America’s Magical Thinking on Energy

Energy—never has a political topic had so many bold words expended on it with so little to show. As Jon Stewart pointed out in his usual skewering fashion last week, the last eight American presidents promised to move America off oil and onto renewable energy, and all we have to show for it is increasing dependence on foreign petroleum, rising carbon emissions and an out of control gusher in the Gulf of Mexico. Energy is one of those bipartisan issues that any politician can dust off—usually whenever gasoline prices have gotten a little high—promise to change and then promptly drop until the next crisis. Most of our politicians seem to lack what you’d need to really change how America uses energy:  the will to take on the strong fossil fuel lobby and the persistence to see changes through over the long-term.

But we all bear responsibility for that failure, because we fail to see—and take—the hard choices that would be necessary. We’d rather live in energy fairyland, as a new New York Times/CBS News poll demonstrates. The poll surveyed the attitudes of Americans—with specific attention on Gulf coast residents—toward the oil spill, energy policy, the economy, President Barack Obama and BP. The news is not good for Obama—the economy and employment remain the top concerns of Americans, bigger than the oil spill, but 54% of the public says he does not have a clear plan for creating jobs, and 48% of the public disapproves of his handling of the economy. 60% of Americans think the country is on the wrong track.

The frustrating numbers, though, come on energy policy. 59% of Americans polled believe it is very or somewhat likely that within the next 25 years the U.S. will develop an alternative to oil as our major source of energy. That might hearten greens but it also shows how unrealistic Americans are on energy. Right now fossil fuels—coal, oil and natural gas—are responsible for 85% of America’s energy supply, and it would take a Herculean effort to displace oil in just a quarter century.

Now, maybe the oil spill means that Americans are finally willing to make that effort. But the other answers on the poll show that’s not the case. Even though 58% of Americans believe U.S. energy policy needs a fundamental change, 51% of the public say they’d oppose a gasoline tax that would pay for the development of renewable energy, compared to 45% who would support it. If that tax were set at $1.00 a gallon, the percentage who would favor it drops to 32%. The sole sign that there may be some awareness of where we are on energy—and oil—was the fact that 65% of Americans believe Obama’s temporary moratorium on offshore drilling, while an investigation of the Deepwater Horizon accident is carried out, is a good idea. (Although 49% of Gulf coast residents believe it’s a bad idea—and bafflingly, more Gulf coast residents than Americans as a whole believe BP will fairly compensate those affected by the spill, despite all the complaints we’ve heard about the company’s claims process.)

It’s always a mistake to read too much into one poll (and you can find the raw data here), but to me this survey helps explain why energy policy seems immovable. We don’t really want to understand it—and that ignorance saves us from having to make the hard choices. At least for now.

Related Topics: BP, BP oil spill, disapproval ratings, energy attitudes, New York Times oil spill poll, poll ratings, President Obama poll ratings, survey, Energy, Oil, Politics
  • Latest on Ecocentric

    Joe Raedle / Getty Images

    How Smart Paint Saves Bridges

    Up to 73,000 American bridges are considered “structurally deficient,” and the consequences of that can be as terrible as they seem. The most recent large-scale bridge disaster in the U.S. occurred in 2007, when the Mississippi River Bridge in Minneapolis collapsed during rush hour, killing 13 people and injuring 145. Scarily, the bridge had earned its structurally deficient label 17 years prior, but that simply meant it would, in theory, be replaced by 2020, depending on the availability of funds.

    NASA

    Drill, Baby, Drill: Russian Scientists Reach a Massive Underground Lake

    If life were a Michael Bay movie, the moment this week when Russian scientists finally drilled into the subglacial Lake Vostok in Antarctica would immediately be followed by the sudden and frightening appearance of unfrozen aliens, or the Predator, or the Decepticons, or giant prehistoric piranhas, and only Shia LaBeouf—plus leggy starlet to be named later—could save the human race from extinction.

