Energy: The Answer is Blowing in the Wind

QUESTION from The Dallas Morning News Voters Guide:If you were charged with writing the nation’s energy strategy, in what order would you place your priorities? First I would not have the Big Oil Companies set our energy policy. We need a comprehensive energy policy that is established after full study by scientists and professional on feasibility, cost, and establishing minimal risk to the environment but maximum benefit to our energy independence.

We need CAFE standards similar to those in use in the European Union and Japan. We should develop and research alternative renewable energy systems. We should focus on multi-dimensional types of energy systems instead of relying on one major source of energy, for example fossil fuel.

Energy for the future is a complex problem

For the short term, I favor regulation in the commodes market to prevent the abuse of the London Loopholes and the Enron Loopholes. These caused the speculation because there was no real risk to bidding up the prices on the futures market and that led to high gas prices that only subsided with Chinese rationing for the Olympics. The Olympics will soon be over and so 1.4 billion consumers will be back in the demand for petroleum. So short term fixes are not likely and get ready to pay more at the pump and soon.

Additional drilling will take 7-10 years, but many wells in the US have been capped off the last 25 years. There are 10,000 capped American wells mostly on federal land that should either be in production or exploration. I favor use it or lose it legislation that will tell us if there is oil there, like I suspect there is. We must end foreign dependence on petroleum. Petroleum is really too valuable to burn up. Oil is a major plastic source and primary source for other by products that cannot be easily replaced from other avenues and for less cost.

For the long term, we need to explore all options and have a real energy policy that emphasizes conservation, alternative fuel, and energy independence. There is real promise in bio mass options such as switch grass & blue-green algae. These are better US solutions than Brazilian sugar cane. Bio mass can be produced cheaper than petroleum and use the entire plant for production. Corn ethanol has shown to be not an efficient solution and has raise food prices dramatically, so it should be phased out as fuel.

Wind, solar, and geothermal are especially suited for large scale fuel sources for utility power plants in our state and we need a program such as some European countries do that pay the consumer more for excess power put back into the system than the rate charged for consumption. This has worked especially well in Germany.

Natural gas is a far cleaner burning fuel for hydrogen cars, but gas extraction can produce millions of gallons of waste water and endanger our underground aquifers and that could make clean water dangerously low in Texas. Hydrogen extraction from water itself is a much better solution, but not yet refined.

Also just the simple act of changing our light bulbs to more energy efficient types will pay big dividends in less power plan consumption. It can be the equivalent to taking millions of cars off the road worldwide.

All options need to be looked at. We need to commit to the goal of a true national bipartisan consensus to achieve real results not temporary changes that are ineffective. It is time to have real cooperation, not slogans on energy. We must also redefine the engines of our cars to insure greater conservation and explore new ways of mass transit to offer alternatives and solutions to end the energy crisis once and for all.

Tom

Tom Love Democratic Candidate for US Congress TX 24
www.TomLoveforTexas.com Ph#972-263-5630
Office Address:132 E Main St, Ste 110, Grand Prairie, TX 75050
Mailing Address :PO Box 7231,Arlington, TX 76005-7231

---------------------------------------------------------
Question:Mr. Love:

Too many of our leaders are responding to rising gas prices with short
term fixes to lower the cost of gas rather than with sustainable proposals
that would lead the nation to conserve energy, improve energy efficiency
and increase renewable energy production.

Also, this "clean coal" solution will not work. There is no such thing as
"clean" coal. Wind is a good chunk of the key. It works without polluting
already over-polluted air.

Green house gas emissions were being reversed until 2001 and now it's
worse than it was before. This is unacceptable.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Carter
----------------------------------------------------------------

AP IMPACT: Big Oil profits steered to investors By JOHN PORRETTO, AP Business Writer

As giant oil companies like Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips get set to report what will probably be another round of eye-popping quarterly profits, just where is all that money going?

The companies insist they're trying to find new oil that might help bring down gas prices, but the money they spend on exploration is nothing compared with what they spend on stock buybacks and dividends.

It's good news for shareholders, including mutual funds and retirement plans for millions of Americans, but no help to drivers already making drastic cutbacks to offset the high cost of fuel.

The five biggest international oil companies plowed about 55 percent of the cash they made from their businesses into stock buybacks and dividends last year, up from 30 percent in 2000 and just 1 percent in 1993, according to Rice University's James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy.

The percentage they spend to find new deposits of fossil fuels has remained flat for years, in the mid-single digits.

The issue has become more sensitive as lawmakers and Americans frustrated by high gas prices have balked at gaudy reports of oil industry profits. ConocoPhillips is scheduled to kick off the latest round of Big Oil earnings reports Wednesday.

Oil prices are set on the open market, not by the oil industry. But that hasn't stopped public protests, a series of congressional grillings for top oil executives, and a failed attempt by lawmakers to slap Big Oil with a windfall profits tax.

In the first three months of this year, Exxon Mobil Corp., the world's biggest publicly traded oil company, shelled out $8.8 billion on stock buybacks alone, compared with $5.5 billion on exploration and other capital projects.

ConocoPhillips has already told investors that its stock buybacks for April to June of this year will come to about $2.5 billion — nine times what it spent on exploration.

Stock buybacks are common throughout corporate America, not just for Big Oil. They shrink the amount of stock on the open market, essentially increasing its value and giving individual shareholders a bigger stake in the company.

But some critics say Big Oil focuses too much on boosting stock prices, in an industry that sometimes ties executive pay to stock price.

And in focusing on buybacks and dividends over exploring for new oil, some critics say, oil companies jeopardize its already dwindling share of world supply.

"If you're not spending your money finding and developing new oil, then there's no new oil," said Amy Myers Jaffe, an energy expert at Rice University who's studied spending patterns of the major oil companies.

Investor-owned companies like Exxon Mobil and Chevron hold less than 10 percent of global oil and gas reserves, way down from past decades. And finding new oil has become harder and more expensive.

State-run oil companies, like those in Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, control about 80 percent of oil reserves — and at today's prices, it's not surprising they're keeping a tight grip on what they have. Scarce equipment and hard-to-find labor also pose problems.

No one questions that Big Oil is rolling in cash. The cash the biggest oil companies bring in from running their businesses, or operating cash flow, is four times what it was in the early 1990s.

"It becomes a management decision," said Howard Silverblatt, a senior index analyst at Standard & Poor's. "It's not like they're going to the board and saying, 'Well, I can do one or the other or the other.' The balance sheets are flush with cash."

So what's Big Oil to do?

The companies say they are doing what they can to find more fossil fuels around the world, but the easy oil is gone. Exploring these days may mean expensive projects in thousands of feet of water in the Gulf of Mexico or costly ventures pulling petroleum from Canada's vast oil-sands deposits.

TransCanada Corp. and ConocoPhillips Co. just said they'd spend $7 billion to nearly double the amount of crude flowing through a pipeline from Canada's tar sands to the U.S. Gulf Coast.

And analysts point out that because there's no guarantee oil prices will stay in the stratosphere, oil companies should approach exploration projects with caution.

"There's only so much money you can throw at it without being ridiculous," said Joseph Stanislaw, a senior adviser to Deloitte LLP's Energy & Resources practice. "I think they're doing what they can."

It's also important to remember it can take several years before a company produces the first barrel of oil from a new field.

One example is an oil field in the Gulf of Mexico called Thunder Horse. Operated by BP and partly owned by Exxon Mobil, the platform only last month began producing oil and gas — nine years after the field's discovery.

At its peak, the multibillion-dollar project is designed to produce 250,000 barrels of oil and 200 million cubic feet of natural gas each day, which would make it the Gulf's largest producer.

"When you look at the spending that's going on, the companies are bringing on a lot of long-term discoveries," said John Parry, a senior analyst with John S. Herold Inc.

At ConocoPhillips, the capital spending budget for 2008, which includes exploration and production, is $15.3 billion, more than double the spending of five years ago.

"Could we spend $20 billion or $25 billion? Absolutely," spokesman Gary Russell said. "Could we do it effectively, in a way that provides ultimate value to our shareholders? Probably not."

Exxon Mobil, known for its disciplined approach to investing in energy projects, has drawn criticism for its reluctance to invest in alternative energy sources like wind and solar power.

The company expects to spent $25 billion to $30 billion on capital and exploration projects each of the next five years. Last year, it spent about $32 billion on share buybacks.

"You fund your investments that make sense," said spokesman Alan Jeffers. "You have criteria, and you have to meet that to be a good investment for the shareholder. And then if you've got cash that's left over, you're going to return it to the shareholder because it's theirs."

Exxon Mobil often touts its $100 million contribution to Stanford University's Global Climate and Energy Project. By contrast, BP says it plans to spend $8 billion over the next decade developing alternative energy using wind, hydrogen and other means.

