthrough technology on fuel, and then the infrastructure will follow.

And so what I'm saying is, this is the most practical way to become
less dependent on oil. And the economy will continue to function. But
things are happening, by the way, in diesel. I don't know -- if any
of you know something about trucking, you know that diesel, clean
diesel engines are coming. We did a deal in my administration to work
with diesel engine manufacturers to come up with a very low-emission
engine that is now being applied in trucks, and it's going to make a
difference -- on Caterpillar tractors. We're getting there, we're
getting there.

Thanks for the question.


--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
          http://www.calcars.org/news-index.html
      http://www.hybridcars.com/blogs/power
    http://www.seattleeva.org/wiki/EAA-PHEV
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --

"Button on the dashboard labeled "ZEV" that
enables the driver to put the vehicle into a
battery-only, "zero-emissions" mode at speeds up to 50 kilometer per hour."

That sounds like the EV button in Prius (about 1
mile electric range) that inspired CalCars to
build PRIUS+. It's been reported that PSA says it
has a 5 kilometer electric-only mode, which would
position it like DaimlerChrysler's Sprinter van
plug-in hybrid prototypes ( with 20 mile EV
range) -- as a feature for driving in
emissions-controlled city centers in Europea. But
we've also been told that the battery is similar
to the 6.5Ah Ni-MH one in the Prius that provides
less than 2 kilometers. So something doesn't match up yet.


http://www.techreview.com/NanoTech/wtr_16343,303,p1.html
Technology Review (MIT Enterprise) February 15, 2006
The Next Prius?

Peugeot and other automakers are combining
diesels and hybrids -- and raising the efficiency bar.

By Peter Fairley

Japanese automakers Toyota and Honda Motor
launched the hybrid revolution in the 1990s, and
their U.S. counterparts are busy following suit.
European automakers, however, initially resisted
the trend, instead focusing on diesel-powered
automobiles whose fuel efficiency rivaled even the best gasoline hybrids.

Now, though, amid rising gas and diesel prices
and anxiety over an emerging technology gap with
international competitors, European automakers
suddenly look set to join the hybrid trend -- by
combining hybrid technologies with efficient
diesel engines, whose air compression and fuel
combustion cycles are fundamentally more
efficient than the spark-plug cycles in gasoline engines.

Paris-based PSA Peugeot Citroën last month became
the first manufacturer to seize the opportunity,
promising diesel hybrids in its showrooms
starting in 2010. Although PSA declined an
interview with Technology Review, last month its
CEO, Jean-Martin Folz, predicted in Paris that
the diesel hybrid would provide "a true technological rupture."

PSA is well positioned to tackle diesel hybrid
technology. It's the top manufacturer of advanced
"common rail direct injection" diesel engines,
which feed fuel through engine valves at high
pressure and thereby increase combustion
efficiency. The company also produces electric
vehicles. And this winter it is touring hybrid
versions of its popular Peugeot 307 and Citroën
C4 compact diesel cars on the auto-show circuit.

The nonhybrid 307 and C4, built on a common
platform, are already among the cleanest and
greenest vehicles in their class, consuming just
4.8 liters of diesel fuel per 100 kilometers (49
mpg) in mixed driving. The hybrid versions do
much better by supplementing the diesel engines
with nickel-metal hydride batteries and electric
motors akin to those in the Toyota Prius and in Ford's Escape hybrid SUV.

The PSA diesel hybrids start on electric power
exclusively, avoiding the use of diesel in
low-power, low-temperature modes where the engine
is least efficient. During braking, the vehicles
recover energy by recharging their battery packs.
Fuel consumption falls to just 3.4 liters per 100
km (or 69 mpg), setting a record for a European
compact family car, and far surpassing the
benchmark Prius (which delivers around 50-55 mpg).

Further distinguishing PSA's diesel hybrids from
existing hybrids is a button on the dashboard
labeled "ZEV" that enables the driver to put the
vehicle into a battery-only, "zero-emissions"
mode at speeds up to 50 kilometer per hour. That
feature could be handy for drivers navigating the
increasing number of European cities that are
banning conventional vehicles from their congested downtown streets.

PSA's diesel hybrids are not alone on the
auto-show circuit, though. Last year GM
demonstrated a diesel hybrid sedan built at its
European International Technical Development
Center in Russelsheim, Germany. Ford, which
co-produces diesel engines with PSA for its
European vehicles, has been testing a diesel
hybrid van in the U.K., and unveiled a sporty
diesel hybrid at this winter's auto shows. PSA,
however, is the only maker committed to actually
producing a diesel hybrid vehicle.

What's holding back commercialization is cost. A
diesel-powered car in Europe already costs
$1,750-2,400 more than an equivalent gasoline
model, and PSA estimates that making a diesel
hybrid could double that premium. Hence, PSA says
controlling costs will be a challenge, but it is
starting to engineer cost-shaving solutions.

PSA hopes to secure funding from the French
government's newly formed Agency for Industrial
Innovation to create a consortium of
manufacturers and research labs dedicated to
slashing the cost of producing its diesel hybrid.
French President Jacques Chirac last month
endorsed that goal, but funding is still up in the air.

Meanwhile, Renault, PSA's domestic rival, is one
of the last hybrid holdouts. Renault partner
Nissan is licensing Toyota's hybrid system to
produce a gas-electric hybrid version of its
Altima sedan next year, but neither Renault nor
Nissan has committed fully to the technology. At
the Tokyo Motor Show last fall, Carlos Ghosn, CEO
of both companies, called the hybrid a serious
technological option, but also warned that the
industry "must be careful not to impose expensive
solutions until consumers are ready to adopt them."