    Danita Delimont

    Island Blues: A Caribbean Country’s Troubled Experiment with Geothermal Power

    St. Kitts and Nevis, with a population of just over 50,000 and covering a mere 100 sq. mi. — one and a half times the size of Washington, D.C. — is the smallest sovereign nation, by size and population, in the Americas. The two-island federation in the east Caribbean is perhaps best known for welcoming wealthy tourists to its pristine beaches and luxury resorts.

  • http://bodyg.wordpress.com health,diet

    Development of alternative energy sources such as bio-fuels would be the “national policy.” The new energy bill to encourage a substantial increase in the use of fuel ethanol to make it to reach 36 billion gallons by 2022. This will reduce U.S. dependence on imported oil, it helps to strengthen America’s energy security.
    http://diethealth.weebly.com

  • ldvger

    I recently read a fiction series of books by Kim Stanley Robinson in which the energy situation in the US was approached as a type of “Manhattan Project” or “Space Race”. Despite the fact that the books were fiction, the author makes excellent points about our leaders’ responsibilities to educate the American people about the true state of our energy usage and dependence and how, while only comprising a small fraction of the world population, we as a nation consume close to 85% of the world’s resources, both oil and otherwise.

    There are many ideas and theories about how much oil is left and how long it will last and how using oil affects our planet, but there is one thing all sides of the debate agree on: oil is a finite resource and sooner or later we will exhaust the planet’s supply. In all ways that matter, the when of this event matters not. It’s is totally irresponsible to continue to use a known finite and diminishing resource. Whether the oil runs out in the next 20 years or the next 2000 years, all agree that it WILL run out.

    Prudent stewards of society and the planet would be actively seeking alternatives to this finite and diminishing resource. For the US, as dependent as it is on foriegn imports of oil, it is a matter of highest national security. No one needs to drop a bomb on us…all they need to do is stop the flow of oil to us and completely cripple the entire nation.

    There are other, sustainable, energy sources out there. And yes, it would be expensive to bring those alternatives into mainstream use. But what choice do we, as a nation, have otherwise? We will have to “bite the bullet” when it comes to weaning ourselves off oil sooner or later and it will be less painful if we do it sooner rather than later. The longer we delay, the more it will cost us all, both financially and in terms of national security. Our nation is at severe risk over oil…and we need to address that, now.

    Many other nations have seen the writing on the wall when it comes to oil dependency and are many years, if not decades, ahead of the USA. In this we are backwards children, stubborn and willful (and spoiled), unwilling to face the reality other more mature nations have. It’s not easy to give up the day-to-day wastefulness of our national lifestyle, even if it means making our nation stronger and more secure over the long run. But it has to be done. We can hang back with the underdeveloped nations of the world, who plead poverty as an excuse for not moving into alternative energies (something the US certainly cannot plead), or we can re-assert ourselves as the world leader in this, as we are in so many other areas.

    It’s a choice we all, as individuals, have to make. But our leaders can help us make the hard choices and accept the challenges and sacrifices that will have to be made to move away from oil. It won’t be easy…

    But it would be wise.

  • old1conserve

    One of our real problems with energy policies is the lack of good central planning. Back when we were building nuclear plants, we never adopted a standard plant design. So scattered about our landscape are a variety of nuclear plant prototypes. This is the result of way the USA has tackled this type of issue; different vendors with different solutions building custom plants. These plants got so expensive to build that the power costs went from too cheap to meter to too expensive to meter.

    The country of France built standard nuclear plants that now produce 80% of their electrical needs. Good central planning pays in the long run.

    Today, we have the opportunity to reinvent our electrical power system. The use of smaller, factory built nuclear plants should contribute to that future. I doubt that will happen because as a people of individuals, we will never get our act together.

  • annebbutterfield

    Bryan Walsh made a number of straw man arguments, such as using facts about general fossil fuel use to make a point about just the transportation sector. Also, he posits a dollar a gallon gas tax (unpopular) when 2c/gal would raise enough to really launch serious, additional energy research (pretty acceptable). It seem HE is the one who’s not tracking energy policy much.