Big Oil isn't alone buying back large amounts of stock, but the companies are certainly some of the biggest indulgers.

A boom in stock buybacks has been under way in corporate America since 2004. In the first quarter of this year, Exxon, ConocoPhillips and Chevron were all among the top 10 companies for share buybacks in the S&P 500.

In Washington, one Democratic proposal would impose a 25 percent tax on "unreasonable" profits of the top five oil companies, which together made more than $120 billion in 2007, and put the money toward a trust fund for investment in alternative energy sources. Republicans say it's a gimmick that won't help at the pump and will discourage domestic oil production.

But Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said the fervor for stock buybacks is a clear sign Big Oil isn't interested in new production or alternative energy.

"When you hear that," he said, "it screams out for a windfall profits tax."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080721/ap_on_bi_ge/oil_profits

Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press.
POSTED BY TOMLOVEFORTEXAS.COM AT 3:46 PM 0 COMMENTS
FRIDAY, JULY 11, 2008

Are Microbes The Answer To The Energy Crisis

Boston MA (SPX) Jun 09, 2008

The answer to the looming fuel crisis in the 21st century may be found by thinking small, microscopic in fact. Microscopic organisms from bacteria and cyanobacteria, to fungi to microalgae, are biological factories that are proving to efficient sources of inexpensive, environmentally friendly biofuels that can serve as alternatives to oil, according to research presented at the 108th General Meeting of the American Society for Microbiology in Boston.
When it comes to alternative fuels, currently ethanol is king. Almost all ethanol produced in the United States is fermented from readily available sugars in corn. Ethanol from corn has also come under much criticism lately, accused of being responsible for rising food prices.

Researchers are looking at alternate biomasses as food for microorganisms to ferment into ethanol. The most attractive are known as lignocellulosic biomass and include wood residues (including sawmill and paper mill discards), municipal paper waste, agricultural residues (including sugarcane bagasse) and dedicated energy crops (like switchgrass). The problem is, unlike corn, the sugars necessary for fermentation are trapped inside the lignocellulose.

Govind Nadathur and his colleagues at the University of Puerto Rico have been looking at unusual ecosystems and unusual organisms to find enzymes to help extract these sugars.

"Wood falls into the ocean. It disappears. What's eating this biomass? We found mollusks that eat the wood, with the help of bacteria in their stomachs that produce enzymes that break down the cellulose. We found something similar in termites," says Nadathur. They plan on using these enzymes as a key step in a closed, integrated system that would not only produce ethanol, but would also produce sugar, molasses, hibiscus flowers and biodiesel with a minimum of waste.

It all starts with sugar cane and hibiscus flowers, grown on local lands. These produce not only the obvious products such as refined sugar, molasses (which is used to make rum) and flowers, but also a large amount of waste in the form of biomass. Using the enzymes in their library, Nadathur and his colleagues could break down the biomass to sugars and ferment them to ethanol, trapping the carbon dioxide that is produced during fermentation.

They then would feed the carbon dioxide to microalgae in ponds that would produce a polymer that could be refined into biodiesel or jet fuel. The spent microalgae could then be harvested and used as fertilizer for the next round of sugar cane and hibiscus, thereby closing the cycle.

"There used to be a booming sugarcane industry in Puerto Rico, but in the mid-1990s it died. It could not survive economically. By creating a closed-loop system that utilizes the waste to create additional products and feeds back upon itself, suddenly growing sugar cane becomes economically feasible again," says Nadathur.

They are currently working with a company called Sustainable Agrobiotech of Puerto Rico to build a pilot program which they hope to have running by early 2009. Should the pilot program prove successful, there is plenty of adjacent farmland to upscale.

Another promising biofuel is hydrogen. Already many car manufacturers are producing hydrogen concept cars and pilot programs using hydrogen-powered buses already are gaining acceptance in Los Angeles, with Burbank announcing the addition of a hydrogen-powered bus to its fleet in the summer of 2008. As more buses come online, there will be a greater need for hydrogen. Unfortunately, current chemical manufacturing processes for hydrogen are not that efficient or use fossil fuels as a source.

Sergei Markov of Austin Peay State University has developed a prototype bioreactor that uses the purple bacterium Rubrivivax gelatinosus to produce enough hydrogen to power a small motor.

"Certain purple bacteria, which usually grow in the mud of various ponds and lakes, have the ability to convert water and carbon monoxide into hydrogen gas (note: only a certain set could use CO). The problem was how to effectively supply each bacterial cell in a liquid bacterial soup with gaseous carbon monoxide," says Markov.

The answer was attaching the bacteria to numerous tiny hollow fibers inside an artificial kidney cartridge. Water and gasses can freely diffuse through the fibers, but bacteria, due to their large size, cannot.

The hydrogen gas from a small fifty milliliter "artificial kidney bioreactor" has been directly injected into fuel cells and has produced enough electricity to power small motors and lamps.

The only drawback is that carbon monoxide is not readily available , but Markov says it can be easily produced from biomass using a specific thermochemical process. There are also other bacteria that produce carbon monoxide.

One researcher and her lab, though, are investigating what could perhaps be considered the holy grail of hydrogen production: pure hydrogen from only water and sunlight, with a little bacterial help.

Pin Ching Maness of the National Renewable Energy Lab in Golden, Colorado, is researching cyanobacteria that harness the power of the sun to break the bonds in water, separating the hydrogen from the oxygen. There is a problem. One of the hydrogenase enzymes the cyanobacteria uses in this process is sensitive to O2, which makes sustained hydrogen production extremely difficult.

Luckily a certain purple bacterium use a similar hydrogenase, but one that is tolerant to O2. Maness and her colleagues have identified the genes that the purple bacterium uses to produce the tolerant hydrogenase.

They have also identified the genes a particular model cyanobacterium uses to produce the sensitive hydrogenase and have knocked it out. They are currently in the process of cloning the genes for the tolerant enzyme into the model cyanobacterium.

The next step is to verify that the genes have been successfully incorporated into the genome and are expressed. Over the next few years additional research will need to be done to ensure all the requirements are there for the construction of an active hydrogenase enzyme.

http://www.energy-daily.com/reports/Are_Microbes_The_Answer_To_The_Energy_Crisis_999.html
POSTED BY TOMLOVEFORTEXAS.COM AT 9:31 AM 0 COMMENTS
LABELS: HTTP://WWW.ENERGY-DAILY.COM/REPORTS/ARE_MICROBES_THE_ANSWER_TO_THE_ENERGY_CRISIS_999.HTML
MONDAY, JUNE 16, 2008

Honda rolls out new zero-emission car

By TOMOKO A. HOSAKA, Associated Press Writer

TAKANEZAWA, Japan - Honda's new zero-emission, hydrogen fuel cell car rolled off a Japanese production line Monday and is headed to Southern California, where Hollywood is already abuzz over the latest splash in green motoring.

The FCX Clarity, which runs on hydrogen and electricity, emits only water and none of the noxious fumes believed to induce global warming. It is also two times more energy efficient than a gas-electric hybrid and three times that of a standard gasoline-powered car, the company says.

Japan's third biggest automaker expects to lease out a "few dozen" units this year and about 200 units within three years. In California, a three-year lease will run $600 a month, which includes maintenance and collision coverage.

Among the first customers are actress Jamie Lee Curtis and filmmaker husband Christopher Guest, actress Laura Harris, film producer Ron Yerxa, as well as businessmen Jon Spallino and Jim Salomon.

"It's so smooth," said Harris, who played villainness Marie Warner on the hit TV show "24" and was flown over by Honda for the ceremony. "It's like a future machine, but it's not."

The FCX Clarity is an improvement of its previous-generation fuel cell vehicle, the FCX, introduced in 2005.

A breakthrough in the design of the fuel cell stack, which is the unit that powers the car's motor, allowed engineers to lighten the body, expand the interior and increase efficiency, Honda said.

The fuel cell draws on energy synthesized through a chemical reaction between hydrogen gas and oxygen in the air, and a lithium-ion battery pack provides supplemental power. The FCX Clarity has a range of about 270-miles per tank with hydrogen consumption equivalent to 74 miles per gallon, according to the carmaker.

The 3,600-pound vehicle can reach speeds up to 100 miles per hour.

John Mendel, executive vice president of America Honda Motor Co., said at a morning ceremony it was "an especially significant day for American Honda as we plant firm footsteps toward the mainstreaming of fuel cell cars."

The biggest obstacles standing in the way of wider adoption of fuel cell vehicles are cost and the dearth of hydrogen fuel stations. For the Clarity's release in California, Honda said it received 50,000 applications through its website but could only consider those living near stations in Torrance, Santa Monica and Irvine.