What's clear is that diesel hybrid technology has
significant potential. According to a 2003 study
by MIT's Laboratory for Energy and the
Environment, a study that remains one of the most
comprehensive projections for propulsion
technologies, diesel hybrids should outperform
nearly all other propulsion technologies through
2020 -- including fuel-cell cars that run on
hydrogen derived onboard from gasoline. Fuel
cells using pure hydrogen offered a marginal
benefit in efficiency, but only when combined
with hybrid technology, and at a significantly
higher price. Other research programs have
demonstrated that diesel hybrids can deliver efficiencies of 80 mpg and up.

If diesel hybrids do succeed in Europe, could
they make it in the United States? Until
recently, that would have seemed unlikely. With
diesel's dirtier fuel and with tighter U.S.
pollution controls, diesels have been a tough
sell stateside. Although they account for half of
all cars sold in Europe, that figure is just 3 percent in the U.S. market.

But diesel's fortunes could improve quickly in
the United States. Federal regulations mandate
the phasing in of cleaner diesel fuels starting
this year. And pollution controls such as
particle filters are getting cheaper, as they
become standard equipment in Europe (PSA alone
has placed more than one million filters on its
European diesels). Clean diesels that employ such
devices may qualify for the same federal tax
credits that make hybrid cars a good buy in the United States.

Anthony Pratt, who tracks hybrid vehicles markets
as senior manager at Global Powertrain for J.D.
Power and Associates in Westlake Village, CA,
says he anticipates that hybrid diesels will hit
the U.S. market after 2009, but have a limited
appeal because of their higher price tags. "This
technology will likely be utilized in a luxury
brand with a high base price," Pratt says.
"Luxury buyers have more disposable income and
will not be looking for an economic payback from the vehicle."

Peter Fairley is a Technology Review contributing writer based in Paris.

--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/calcars-news
      http://www.hybridcars.com/blogs/power
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/priusplus
    http://www.seattleeva.org/wiki/EAA-PHEV
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --

We have a few old links to several of these
vehicles at http://www.calcars.org/vehicles.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-02-13-humvee_x.htm

Military hybrid vehicles could boost safety, mobility
By Steven Komarow, USA TODAY
Posted 2/13/2006 10:34 PM

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon is developing hybrid
electric engines for the replacement for the
Humvee to extend the vehicle's range and increase
its survival on the battlefield.

The Army and Marine Corps are testing research
vehicles that combine internal-combustion engines
with battery power, a concept becoming popular in
civilian cars such as the Toyota Prius.

The interest in hybrid power is part of a broad
effort to find new vehicles better suited to
fight in wars similar to the conflict in Iraq. In
past wars, the military could race ahead and then
stop safely behind the front lines to refuel. In
Iraq, the war is fought throughout the country,
and supply convoys are always at risk. Hybrid
vehicles could reduce the number of convoys.

The Army is testing a half-dozen hybrid-electric
versions of the Humvee chassis at various testing grounds in the USA.

The Marines are testing a different vehicle
called the RST-V (Reconnaissance, Surveillance,
Targeting Vehicle), a light truck built by
General Dynamics that has an electric motor at each wheel hub.

Though the hub drives have yet to prove they can
be durable enough, their design could mean added
safety for troops. A motor at each wheel could
let the vehicle move even if one wheel is
destroyed. Eliminating heavy driveshafts and
other components can remove the hazard that
occurs when they become projectiles after a vehicle hits a mine or bomb.

General Dynamics' spokesman Pete Keating said the
company wants to test the RST-V in Iraq this
year, although it hasn't worked out the details with the Marines.

Marine Col. Clarke Lethin, who oversees
requirements for future vehicles at the Marine
base in Quantico, Va., said hybrids could help
the military achieve increased fuel economy.
Other potential military advantages include:

* Near-silent operation. The vehicles can operate
on battery alone, at least slowly, when troops
don't want engine noise giving away their position.

* A source of electricity. Instead of towing
generators that provide electricity for field
command posts, the rechargeable batteries in
hybrid vehicles could generate that power. Hybrid
batteries are recharged while the vehicle is running off its fuel source.

* Acceleration. Army testing last year showed the
hybrids were faster than standard Humvees for short bursts of speed.

There are downsides that could delay introduction
of the new systems. An Army paper cites problems
cooling the hybrid systems, which would be packed
inside an armored vehicle in places such as Iraq.

The Pentagon says the production contract for the
Humvee replacement will be awarded in 2009, and
full production is expected to start in early 2011.

This month, the Army picked International
Military and Government LLC and Lockheed Martin
to build competing models of the new Humvee.

The Pentagon should have test results by early
next year, said Lt. Col. Stuart Rogers, an Army
program manager. The results will show military
planners the most efficient engines to use in the
next Humvee and also heavier trucks.

Rogers said it's too early to determine the cost
of the new vehicle; a basic Humvee costs $75,000.

Despite hybrid technology's commercial use, the
military still needs to determine how it will
withstand battlefield conditions, Rogers said.

The Army and Marines are combining their separate
research efforts this year, and the Defense
Department will buy a common Humvee replacement for all services, Rogers said.

Hybrid power could eventually be replaced by even
more advanced power systems, such as hydrogen
fuel cells, according to research at the Army's
tank and automotive design division.

--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --
        Felix Kramer  fkramer@...
       Founder  California Cars Initiative
              http://www.calcars.org
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/calcars-news
      http://www.hybridcars.com/blogs/power
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/priusplus
    http://www.seattleeva.org/wiki/EAA-PHEV
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- --