  • http://graciouslivingdaybyday.wordpress.com Liliana

    Americans do live in an unreal world, when it comes to availability of energy. We all need to reevaluate our practices, take personal responsibility, and take small steps to change things.

    But we also need leaders who are not afraid to ask us to make sacrifices. We know we need to make sacrifices. We need to be told how, and what really makes a difference.

    The only way to solve the energy problem is to work together. Maybe this will force us to make some major evolutionary leaps as well.

    http://graciouslivingdaybyday.com/

  • http://rldipaolo.wordpress.com rldipaolo

    FLOWIN’ IN THE GULF

    How many roads must a man drive down, before you call him a man?
    How many seas must a pelican sail, before she can sleep in clean sand?
    Yes and how many times must oil be spilled, before it is forever banned?

    Refrain:

    The answer my friend, is flowin’ in the gulf,
    The answer is flowing in the gulf.

    Yes and how many years can an oil rig exist, before it fails you and me?
    Yes and how many years can some people exist, in a world of dying seas?
    Yes and how many many times can you turn your head, and pretend that you just don’t see?

    (Refrain)

    Yes and how many times must a man look up, before he can see a clear sky?
    Yes and how many ears must one man have, before he can hear seabirds cry?
    Yes and how many deaths will take till he knows, that too many creatures have died?

    (Refrain)

    ——
    A free gift to the world, sing and spread widely…..
    Credit for inspiration to Bob Dylan, and credit for the subject matter to Big Oil.

  • mkassowitz

    We need to be doing a lot of “out of the box” thinking about energy. The amount of destruction we are generating on our little planet in the name of energy has gotten way out of hand. We can get smarter about this. There’s a company in Canada that has an innovative idea about wind generation. That’s an example in the right direction: http://organicconnectmag.com/wp/2009/12/from-war-machine-to-clean-energy/

  • gonzojive

    This blog post is spot on, and I am very happy that you have reported on the subject.

    The media plays a particularly nocuous role in the Americans’ willful ignorance about energy policy. I really hope this reporter will make this matter a major point of his career and report more on our unrealistic energy policy. We are obscenely far from meeting climate goals, and the media rarely gets the point across to people.

  • josephmateus

    Stop blaming people for our addiction to fossil fuels and for destroying the planet with pollution and other environmental disasters, because the whole system is set up and rigged to fossil fuel consumption, and people can only buy and use what the system offers them….if only clean electric cars and hydrogen powered cars were plentifully readily available to the general public, I am sure everybody would buy one, but instead, take the whole transportation infrastructure for example, as I write this over 99% of all vehicles available to the public, to the construction and transportation companies run on fossil fuels, all trucks, bulldozers, backhoes, diggers, locomotives, boats, ships, airplanes run on fossil fuels and the very few that use alternative fuels are the so called hybrids but even those still run more than half the time on gasoline, and there is a two year wait to get one. So who the heck is going to wait two to three years to buy such hybrid vehicle that is rigged to actually run on gasoline most of the time when fossil fuel powered vehicles are readily available?

    So if Obama and co. were real serious about weaning our dependence on fossil fuels the very first thing they should do would be to immediately stopping the manufacturing of vehicles running on fossil fuels and switch the whole transportation manufacturing infrastructure to electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, Instead, they keep on talking about doing this, but we see no action at all, just look, over 99% of 100% [the total] of all new 2010 – 2011 vehicles available for sale continue on being powered by fossil fuels….in spite of the fact that alternative energy powered vehicles technology has already been perfected and such vehicles could be immediately mass produced….so the same old thing keeps going on, just the politicians talk is different…

    Further, the big oil gas and coal companies continue on dominating our entire economic structure and control the whole political system right down to the cars and other vehicle manufacturers. Ruling politicians of all stripes, all motor vehicle manufacturers are bought and paid for by Big oil gas and coal companies… in the USA and all over the rest of the world…just look at all the bribing and corruption that led to the failure of regulating big oil and implementing the necessary safety rules which caused this unprecedented ecological disaster in the Gulf of Mexico….there is the proof right there that the political system is controlled and bought by Big Oil…

    The bottom line is, so long as all vehicles, boats, airplanes, locomotives etc., continue to run on fossil fuels, and all signs is that they will, changing over to alternative forms of energy is nothing but a big pipe dream.