Initially, however, the Clarity will go only to a chosen few starting July and then launch in Japan this fall.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has called for a statewide network of hydrogen stations, but progress has been slow.

The state has also recently relaxed a mandate for the number of zero-emission cars it aims to have on roads. By 2014, automakers must now sell 7,500 electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, a reduction of 70 percent.

Spallino, who currently drives Honda's older FCX and was also flown in for the ceremony, said he will use the Clarity to drive to and from work and for destinations within the Los Angeles area. The small number of hydrogen fuel stations is the "single limiting factor" for fuel cell vehicles, he said.

"It's more comfortable, and it handles well," said Spallino of Redondo Beach. "It's got everything. You're not sacrificing anything except range."

The world's major automakers have been making heavy investments in fuel cells and other alternative fuel vehicles amid climbing oil prices and concerns about climate change.

Although Honda Motor Co. was the first Japanese automaker to launch a gas-electric hybrid vehicle in the U.S. in 1999, it has been outpaced by the dominance of Toyota's popular Prius.

Toyota announced in May that it has sold more than 1 million Prius hybrids, while both the Honda Insight and the hybrid Accord have been discontinued due to poor sales.

Honda also plans to launch a gas-electric hybrid-only model, as well as hybrid versions of the Civic, the sporty CR-Z and Fit subcompact.

Toyota has announced that it would launch a plug-in hybrid with next-generation lithium-ion batteries by 2010 and a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle later in Japan later this year.

U.S. carmaker General Motors Corp. plans to introduce a Chevrolet Volt plug-in electric vehicle in 2010. It also introduced a test-fleet of hydrogen fuel cell Equinox SUVs.

Honda has no plans for a plug-in electric vehicle. President Takeo Fukui said he does not believe current battery technology is good enough to develop a feasible car.

The company has not revealed how much each car costs to make, and it is unclear when, or if, the car will be available for mass-market sales. Takeo has set a target for 2018, but meeting that goal will depend on whether Honda can significantly lower development and assembly costs as well as market reaction to fuel cells.

Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press

WWW.automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity
POSTED BY TOMLOVEFORTEXAS.COM AT 10:03 AM 0 COMMENTS
MONDAY, MAY 26, 2008


Lets Link the Metroplex

The high prices of gasoline and its impact on food costs and the economic problems in the credit and housing sector have led to increasing ridership on the public and mass transportation systems. Many travelers are pondering what to do this vacation season and with a weary eye toward the pocketbook; yet, they still wish an entertainment value for their dollars. Added to this mix are cries to increase mass transit systems in areas that have not had them before as more efficient delivery of people to areas they wish to visit.

I agree with the sentiment that we need to get mass transportation covering the Metroplex going. It is totally wrong not to have a way to link Dallas-Fort Worth to all tourist attractions in between. This would prevent gridlock and expand an Entertainment Zone where tickets could be offered as vacation packages along with the transportation to get there and avoid traffic gridlock. Instead of being stuck in traffic, one could dine out a restaurant or stay longer. Grand Prairie and Arlington now have multiple theme entertainment areas such as Arlington's Cowboy Stadium, Six Flags (both rides and water park), and the Rangers. Grand Prairie offers Lone Star Park, the AirHogs, and Nokia Theater with Traders Village also in the mix. By combining Dallas and Fort Worth's attractions like Fair Park, the Cotton Bowl, the Museums, The Stockyards, The State Fair, the Arts Centers, Myerson and Bass Halls, and Skylink no one in this state and very few locations in the country could approach the value and diversity of The Metroplex.

In this era of costly gasoline prices, the old Greyhound slogan of relax and leave the driving to us could be retooled and bring in major tourist dollars to the entire region. If fact this could open new opportunities for major hotel complexes, employment, and construction. There are many proposals on how to achieve this and light rail and monorail maglev* technology needs to be added to this mix.
What we need is a Master Plan to serve the entire area of The Metroplex and incorporate all existing components within its scope and development.

We need nothing less on a national scale of the Manhattan Project to develop, implement, and create tax breaks to sustain a new green technology and bring it to all America. We should explore hydrogen, biodiesel cyanobacteria farming, solar, wind and geothermal energy as alternate sources to remove our dependence on carbon-based technology with its dwindling, increasing expensive costs, and environmentally negative impact.

And the most lasting result will be a real community that stretches from Garland to Texas Motor Speedway. Instead of separate geographic areas that shares a similar space.


Links and footnotes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglev_train#Emsland.2C_Germany

NB. A maglev, or magnetically levitating train is a form of transportation that suspends, guides and propels vehicles (predominantly trains) using electromagnetic force. This method has the potential to be fast and quiet when compared to wheeled mass transit systems, potentially reaching velocities comparable to turboprop and jet aircraft (900 km/h, 600 mph). The highest recorded speed of a maglev train is 581 km/h (361 mph), achieved in Japan in 2003, 6 km/h higher than the conventional TGV speed record.

• Existing maglev systems

o 8.1 Emsland, Germany
o 8.2 JR-Maglev, Japan
o 8.3 Linimo (Tobu Kyuryo Line, Japan)
o 8.4 FTA's UMTD program
o 8.5 Southwest Jiaotong University, China
o 8.6 Shanghai Maglev Train

http://www.unimodal.net/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_car
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanobacteria
http://tomlovetexas.blogspot.com/2008/05/ut-scientists-discover-key-to-alternate_24.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_for_the_Study_of_Peak_Oil_and_Gas
http://www.fortworth.com/
http://www.thedallaspage.com/
http://www.tourtexas.com/grandprairie/
http://www.tourtexas.com/arlington/index.html
http://www.tourtexas.com/irving/index.html
POSTED BY TOMLOVEFORTEXAS.COM AT 8:51 AM 0 COMMENTS
THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2008
Hydrogen Cars
Hydrogen vehicle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_car

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4563676/

http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/?ef_id=1097:1:b6e212286076625ddc4918287e553afe_5795996512_63951655012:fhlqrUNIYXsAABdyrFUAAAAU:20080403174008


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Hydrogen car)


Sequel, a fuel cell-powered vehicle from General Motors


Filler neck for hydrogen of a BMW, Museum Autovision, Altlußheim, Germany

Tank for liquid hydrogen of Linde, Museum Autovision, Altlußheim, Germany

A hydrogen vehicle is a vehicle that uses hydrogen as its on-board fuel for motive power. The term may refer to a personal transportation vehicle, such as an automobile, or any other vehicle that uses hydrogen in a similar fashion, such as an aircraft. The power plants of such vehicles convert the chemical energy of hydrogen to mechanical energy (torque) in one of two methods: combustion, or electrochemical conversion in a fuel-cell:

In combustion, the hydrogen is burned in engines in fundamentally the same method as traditional gasoline cars.
In fuel-cell conversion, the hydrogen is reacted with oxygen to produce water and electricity, the latter of which is used to power an electric traction motor.
The molecular hydrogen needed as an on-board fuel for hydrogen vehicles can be obtained through many thermochemical methods utilizing natural gas, coal (by a process known as coal gasification), liquefied petroleum gas, biomass (biomass gasification), by a process called thermolysis, or as a microbial waste product called biohydrogen or Biological hydrogen production. Hydrogen can also be produced from water by electrolysis. If the electricity used for the electrolysis is produced using renewable energy, the production of the hydrogen would (in principle) result in no net carbon dioxide emissions. On-board decomposition to produce hydrogen can occur when a catalyst is used.

Hydrogen is an energy carrier, not an energy source, so the energy the car uses would ultimately need to be provided by a conventional power plant. A suggested benefit of large-scale deployment of hydrogen vehicles is that it could lead to decreased emissions of greenhouse gases and ozone precursors.[1] Further, the conversion of fossil fuels would be moved from the vehicle, as in today's automobiles, to centralized power plants in which the byproducts of combustion or gasification can be better controlled than at the tailpipe. However, there are both technical and economic challenges to implementing wide-scale use of hydrogen vehicles, as well as less expensive alternatives. The timeframe in which challenges may be overcome is likely to be at least several decades, and hydrogen vehicles may never become broadly available.[2][3][4][5]

Contents
[hide]

1 Research and prototypes
2 Hydrogen fuel difficulties
2.1 Fuel cell cost
2.2 Freezing conditions
2.3 Service life
2.4 Low volumetric energy
2.5 Hydrogen production cost
2.6 Hydrogen infrastructure
2.7 Political considerations
2.8 Alternatives
3 Hydrogen internal combustion
4 Automobiles
5 Buses
6 Bicycles
7 Motorcycles
8 Airplanes
9 References
10 See also
11 External links
POSTED BY TOMLOVEFORTEXAS.COM AT 10:57 AM 0 COMMENTS
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2008
Idea #1 The Environment: Hydrogen
Subject:
Oil at $100? Let’s use hydrogen instead!
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008

Our economy. Steve Dunston Irving TX 75038 wrote

Hydrogen is the most common element in the entire universe and there are several different car companies that have already developed hydrogen-powered cars. These cars are greener than green; there are no emissions that are harmful to our environment. Hydrogen as a fuel is starting to be used in forklift trucks in warehouses; why not in our cars? All we need is a truly accessible fuel supply distribution system, so let's encourage our country's oil companies to put hydrogen refueling pumps in every service station that sells their branded product. Having all our oil companies in the hydrogen distribution business should assure availability and price competition in the marketplace.