    Right now the only exception to the rule in GM’s line up is the Chevy Volt, a car that would totally run on electricity. This vehicle is supposedly to be available for sale to the general public this coming December 2010, yet GM is not even advertising this car at all, all the entire vehicles line up that they advertise and sell run on fossil fuels, and not a word about the upcoming Chevy Volt. My guess is, comes December 2010 and they will invent some kind of excuse and say that production and development of this car has been delayed for another year, until the fall of 2011, and then at that time they will say that production has been delayed again until 2012, etc.,,,I hope I am wrong here with this assumption, but I will only believe that this car is available for sale in any GM dealership when the actual Chevy Volt car is already readily available there and not before..I will only believe it when I see it.

    In the meantime, behind close doors, under the table, big oil will continue on working surreptitiously the ruling politicians and car manufacturers to ensure that cars like the Chevy Volt will never be available to the general public for purchase..imagine, if people could buy a car like this Volt that would get 200 miles a gallon, everybody would buy one and the oil companies wouldn’t be selling any gasoline and they want to make sure that will never happen….because most of their big fat profits are made from fossil fuels sale and they will fight like hell behind the scenes to ensure the continuation and perpetuation of this present most corrupt insidious in congruent and polluting system.

    I just don’t believe any of the double talk from the ruling politicians, oil gas and coal companies nor car manufacturers, they say one thing in our faces and then behind our backs do exactly the opposite. I am tired of being deceived and lied to over and over…so just do not put the guilt trip on us consumers, instead go and practice what you preach.

  • logcabn

    You have it right. Why are we being blamed for the problem when there are NO solutions for us to adopt! I know there are numerous solutions that could be implemented right away with a little government encouragement. Unfortunately our government is so in bed with the major corporations nothing will ever happen. I own a small painting and remodeling business and drive a GMC 2500 that gets 11 to 13.5 mpg. I HATE every time I put gas in it however there are no alternatives for me. I need to carry a certain amount of supplies and equipment and must have a vehicle of that size. Google up ‘AFS Trinity’ and you will find a company that has produced a hybrid enhancement, using a Saturn View, that gets 150 mpg. I don’t think it would be a stretch that a truck like mine, as a hybrid with this enhancement, should get maybe 40 or 50 mpg. Our government should fast track technologies of this type so we can immediately reduce our oil consumption. And I’m talking in the next five years, NOT 25 or 30. That length of time means NEVER!

  • emfamerica

    I think a lot of people have very unrealistic views as to what can be done today. An electric vehicle with the same performance will probably double or more the cost of the vehicle. That would double the cost of insurance. Biofuels displace agriculture for food, and raise the price of food in the 3rd world, causing deforestation, and are heavily subsidized. Biofuels also require enormous quantities of water, and are largely not scalable.

    What is likely to be affordable are small eggshell electric vehicles (or scooters) good for short distances at low speeds. At the Geneva auto show was an imaginary vehicle with a GPS in the dash that will take you to the nearest train which will transport your vehicle to a location near your destination.

    If you want to solve the energy crisis, look at 1920′s Indiana and Ohio before roads were widespread. Electric interurban railroads everywhere hauling passengers and freight. Once the government decided to subsidize roads, the interurbans could no longer compete. The answer to the energy problem is to stop building highways which are one of the main consumers of fuel (along with aviation). Drive your eggshell covered electric scooter up onto a train or street car. Of course it would probably take 90 years to get back to 1920 America (but it may happen).

    The French can build high speed rail, but unless they penetrate the business market (those who chose to fly today) they will never succeed in the USA.

    All over Europe the railroads are electrified, but here the railroads pay taxes on their infrastructure, discouraging electrification while their oil is largely untaxed and the highways are largely free to the public.

  • willy55

    The science isn’t there to replace fossil fuel, however the current US Government is willing to subsidize non-efficient methods of producing alternative energy just to appear green. It’s a huge waste. Even more, considering that the emerging industrial powers of China and India have ABSOLUTELY NO INCENTIVE to join in. What if all the TIME and EXPENSE now being wasted on unsuccesful programs (i.e. subsidizing ethanol production, wind power, electric cars, taxing carbon, etc. etc. etc.), were used instead on research to produce a VIABLE alternative method (meaning the cost is not prohibitive and requires no subsidy). Better yet, foster competition in the private sector that provides incentive for discovering an EFFICIENT alternative energy process. Otherwise, it’s pure show. No wonder people are DISCOURAGED and UNCONVINCED.

  • twiggerman

    NOW HEAR THIS, MR. AND MRS. AND MS. AMERICAN CAR BUYER:

    VISIT YOUR LOCAL CAR DEALER SHOWROOM AND TELL THE SALES PERSON YOU’RE IN THE MARKET FOR AN AFFORDABLE ELECTRIC CAR. Of course, he will not have that. So, tell him/her to call you when they get some in, and turn around and walk out. You individuals out there must create the demand.

    “ELECTROCUTE” BIG OIL…..DEMAND AND BUY ELECTRIC VEHICLES!!!

    STOP THE DRILLING AT THE RETAIL GAS PUMP……DEMAND AND BUY ELECTRIC VEHICLES!!!

    BE A PATRIOTIC AMERICAN…..REDUCE YOUR DEMAND FOR FOREIGN OIL…..DEMAND AND BUY ELECTRIC VEHICLES!!!

  • chuckwarren

    I for one will only take “alternative energy” seriously when the first criteria is as follows: the alternative energy source will allow me (and all of us) to continue the same activities, and the same standard of living, as petroleum does now. No energy source that requires us to “change our lifestyle”, “cut back on consumption”, or any such social engineering will ever fly for me or the majority of Americans. This social engineering, after all, is the real force behind “alternative energy” like windmills and solar panels. The alternative energy sources I am in favor of are as follows: nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, and antimatter. When those technologies are embraced and promoted by government, I will be on board 100% and will agree to pay more in order to develop them. I’m not interested in the granola-crunching crowd’s idea of “alternative energy”, which usually means regressing America to third-world status.

  • pcf11

    I’m with you. No one is going to serve me any pie in the sky alternative energy schemes. I am not going to take any steps back in my lifestyle either. On your list fission is only alternative energy source that we can use today.

    Fusion exists, but operates at a loss, anti-matter? Only used on Star Trek last I heard. But no more unrealistic a solution than those offered by other commenters here.

    Electric cars? Please! Who wants to trail a 300 mile extension cord behind them? Bio-Diesel? Please! Who wants fat chicks chasing them down the road because they smell like a fryalator? Wind? Please! Talk about an idea that literally blows. Solar? Please! Do solar panels even produce the power they take to make yet? Solar is over 20 times more expensive than gas turbines and uses 100 times the land area. Then there is the small matter of reliability. When you need power the most the wind or Sun cannot be counted on. Hydrogen? Please! While hydrogen is the most abundant element in the Universe none of it exists free on this planet. There is no known cost effective process of producing hydrogen as of now. Really, all the commercial hydrogen generating methods use fossil fuels, otherwise known as hydrocarbons, namely natural gas, as their raw material now. So we’re taking a fuel, and making another fuel out of it. Brilliantly wasteful and unsustainable.

    The simple fact is for power storage fossil fuels are a very tough act to beat and we simply do not have the technology yet that comes anywhere near competing with it.

    Maybe when all of the ignorant luddite greens pipe down then saner minds will prevail? Greens appear to be against any viable alternative energy sources we can use today such as nuclear, or hydroelectric. Though I must admit I’m with them on granola crunching. It does seem like a lot want to turn America into a third world country anymore.