I think oil companies might welcome the opportunity to move into a new segment of the transportation fuel energy business by modifying their “gas stations” ventures, that if completely unchanged will be in decline. To speed the process along and as an extra incentive for the oil companies to act quickly, our government could create an excess profits tax on oil company profits, but completely exempt from that tax, any oil company that spends more than fifty percent of their profits installing a minimum of two hydrogen refueling pumps and storage capability at all of their service stations around the country. That should help us to make the transition to hydrogen fuel, very quickly. Once we get started, oil prices should drop dramatically and that will help our economy.

Steve Dunston


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom: One of the problems with hydrogen has been distribution. This can be solved with a Carbon Tax on polluters. If they pollute, we should tax them and make their goods and services more expensive to have the Carbon Footprint.

We also need to use our tax policy to institute an Excess Profits Tax on the major oil companies; however, if they install at least 2 hydrogen fuel tanks per service station, and provide a system of refueling electric cars, they would get tax credits that would recoup most of the tax.

We can and should write the tax code to provide the corporate behavior within the markets that fuels a "Green Color" technology and the new job creation that would go with it.


Mechanic Claims Car Gets 110 Miles Per Gallonhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25497514/

WOAI-TV

updated 11:46 a.m. CT, Wed., July. 2, 2008

From NBC News: To find the future of the auto industry, Doug Pelmear looked to the past. He says he's perfected an engine developed by his grandfather 60 years ago. An engine that gives his 1987 mustang 110 miles to the gallon. Doug Pelmear says my grandfather had the idea back in the 40's that he can make a difference then. There was quite a need at that time also with the war going on and everything, there was quite the need then. And quite the need now. So, Pelmear, a mechanic in Napoleon, has been tweaking this engine for the past 10 years, squeezing out the maximum amount of power for a minimum amount of gas. Doug says this'll bring back the automotive industry when they can sell trucks and suv's and the models that are almost dead at this time. The designer says, this car is no slacker either. It goes well over 100-miles per hour. Doug says it's 400 horse and has 500 foot pounds of torque off the line, zero to 60 in three seconds. Developer Mark Schnitkey says even those of us who grew up in the muscle car age, this will pretty much blow your muscle car away. Pelmear won't show us under the hood. Some of his gizmos are still awaiting patents. But the secret lies in making engines more efficient. And with a little more work, developers believe they'll be getting 500 miles to the gallon and revolutionizing the auto industry. Mark says I think it's time. I think it's time that we start telling the world what we're going to pay for a gallon of gas instead of the world telling us what we're going to pay for a gallon of gas.

Click here to read this story on www.woai.com

ENERGY: We Can Solve It

Today, Texas oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens will testify on "Energy Security" before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. A lifelong oilman, Pickens is in the process of building the world's largest wind farm in Texas, "a $10 billion behemoth that could power a small city by itself." The power from the 4,000 megawatt farm is set to go online by 2011, just three years from now. (By contrast, oil produced through new offshore drilling -- conservatives' panacea to the energy crisis -- would take close to 10 years to reach the market.) "I have the same feelings about wind, as I had about the best oil field I ever found," Pickens told the New York Times. Earlier this month, Pickens released the "Pickens Plan," which advocates expanding wind power and the use of natural gas. "It's our crisis," Pickens says at the end of his first TV spot promoting his plan, "and we can solve it." John Podesta, President and CEO of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, praised Pickens' plan: "It is time to believe in America's ability to solve problems again. With clean energy, we can finally break our dependence on oil."

GORE'S GOAL: Pickens' message echoes the themes of former vice president Al Gore's WeCanSolveIt campaign, launched earlier this spring. Speaking in Washington, D.C. last Thursday, Gore warned, "The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk." He called for a new, ambitious goal to derive 100 percent of all American electricity from clean, renewable sources, such as wind, solar, and geothermal power. Calling the goal "achievable, affordable and transformative," Gore declared that the science of global warming requires immediate action. In fact, he explained, the entire North polar ice cap is likely to melt completely in the summer months within five years. "The leading experts predict that we have less than 10 years to make dramatic changes in our global warming pollution lest we lose our ability to ever recover from this environmental crisis," he said. On NBC's Meet the Press Sunday, Gore emphasized the emergency the world is facing. "This climate crisis is threatening our country, threatening all of human civilization," he said. "I know that sounds shrill, and I know people don't like to hear phrases like that, but it is the reality. We have to awaken to it, and we have to mobilize to confront it."

A GORE-PICKENS PLAN: Pickens and Gore approach the issue from two perspectives. Pickens believes that oil production has reached maximum capacity, while Gore is concerned about the pressing disaster of global warming. Yet both problems point to the need for real energy solutions through the implementation of clean, renewable sources. Though Gore notes that his recent speech laid out a goal, not a prescription, there are clear paths towards achieving it. "The United States is the Saudi Arabia of wind power," the Pickens Plan website says. "Building wind facilities in the corridor that stretches from the Texas panhandle to North Dakota could produce 20% of the electricity for the United States at a cost of $1 trillion" -- which would allow for the production of a free, inexhaustible power source and is a bargain compared to the $700 billion the United States spends on foreign oil every year. What's clear to both Pickens and Gore is what is not the answer: drilling for more oil. "This is one emergency we can't drill our way out of," Pickens declares in the plan's first TV spot. Speaking at the Netroots Nation convention this Saturday, Gore commented on the absurdity of increased drilling to address global warming, comparing it to an old remedy for a hangover: "the hair of the dog that bit you." "They'd recommend just going in and having another drink in the morning. That's sort of what that reminds me of," said Gore. "When you're in a hole, stop digging."

CONSERVATIVES STONEWALL: On Meet the Press, Gore remarked, "The only limiting factor here is political will." Achieving Gore's goal or enacting the Pickens Plan won't be easy. Last December, conservatives led by President Bush successfully stripped a measure from the 2007 energy bill requiring a mere 15 percent of American electricity to be generated from renewable sources -- a far cry from Gore's 100 percent goal. Conservatives have attached themselves to former Speaker Newt Gingrich's plan to "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less," despite the fact that expanding domestic drilling "would not have a significant impact" on oil production or gas prices "before 2030," according to the Energy Information Agency. Conservatives still like to mock renewable power. "I'm not entirely convinced," said Rep. John E. Peterson (R-PA) said of Pickens's push for wind power. Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) said disparagingly, "You can't run the most heavily industrialized nation in the world on windmills." Last week, Rush Limbaugh claimed it was "very, very sad" that Americans "have bought into this whole notion that alternatives are somehow pristine, clean and pure." These conservatives ignore the fact that, as Gore pointed out, "enough wind power blows through the Midwest corridor every day to...meet 100 percent of US electricity demand."

"The Progress Report"
WEDNESDAY, JULY 2, 2008

Politicians pump their oil plans at Dallas gas stations

By GROMER JEFFERS Jr. / The Dallas Morning News
gjeffers@dallasnews.com

James and Donna Williams wondered Tuesday what produced more hot air, the steamy July weather or the politicians gathered at two Dallas gas stations to talk about reducing fuel prices.

Mr. Williams had just put $20 in his Ford Escape at Fuel City on Industrial Boulevard. Back in 2001, that was enough to fill up. Now, a full tank takes nearly $70.

"They need to do something now," said Mr. Williams, a 43-year-old school bus driver from Dallas. "We don't need any more talk. These gas prices are killing the poor."

Ms. Williams looked toward five Democratic candidates for local congressional offices and shouted the only thing that might get drivers interested in the political grandstanding.

"Are they giving away free gas?" she asked.

Tuesday was political grandstand day in Dallas for Democrats and Republicans looking to push their party's plans to bring down the gas prices that are crippling the economy and exacerbating the plight of the poor.

At the newly opened Green Spot Market and Fuels in East Dallas, Republican Sen. John Cornyn urged Congress to adopt a GOP plan for deep-sea exploration in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans and in western shale areas.

He pulled up in an aide's Chevy TrailBlazer, which the aide said costs $72 to fill up.

"Why not use more of what God gave us right here in America, rather than buying it from abroad and enriching people who are not friendly to the United States?" Mr. Cornyn said.

Later, at Fuel City, Democratic congressional candidates Tom Daley, Ken Leach, Glenn Melancon, Tom Love, Eric Roberson and Tracey Smith called on Congress to require the identification of all U.S. oil traders to curb improper speculation and increase the oil supply by requiring those holding governmental oil leases to use them or lose them.

The Democrats, all running uphill battles against North Texas Republican incumbents, stood in front of an oil pump and near a small herd of cows and donkeys.

"No more bull," Mr. Roberson said. "It's time to tell the truth about oil. ... American needs solutions, not sound bites."

Problem is, the politics of Big Oil are murky. But as the Republicans and Democrats dueled over media time, area residents were making painful trips to the pump.

The Democrats, for better or worse, helped some customers out – by helping to pump their gas.

"Lower the gas," said Juanita Smith, a 47-year-old Garland homemaker who says she tired of paying close to $100 to fill up a large Isuzu SUV. "They ain't doing nothing about it. All they are doing is talking."

At the Green Spot, 29-year-old Ashley George said elected leaders were too cozy with big oil companies.

The construction manager spends $200 a week to fill up her SUV. She blames taxes on gas.

And she summed up drivers' feelings in many fewer words than the politicians could.

"We're paying too much," she said.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-gaspolitics_02met.ART.State.Edition1.4d654b5.html

Gore Delivers Remarks on Energy and the Climate
CQ TranscriptsThursday, July 17, 2008; 4:45 PM

FORMER VICE PRESIDENT ALBERT GORE JR.: Thank you. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.


And Congressman Sherry Boehlert, thank you for your leadership of the Science and Technology Committee and for your work on the Alliance for Climate Protection.

And thank you, Cathy Zoi, the CEO of the Alliance for Climate Protection.

I'm so happy that all of you are here. I'm especially happy that my wife, Tipper, is here and my daughter, Karenna, is here. Thank you.

And there are several members of Congress, even though the committees are working and the Congress is meeting, but I want to acknowledge Senator Bernie Sanders, who is here, Congressman Jim Cooper, Congressman Jay Inslee, former Senator Jim Sasser, and Mary Sasser.

I want to say a special word of thanks to my friend, will.i.am, who came all the way from Los Angeles to be here. Thank you so much.

And, also, I want to make special mention of the presence of the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate, Bob Barr. We've had a number of conversations.

I'm grateful for your presence, Congressman Barr.

And thank you very much -- thank you very much, Bob. We've had a number of very, very interesting conversations. I appreciate your open mind and your serious approach to this challenge our country is facing.

I have -- have had many conversations, of course, with Senator Obama and with Senator McCain. And one of my objectives in approaching this climate crisis is to try to lift this as much as possible out of the partisan framework that sometimes is a serious impediment to solving serious problems in our country.


Incidentally, I did also want to make special mention of the fact that some of our mutual friends are in mourning today. And I want to extend my best wishes to the family of Tony Snow, whose memorial service just ended a short time ago. And we are keeping his family in our thoughts and prayers.

Ladies and gentlemen, there are times in the history of our nation when our very way of life depends upon dispelling illusions and awakening to the challenge of a present danger.

In such moments, we are called upon to move quickly and boldly and shake off complacency, throw aside old habits and rise, clear-eyed and alert, to the necessity of making big changes. Those who, for whatever reason, refuse to do their part in such times must either be persuaded to join the effort or asked to step aside. This is such a moment. The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk. And even more, if more should be required, the future of human civilization is at stake.

I do not remember a time in our country when so many things seemed to be going so wrong simultaneously.

Our economy is in terrible shape and getting worse.

People are hurting. Gasoline prices are increasing dramatically, and so are electricity rates. Jobs are being outsourced. Home mortgages are in trouble. Banks, automobile companies, other institutions we depend upon are under growing pressure.

Distinguished senior business leaders are telling us that this is just the beginning, unless we find the courage to make some major changes quickly.

The climate crisis, in particular, is getting a lot worse, much more quickly than predicted. Scientists with access to data from Navy submarines traversing underneath the north polar ice cap have warned that there is a 75 percent chance that, within only five years, the entire north polar ice cap will completely disappear during the summer months.

This will further increase the melting pressure on Greenland. According to experts, one of the largest glaciers there, the Jakobshavn Glacier, is moving at a faster rate than ever before, losing 20 million tons of ice every day. That's equivalent to the amount of water used in a year's time by the residents of our largest city, New York City.

Two major studies from military intelligence experts have warned our leaders about the dangerous national security implications of the climate crisis, including the possibility of hundreds of millions of climate refugees destabilizing nations around the world.

Just two days ago, 27 senior statesmen and retired military leaders warned of the national security threat from what they called an "energy tsunami" that would be triggered by a loss of our access to foreign oil. Meanwhile, the war in Iraq continues, and now the war in Afghanistan appears to be getting worse.

And, by the way, our weather sure is getting strange, isn't it? There seem to be more tornadoes than in living memory, longer droughts, bigger downpours, and record floods. Today, unprecedented fires are burning in California and elsewhere in the American west.
Higher temperatures lead to drier vegetation that makes kindling for mega-fires of the kind that have been raging in Canada, Greece, Russia, China, South America, Australia, and Africa. Scientists in the Department of Geophysics and Planetary Science at Tel Aviv University tell us that for every one degree increase in temperature, lightning strikes will go up another 10 percent. And it is lightning, after all, that is principally responsible for igniting the conflagration in California today.

Like a lot of people, it seems to me that all these problems are bigger than any of the solutions that have thus far been proposed for them, and that's been worrying me.

I'm convinced that one reason we have seemed to be paralyzed in the face of these crises is the tendency to offer old solutions to each crisis separately without taking the others into account. And these outdated proposals have not only been ineffective; they almost always make the other crises worse.

Yet when we look at all three of these seemingly intractable challenges at the same time, we can see the common thread running through them, deeply ironic in its simplicity: Our dangerous over- reliance on carbon-based fuels is at the core of all three of these challenges, the economic, environmental and national security crises.

We're borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that has to change.

But if -- if we grab hold of that common thread and pull it hard, all of these complex problems begin to unravel and we find that we're holding the answer to all of them right in our hand.

The answer is to end our reliance on carbon-based fuels.

In my search for genuinely effective answers to the climate crisis, I've held a long series of so-called "solutions summits" with engineers, scientists and CEOs.

And in those discussions, one thing has become abundantly clear: When you connect the dots, it turns out that the real solutions to the climate crisis are the very same measures that are needed to renew our economy and escape the trap of ever-rising energy prices. Moreover, they are also the very same solutions that we need to guarantee our national security without having to go to war in the Persian Gulf.

What if we could use fuels that aren't expensive, don't cause pollution, and are abundantly available right here at home?

We have such fuels. Scientists have confirmed that enough solar energy falls on the surface of the Earth every 40 minutes to meet 100 percent of the entire world's energy needs for a full year. Tapping just a small portion of this solar energy could provide all of the electricity America uses. And enough wind power blows through the Midwest corridor every day to also meet 100 percent of U.S. electricity demand. Geothermal energy, similarly, is capable of providing enormous supplies of electricity for America.

The quickest, cheapest, most efficient, and best way to start using all of this renewable energy is in the production of electricity. In fact, we can start right now using solar power, wind power, and geothermal power to make electricity for our homes and businesses.

But to make this exciting potential a reality and truly solve our nation's problems, we need a new start.

That is why I'm proposing today a strategic initiative designed to free us from the crises that are holding us down and to regain control of our own destiny. It's not the only thing we need to do, but this strategic challenge is the lynchpin of a bold, new strategy needed to re-power America.

So today I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years.

This goal -- this goal is achievable, affordable and transformative. It represents a challenge to all Americans in every walk of life, to our political leaders, entrepreneurs, innovators, engineers, and to every citizen.

A few short years ago, it would not have been possible to issue such a challenge. But here's what's changed: The sharp cost reductions now beginning to take place in solar, wind and geothermal power, coupled with the recent dramatic price increases for oil and coal, have radically changed the economics of energy.

When I first went to the Congress 32 years ago, I listened to experts testify that, if oil ever got to $35 a barrel, then renewable sources of energy would become competitive.

Well, today, the price of oil is over $135 a barrel. And sure enough, billions of dollars of new investment are flowing into the development of concentrated solar thermal, photovoltaics, windmills, geothermal plants, and a variety of ingenious new ways to improve our efficiency and conserve presently wasted energy.

And as the demand for renewable energy grows, the costs will continue to fall. Let me give you one revealing example: The price of the specialized silicon used to make solar cells was recently as high as $300 per kilogram, but the newest contracts have prices as low as $50 a kilogram.