  • osito73

    While I agree that we need to start making a concerted effort to end our dependence on fossil fuels, Ethanol is probably one of the worst ways we can go about doing this. The majority of Ethanol produced in the U.S.A. today is corn based. Corn based Ethanol requires almost as much energy to create as it produces (66% in fact), and that number doesn’t even include how much energy is used growing, harvesting, and transporting the corn. Nor does it include the environmental damage caused by the fertilizer and pesticides used to grow the corn.

    Corn base ethanol also requires that we redirect some of our food supply into the gas tanks of our SUVs and Minivans. I think this is very hard to morally justify when we still have a large number of people around the globe starving. It takes 550 lbs of corn to make enough ethanol to fill up the gas tank of a small SUV or Minivan just once; or if you prefer to look at it this way, you can feed somebody for an entire year or fill up your car.

    It requires 1700 gallons of clean water to produce 1 gallon of ethanol. The process also produces 12 gallons of raw sewage. Not exactly environmentally friendly.

    Ethanol only has about 60% of the energy density of gasoline as well; which means you have to use 40% more to drive your car the same distance.

    All and all, I would say that Corn based Ethanol is probably a worse alternative than fossil fuel based fuels, and unfortunately at this time it is the only viable form of Ethanol on the market. The only people who actually win from Corn based Ethanol are the farmers because it drives up the price of their product. In fact over the last 10 years the price of corn has more than tripled. Maybe with time other types of Ethanol, like Cellulosic Ethanol, might be able to fill the void, but as of right now they are still only in the early experimental phases.

  • josephmateus

    Emfamerica, you are wrong when you say that – quote : > “An electric vehicle with the same performance will probably double or more the cost of the vehicle. That would double the cost of insurance” < – unquote.

    This just not true. The Chevy Volt for example, which is due to be available for sale this coming December 2010 – ( whether it will be readily available to the general public on that date is another story) – will have a price tag equal to the same other gasoline powered vehicles in the same class when the US Government rebate for buying an electric vehicle is applied, and therefore the insurance for this electric powered vehicle will not be any higher than for the same class gasoline powered vehicle. Please check with GM and get your facts straight before you write nonsense here.

  • josephmateus

    willy55, you are mistaken, the science is already there to replace fossil fuel and alternative energy powered vehicles could be produced in mass right now…the problem is that Big Oil works the cars, trucks, buses manufacturers and the governments behind the scenes to ensure that this alternative energy vehicles will NOT be available to the general public.

  • josephmateus

    twiggerman, you GROSSLY UNDERESTIMATE THE IMMENSE POWER THAT BIG OIL HAS OVER OUR ENTIRE SOCIAL ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL SYSTEM. Unfortunately the truth of the matter is that no matter how much we keep demanding electric and hydrogen powered vehicles at our local car dealerships nothing at all will change because the vehicle manufacturers only listen and only toe the line for the Big Multinational Oil companies that bribe them under the table and and not for us, the general public. They well know that we need cars to drive and will not start walking….they know that if all that is available to us are gasoline powered vehicles that is exactly what we will have to buy… therefore they will not lose our business and and will keep making additional millions with the continuous bribes from Big Oil. Thus unless we are willing to give up our gasoline powered motor cars and switch to run on bicycles and horses, this is End of the story.

  • josephmateus

    pcf11, either you are in the Big Oil companies pockets or else you are extremely ignorant … saner minds? your mind is anything but sane …. Your presumptuous preposterous pretentious arrogance has no limits … listen, this is not even a question of being a luddite green as you put it but rather is a matter of being realistic and have the guts and courage to face the facts, which you do not have. Regardless of your political ideology, we only have this one planet to live in, and if we destroy it by polluting it and depleting its finite resources with our selfish greed we will all be also destroyed, even the Big Fat Oil Gas and Coal Multinationals executives will also perish…..