You remember the same thing happened with computer chips, also made out of silicon. The price paid for the same performance came down by 50 percent every 18 months year after year, and that's been happening for 40 years in a row.

To those who argue that we do not yet have the technology to accomplish these kinds of results with renewable energy, I ask them to come with me to meet the entrepreneurs who will drive this revolution. I've seen what they're doing, and I have no doubt that we can meet this challenge.

To those who say the costs are still too high, I ask them to consider whether the costs of oil and coal will ever stop increasing if we keep relying on quickly depleting energy sources to feed a rapidly growing demand all around the world. When demand for oil and coal increases, their price goes up. When demand for solar cells increases, the price often comes down. That's the difference.

One source of fuel is expensive and going up, and the other source of fuel is free forever. When we send money to foreign countries to buy nearly 70 percent of the oil we use every day, they build new skyscrapers and we lose jobs. When we spend that money building solar arrays and windmills here, we build competitive industries and gain jobs here at home.

Of course, there are those who will tell us that this can't be done. Some of the voices we hear are from the defenders of the status quo, the ones with a vested interest in perpetuating the current system, no matter how high a price the rest of us will have to pay.

But even those who reap the profits of the carbon age have to recognize the inevitability of its demise. As one OPEC oil minister observed, "The Stone Age didn't end because of a shortage of stones."

To those who say 10 years is not enough time, I respectfully ask them to consider seriously what the world's scientists are telling us about the risks we face if we don't act in less than 10 years.

Those leading experts predict that we have less than 10 years to make dramatic changes in our global warming pollution, lest we lose our ability to ever recover from this environmental crisis. When the use of oil and coal goes up, pollution goes up, as it's doing right now. But when the use of solar, wind and geothermal increases, pollution comes down.

To those who say the challenge is not politically viable, I suggest they go before the American people and try to defend the status quo, and then bear witness to the people's appetite for dramatic change. The time is now.

I for one do not believe our country can withstand 10 more years of the status quo. Our families can't stand 10 more years of gasoline price increases. Our workers can't stand 10 more years of job losses and outsourcing of factories. Our economy can't stand 10 more years of sending $2 billion every 24 hours to foreign countries for oil.

And our soldiers and their families cannot take another 10 years of repeated troop deployments to dangerous regions that just happen to have large oil supplies.

What could...

What could we do instead during these next 10 years? What should we do during the next 10 years?


Some of our greatest accomplishments as a nation have resulted from commitments to reach a goal that fell well beyond the next election: the Marshall Plan, Social Security, the interstate highway system.

A political promise to do something 40 years from now is universally ignored because everyone knows it's totally meaningless. Ten years is about the maximum time that we as a nation can hold a steady aim and hit our target.


When President John F. Kennedy challenged our nation to land a man on the moon and bring him back safely in 10 years, many people doubted we could accomplish that goal. But eight years and two months later, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the surface of the moon and planted the American flag.

To be sure, reaching the goal of 100 percent renewable and truly clean electricity within 10 years will require us to overcome many obstacles. At present, for example, we do not have a unified national grid that is sufficiently advanced to link the areas where the sun shines and the wind blows to the cities in the east and the west that need the electricity.

Our national electric grid is critical infrastructure, as vital to the health and security of our economy as our highways and telecommunication networks.

Today, our grids are antiquated, fragile and vulnerable to cascading failure. Power outages and defects in the current grid system cost U.S. businesses more than $120 billion dollars a year. It has to be upgraded anyway.

We could further increase the value and efficiency of a unified national grid by helping our struggling auto companies switch to the manufacture of plug-in electric cars and save those auto jobs and renew our auto companies.

(APPLAUSE) An electric vehicle fleet would sharply reduce the cost of driving a car, reduce pollution, and increase the flexibility of our electricity grid.

At the same time, of course, we need to greatly improve our commitment to efficiency and conservation. That's the best investment we can make. We can make better use of our broadband networks to save energy.

America's transition to renewable energy sources must also include adequate provisions to assist those Americans who would unfairly face hardship. For example, we must recognize those who have toiled in dangerous conditions to bring us our present energy supply. We should guarantee good jobs in the fresh air and sunshine for any coal miner displaced by impacts on the coal industry, every single one of them.

Now, of course, we could and should speed up this transition by insisting that the price of carbon-based energy include the costs of the environmental damage that it causes. I have long supported...

... a sharp reduction in payroll taxes with the difference made up in CO-2 taxes. We should tax what we burn, not what we earn.

That's the single most important change that we can make.

In order to foster international cooperation, it is also essential that the United States rejoin the global community and lead efforts to secure an international treaty at Copenhagen in December of next year that includes a cap on CO-2 emissions and a global partnership that recognizes the necessity of addressing the threats of extreme poverty and disease as part of the world's agenda for solving the climate crisis.

Of course, the greatest obstacle to meeting the challenge of 100 percent renewable electricity in 10 years may be the deep dysfunction of our politics and our self-governing system as it exists today.

(In recent years, our politics has tended toward incremental proposals made up of small policies designed to avoid offending special interests, alternating with occasional baby steps in the right direction. Our democracy has become sclerotic at a time when these crises require boldness.

It is only a truly dysfunctional system that would buy into the perverse logic that the short-term answer to high gasoline prices is drilling for more oil 10 years from now in areas that should be protected. (APPLAUSE)

Am I -- am I the only one who finds it strange that our government so often adopts a so-called solution that has absolutely nothing to do with the problem it's supposed to address?

When people rightly complain about higher gasoline prices that are hurting our country, we propose to give more money to the oil companies and pretend that they're going to bring gasoline prices down? It will do nothing of the sort, and everyone knows it.

If we keep going back to the same policies that have never, ever worked in the past and have served only to produce the highest gasoline prices in history, alongside the greatest oil company profits in history, nobody should be surprised if we get the same result over and over again.

The Congress may be poised to move in that direction anyway, because some of them are being stampeded by lobbyists for special interests that know how to make the system work for them instead of the American people.

If you want to know the truth about gasoline prices, here it is: The exploding demand for oil, especially in places like China, is completely overwhelming the rate of new discoveries by so much that oil prices are almost certain to continue upward over time, no matter what the oil companies promise. And politicians cannot bring gasoline prices down in the short term by giving more money to the oil companies.

However, there is one extremely effective way to bring the costs of driving a car way down within a few short years. The way to bring gasoline prices down is to end our dependence on oil and use the renewable sources that can give us the equivalent of $1-per-gallon gasoline. And we need to get busy creating that system now.

Many Americans have begun to wonder whether or not we've simply lost our appetite for bold policy solutions. And folks who claim to know how our system works these days have told us we might as well forget about our political system doing anything bold, especially if it is contrary to the wishes of special interests.

And I've got to admit that sure seems to be the way things have been going.

But I've begun to hear different voices in this country from the people who are not only tired of baby steps and special interest politics, but are hungry for a new, different, and bold approach to genuinely solve our problems. We're on the eve of a presidential election. We're in the midst of an international climate treaty process that will conclude its work before the end of the first year of the new president's term.

It's a great error to say the United States must wait for others to join us in this matter. In fact, we must move first, because that's the key to getting others to follow. And moving first is in our own national interest.

So I ask you to join with me to call on every candidate, at every level, to accept this challenge: for America to be running on 100 percent zero-carbon electricity in 10 years. It's time for us to move beyond empty rhetoric. We need to act now. And we need to act boldly.

This is a generational moment, a moment when we decide our own path and our collective fate. I'm asking you, each of you, to join me and build this future.

Please join the We campaign at wecansolveit.org. We need you. And we need you now. We're committed to changing not just light bulbs, but laws. And laws will only change with leadership.

On July 16, 1969, the United States of America was finally ready to meet President Kennedy's challenge of landing Americans on the moon. I will never forget standing beside my father a few miles from the launch site, waiting for the giant Saturn V rocket to lift Apollo 11 into the sky.

I was a young man, 21 years old, who had graduated from college a month before and was enlisting in the U.S. Army three weeks later. I will never forget the inspiration of those minutes. The power and the vibration of the giant rocket's engines shook my entire body.

As I watched the rocket rise, slowly at first and then with great speed, the sound was deafening. We craned our necks to follow its path until we were looking straight up into the air.


And then, four days later, along with hundreds of millions of others, I watched as Neil Armstrong took one small step to the surface of the moon and changed the history of the human race.

We must now lift our nation to reach another goal that will change history. Our entire civilization depends upon us now embarking on a new journey of exploration and discovery. Our success depends on our willingness as a people to undertake this journey and to complete it within 10 years. Once again, we have an opportunity to take a giant leap for humankind.