    First of all, you do not have to trail a 300 mile extension cord behind an electric car. If you took the time to study the engineering behind the Chevy Volt you will find out that this car has a range of 400 miles without needing refueling at all. The first 40 miles the car runs strictly on electricity and after that an auxiliary gasoline powered generator charges up the battery while the car keeps on running..now at cruising highway speeds the battery recharges with the gasoline powered generator and will go an additional 40 miles strictly on electric power..and on and on this way….therefore the amount of gasoline that takes to keep recharging the battery is minimal, thus you can actually go 200 highway miles with a gallon of gasoline and about 130 miles per gallon in the city. Remember, this is a totally electric powered car, not an hybrid which has two engines one electric another a gasoline powered motor, which alternate in powering the vehicle….the Chevy Volt is totally powered only by the electric engine. Listen, this car has been tested over and over again and it has been proven behind a reasonable doubt that it works exactly like I described it…and that is exactly why Big Oil is so scared and is surreptitiously behind the scenes doing everything within their immense power to stop this car to ever coming into the market….they just don’t want you to be running 200 or 130 miles with a gallon of gasoline, that would really cut on their big fat profits from the gasoline sales.

    And yes, talking about extension cords, the lenght of a power extension cord is 20 feet and not 300 miles…..at night you would indeed want (but not need) to plug your Chevy Volt to the outlet in the wall while you sleep in your bed, not drive dragging the power cord behind you…. so that in the morning when you go out first of all you would unplug the extension cord from your car and then you would be able to drive the first 60 kilometres just on pure electricity before the gasoline powered generator would kick in…..and if you, like a lot of other folks only drive a total of 60 kilometres a day, to go back and forth to work and shopping you won’t need to use any gasoline at all.

    Secondly, as far as hydrogen powered vehicles are concerned, tests have also been done with Toyota that used a hydrogen powered SUV to successfully travel all the way from Alaska to Vancouver, British Columbia in the heart of the winter with lots of snow and ice, a distance of 3.000 kilometres running strictly on hydrogen and with a range of 300 miles (500 kilometres) between refueling..and the hydrogen powered Toyota SUV arrived in Vancouver with absolutely no glitches at all and performed even better than the Toyota engineers expected. The system behind an hydrogen powered vehicle is very similar to the Chevy Volt concept, the hydrogen powers a fuel cell which in turn power an electric engine and the vehicle also runs on electric power…Hydrogen powered vehicles is a proven system that works well, now all they need is to start manufacturing them in large quantities and do away with gasoline powered vehicles, and add hydrogen to the fuels sold at refuelling stations.

    And it would be a lot less expensive to fill your car with hydrogen than with gasoline because hydrogen would be a lot cheaper as it is a by-product of water….as a matter of fact, with the right tools, you would be able to make hydrogen from your tap water and store it at your own home, and thus refuel your car from your own dispenser…further hydrogen fuel is totally pollution free, all that comes out of your tail pipe is water droplets…..sounds like a fairy tale? Then just keep reading here…..

    Thirdly if you weren’t so ignorant you would know about a Filipino engineer in the Philippines who invented a system where the vehicle run on PURE WATER….the system extracted the hydrogen from the water, which in turn powered the fuel cell and the fuel cell powered the battery that run the vehicle….of course this system would only work in tropical countries where temperatures never go below freezing, like in the Philippines and not up here in Canada..

    But the point is, don’t tell me that electricity and hydrogen are not viable alternatives fuels readily available and that the technology for electric and hydrogen powered vehicles is not there, because that is simply not true….and of you don’t believe what I wrote here about this Filipino invention, just do a search in Google under “Filipino invention with car running on water” and you can read all about it there.

    And do you know what happened to this Filipino invention? When this engineer took it to the Philippine Government and tried to patent it the Big Multinational Oil companies bribed the government officials to not allow this technology to proceed by signing an agreement with the Philippine government that stipulated that all the Philippine transportation infrastructure, private and public, would have to be powered solely by fossil fuels.

    Therefore pcf11, get out of your cave, take your head from under that rock, smell the coffee, give it a good shake, face reality and stop writing your preposterous ridiculous absurd nonsense here….and you don’t even have the guts to identify yourself here with your real name….shame on you. This is not a matter of turning America into a third world country rather is a very urgent matter to save America and the rest of the world from utter destruction from fossil fuels abuse and pollution.

blog comments powered by Disqus