Thank you for coming. (APPLAUSE)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/17/AR2008071701896_pf.html

Nick J. Rahall (D-WV) to Big Oil: Use It or Lose It

CONTACT: Allyson Groff or Blake Androff, 202-226-9019Washington, D.C. -

In an effort to compel oil and gas companies to produce on the 68 million acres of federal lands, both onshore and offshore, that are leased but sitting idle, House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick J. Rahall (D-WV) today introduced legislation that gives Big Oil one option - either "use it or lose it.""Big Oil, as many Americans already suspect, are perfectly fine with high gasoline prices at the pump while they hold back domestic production on federal leases and enjoy world record profits. I am calling them on the carpet. I am calling their bluff. We are not going to continue to allow them to speculate and profiteer with public resources to the detriment of the American people," Rahall said.The Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act of 2008 (H.R. 6251) is a direct response to the facts outlined in the recent House Natural Resources Committee Majority Staff report, "The Truth About America's Energy: Big Oil Stockpiles Supplies and Pockets Profits", that illustrate how energy companies are not using the federal lands and waters that are already open to drilling.

The legislation is co-sponsored by Reps. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Ed Markey (D-MA), and John Yarmuth (D-KY).

The 68 million acres of leased but inactive federal land have the potential to produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas each day. This would nearly double total U.S. oil production, and increase natural gas production by 75 percent. It would also cut U.S. oil imports by more than one-third, reducing America's dependency on foreign oil.The Rahall bill would force oil and gas companies to either produce or give up federal onshore and offshore leases they are stockpiling by barring the companies from obtaining any more leases unless they can demonstrate that they are producing oil and gas, or are diligently developing the leases they already hold, during the initial term of the leases.Coal companies, which are issued leases for 20-year terms, are required, as a result of the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976 to show that they are diligently developing their leases during the initial lease term.

The law was enacted in an effort to end rampant speculation on federal coal as a result of the energy crises of the 1970's.Oil and gas companies, however, are not required to demonstrate diligent development. Because of this, oil and gas companies have been allowed to stockpile leases in a non-producing status, while leaving millions of acres of leased land untouched. The Rahall legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior to define what constitutes diligent development for oil and gas leases.Companies could avoid this new lease prohibition by relinquishing their non-producing leases, thus creating an opportunity for another company to explore for and perhaps produce oil and gas."As long as oil companies hold oil hostage, they will continue to get away with charging high prices and demanding a greater share of the public's land.

This bill forces their hand by compelling them to produce or hand the over their idle leases for someone who will," Rahall said.

Committee On Natural Resources :: 1324 Longworth Building :: Washington, DC 20515 :: t:202-225-6065 :: f:202-225-1931

"Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act of 2008" (Use IT or Lose IT)

Representatives Rahall, Markey, Hinchey, Emanuel and Yarmuth

The Problem

Currently, oil and gas companies hold leases on nearly 68 million acres of federal land (both onshore and under OCS waters) that they are not developing.Generally speaking, oil and gas leases are issued for a 10-year term that can be renewed.

Coal leases are issued for 20 years and coal companies have to show that they are "diligently developing" their leases during the initial term of the lease.

While coal companies are required to diligently develop their leases, oil and gas companies are not required to do so.

Because there are no diligent development requirements, oil and gas companies can stockpile leases in a non-producing status.

This has encouraged oil and gas companies to hold nearly 68 million areas of federal land (both onshore and under OCS waters) without producing oil or gas.

The 68 million acres of leased but currently inactive federal land (both onshore and under OCS waters) could produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas each day.

That would nearly double total U.S. oil production, and increase natural gas production by 75%.

It would also cut U.S. oil imports by more than a third, and be more than six times the estimated peak production from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

By fostering prompt development of oil and gas leases, we will increase domestic production in areas already shown to appropriate for energy development.

The Solution

The "Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act of 2008" would compel oil and gas companies to either produce or give up federal onshore and OCS leases they are stockpiling by barring the companies from obtaining any more leases unless they can demonstrate that they are producing oil and gas, or are diligently developing the leases they already hold, during the initial term of the leases.

The bill directs the Interior Secretary to define what constitutes diligent development.

Companies could avoid this new lease prohibition by relinquishing their non-producing leases, creating an opportunity for another company to explore for and perhaps produce oil or gas from them. Under the bill, the terms of leases which are in production, or which can demonstrate diligent development, are extended.

Companies which lease federal coal resources are by law required to diligently develop their leases. This requirement has discouraged the rampant speculation that once existed in the federal coal leasing program. The same type of speculation that now appears to be plaguing the federal oil and gas leasing program.

http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/images/Documents/hr6251.pdf

UT scientists discover key to an alternate fuel source
Cyanobacteria could replace current crops for ethanol farming

By: Lauren Winchester

Posted: 4/30/08

UT researchers have developed a way to make the production of ethanol more sustainable, less expensive and less laborious.

The University scientists discovered how to use photosynthetic organisms, known as cyanobacteria, to make ethanol, which is a type of alternative fuel.

Ethanol is made by fermenting sugars, such as glucose or sucrose. Most ethanol comes from corn starch, but other sources for the alternative fuel are wood, switchgrass and sugarcane.

Corn-based ethanol has caused problems regarding the overuse of agricultural land and rising crop prices, while extracting sugars from other sources is labor-intensive and costly. The production of sugarcane has also caused a depletion of Brazil's rainforests, said David Nobles Jr., a molecular genetics and microbiology research associate.

The cyanobacteria that the researchers have studied produce cellulose, glucose and sucrose using the energy of the sun. The sugars can be extracted from the

bacteria relatively easily and inexpensively. The cyanobacteria can also grow in deserts using salt water and thus would not take up agricultural land, the researchers said.

"Some cyanobacteria makes sugar directly," said R. Malcom Brown Jr., a molecular genetics and microbiology professor. "Why in the world would we use sugarcane when we can grow sugar in the desert?"

Cyanobacteria are a photosynthetic bacteria, which means they get energy from the sun and use the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to convert it into organic components. On a large scale, the researchers said this could help reduce global warming.

"Cyanobacteria have been around for some 3.5 billion years and are responsible for all of the oxygen in the atmosphere," Nobles said. "Cyanobacteria changed the Earth once, and we're looking to make it change the Earth again."

The researchers said it would take about 820,000 square miles of land to produce all of the corn-based ethanol needed to fuel U.S. transportation. They hope the cyanobacteria will replace the ethanol from corn, wood, switchgrass and

sugarcane.

"Using food crops is going to stop at some point," Nobles said. "I think we will discontinue using food crops five to 10 years down the road."

The researchers would like to create an energy farm to grow the cyanobacteria on about 5,000 square miles of land in either West Texas, Nevada or Utah, which would sustain the U.S. need for transportation fuel.

Brown said he would love to see an undertaking similar to the scale of the Manhattan Project in the 1940s that would employ millions of Americans to start up the energy farms to produce ethanol.

"It would be a fantastic project," Brown said. "After Kennedy sent a man to the moon, U.S. high school kids became future engineers. We need a revitalization of that for the biofuels area."

Brown said the green revolution started in the U.S. and that the energy revolution will start in the U.S. as well.

"We have a unique opportunity here," he said. "We need to help make it go forward."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© Copyright 2008 The Daily Texan

http://www.dailytexanonline.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=fd1faf66-7c50-4a1c-8c48-bea43f904e84
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Researchers Malcolm Brown and David Nobles show off a flask of cyanobacteria in a liquid culture in the growing room Tuesday. The UT professors have developed a way for cyanobacteria to be used to produce ethanol.
POSTED BY TOMLOVEFORTEXAS.COM AT 6:22 AM

Ethanol From Switch Grass Deemed Feasible

Large-scale study indicates production from farmed prairie grass can surpass energy, environmental, and economic hurdles

Stephen K. Ritter

Switch grass can produce more than enough cellulosic ethanol on a per-acre basis to offset the amount of energy needed to grow and convert the perennial prairie grass into biofuel, according to the first switch grass modeling study based on large-scale field-trial data (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 464). The study provides a clearer picture of the potential of switch grass as a biofuel feedstock that can be grown on marginal cropland, the researchers say, where it can provide environmental benefits in addition to energy. What's more, its use will help prevent corn and other food crops from being diverted into fuel making.

One key concern in converting the cellulose in switch grass, corn, and other crops to ethanol is the net energy value of the conversion. Previous feasibility studies have hinted at switch grass's potential, but they have been limited because they were based on small research plots, simulated biomass yields, and estimated farming and processing energy inputs.

Kenneth P. Vogel of the Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service office at the University of Nebraska and coworkers now report having collected data over a five-year period from 10 farm sites in Nebraska and North and South Dakota. Farmers grew switch grass in fields up to 23 acres in size, tracking how much diesel fuel, seed, fertilizer, and pesticides they used, as well as the dry weight of switch grass harvested each year.

The researchers used the data to calculate the "embodied energy" of each of the inputs that contribute to the total energy cost of producing ethanol. As part of the calculations, they included energy costs of farm labor as well as ethanol product packaging and transportation costs.

The analyzed fields produced on average the biomass equivalent of 320 gal of ethanol per acre, a number the researchers estimated by using a reference conversion factor of 0.38 L of ethanol per kg of switch grass. Cellulosic ethanol will likely be produced by acid hydrolysis or steam separation of the cellulose, followed by additional enzymatic degradation to sugars and then fermentation of the sugars into ethanol. Several cellulosic ethanol pilot plants are currently operating, but the first commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol plant is not expected to start running until late 2009 (C&EN, Feb. 19, 2007

The switch grass grown as a bioenergy crop produced 540% more renewable energy than the nonrenewable energy needed to produce it and convert it to ethanol, the researchers state. The study showed that switch grass ethanol production and use has the environmental benefits of near-zero net greenhouse gas emissions and aids soil conservation relative to typical agricultural crops. And compared with corn, "switch grass managed as a bioenergy crop in these field trials had estimated ethanol yields similar to those for corn grain grown in the same states in the same years," the researchers write. Advances in plant genetics and agricultural practices "may further enhance energy sustainability and biofuel yields of switch grass," they add.

The large amount of actual field data presented for switch grass production systems is a real advance, comments Michigan State University's Bruce E. Dale, a biomass conversion expert. "The study is a carefully done and carefully reported piece of work," Dale says. "It is valuable because the various efficiency metrics are well-defined and the underlying data are disaggregated in such a way as to allow someone to check or compare the data with other assumptions and studies."

But the science of biofuel conversion still has a long way to go, counters Cornell University's David Pimentel, a biofuels expert who believes biofuels' economic and environmental costs outweigh their potential benefits. Pimentel has several concerns about the validity of the Nebraska study's conclusions because the researchers make some assumptions that are not yet verified in practice, such as the conversion rate of switch grass to ethanol, he says.

There's no easy solution to meeting future energy needs, Pimentel adds. Scientists need to investigate all potential renewable energy technologies and not assume that cellulosic biomass is the only answer, because it realistically can supply only a small fraction of total fuel demand, he says. "A truly thorough examination of biomass and its environmental relationship to water, land, and solar energy is still needed."

Dale and Pimentel squared off in a C&EN Point-Counterpoint feature on the costs of biofuels last month (C&EN, Dec. 17, 2007, page 12). Although they don't see eye to eye on the practicality or benefits of biomass conversion to ethanol, they do agree that the type of detailed study by Vogel and coworkers is needed to advance cellulosic biomass conversion research.

pubs.acs.org/cen/news/86/i02/8602news3.html

Switch Grass: Fuel for the Future?

NPR has a good, quick introduction to switch grass, which snuck its way into this week's State of the Union address as an example of a new energy technology available to help replace oil imports. Thus far, it has been far enough under the radar that TreeHugger hasn't covered it; so what is it, and how does it work? David Bransby, a Professor of Energy Crops at Auburn University, enlighted us. Here are the highlights: it grows eight or nine feet tall, native to the US. Generally, it's very hearty and will grow in nearly any climatic variation, from the Gulf Coast into Canada. As a crop, it has a very high yield per acre (five to tens tons) with little use of pesticides, and a low production cost, which are two keys for economical production of alternative fuels. Switch grass can net up to 100 gallons of ethanol per ton, which is more efficient than corn, it's better-known counterpart, and switch grass also uses the whole plant for making fuel, whereas corn uses just the grain. Sounds almost too good to be true, but we like what we're hearing so far. More details to be had by listening here. via ::NPR


http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/02/switch_grass_fu.php
POSTED BY TOMLOVEFORTEXAS.COM AT 11:07 AM

On The Issues: Kenny Marchant

http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Kenny_Marchant.htm

The Incumbent U.S. House District 24 for the 2008 election.

Kenny Marchant on Energy & Oil

Click here for 7 full quotes on Energy & Oil OR background on Energy & Oil.
• Voted NO on investing in homegrown biofuel. (Aug 2007)
• Voted NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007)
• Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)
• Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006)
• Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006)
• Voted YES on authorizing construction of new oil refineries. (Oct 2005)
• Rated 0% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence. (Dec 2006)

Kenny Marchant on Environment

Click here for 3 full quotes on Environment OR background on Environment.
• Voted NO on increasing AMTRAK funding by adding $214M to $900M. (Jun 2006)
• Voted NO on barring website promoting Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump. (May 2006)
• Voted YES on deauthorizing "critical habitat" for endangered species. (Sep 2005)

Kenny Marchant on Tax Reform

Click here for 4 full quotes on Tax Reform OR background on Tax Reform.
• Make Bush's tax cuts permanent. (Nov 2004)
• Voted NO on paying for AMT relief by closing offshore business loopholes. (Dec 2007)
• Voted YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Dec 2005)
• Rated 0% by the CTJ, indicating opposition to progressive taxation. (Dec 2006)

(0 points on Economic scale) (No votes on which to base response)
Strongly Opposes topic 18:
Replace coal & oil with alternatives
(+5 points on Economic scale) Rated 0% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence: Opposes topic 18
YES on authorizing construction of new oil refineries: Strongly Opposes topic 18
YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries: Strongly Opposes topic 18
NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore: Strongly Opposes topic 18
NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies: Strongly Opposes topic 18
NO on investing in homegrown biofuel: Strongly Opposes topic 18
NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC: Opposes topic 18

YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends: Strongly Opposes topic 11
NO on paying for AMT relief by closing offshore business loopholes: Strongly Opposes topic 11

NO on assisting workers who lose jobs due to globalization: Favors topic 13
YES on promoting free trade with Peru: Favors topic 13

Contact Kenny_Marchant:
* Official Contacts
* Candidate Profile
* Contact OnTheIssues:
submit @ OnTheIssues . org

OnTheIssues reports on issues, and has no contacts with campaigns except as linked above.
Written by WebMerchants

Reproduction of material from any OnTheIssues.org pages.

POSTED BY TOMLOVEFORTEXAS.COM AT 5:23 AM September 6, 2008

The Case for Universal Healthcare

The current American health care system with its obscene profit incentives and increasingly impersonal nature undermines the essential point of all prior medical knowledge, namely an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. It gives essentially the promise of medical care without the substance of quality care. It is increased nurse patient ratios stretched by ever expanding workloads and less individualized attention to patient needs. It is the substitution of doctor's orders and prescriptions by cost care analysts and accountants not health care professionals.

While HMO's and insurance companies decided how much care and at what price working families lucky enough to afford its premiums are doled out, a vastly expanding number of as many as 47 million Americans have no coverage at all and there are an estimated 50 million more who are under insured and are plagued by chronic illnesses. This is almost one in three of all Americans who are affected by a broken healthcare system.

The economic downturn has increased the numbers of people without health insurance and also threatens millions of people who have insurance but find that the coverage is inadequate or that they cannot afford their rising medical costs. Many of the 180 million people covered by employer health insurance are struggling to meet medical expenses that are much higher than they used to be — often because of some combination of higher premiums, less extensive coverage, and bigger out-of-pocket deductibles and co-payments. With medical costs rising, the coverage many people have may not adequately protect them from the financial pain of an emergency room visit or a major surgery. For some, even routine doctor visits might now be postponed for basic expenses like food and gasoline.

Our American Quality of Life is a Right that must and should include access to affordable and quality health care. It should guarantee the respect and dignity for our disabled and aged as well as our children and lower our infant mortality, which has become one of the worst rates in the industrialized world. Health care for all should be one of the guarantees, rights, and responsibilities to all our citizens and based on special circumstances, not political slogans.

Compared with the residents of other countries, Americans pay much more for brand-name prescription drugs, less for generic and over-the-counter drugs, and roughly the same prices for biologics. I believe it would be beneficial to allow Medicare to negotiate with manufacturers for lower prescription drug prices and to allow cheaper drugs to be imported from abroad as long as they maintain standards of quality.
Less than half of all medical care in the United States is supported by good evidence that it works, according to estimates cited by the Congressional Budget Office.

If doctors had better information on which treatments work best for which patients, and whether the benefits were commensurate with the costs, needless treatment could be junked, the savings could be substantial, and patient care would surely improve. It could take a decade, or several, to conduct comparative-effectiveness studies, modify relevant laws, and change doctors’ behavior.

A classic experiment by Rand researchers from 1974 to 1982 found that people who had to pay almost all of their own medical bills spent 30 percent less on health care than those whose insurance covered all their costs, with little or no difference in health outcomes. The one exception was low-income people in poor health, which went without care they needed. Any cost-sharing scheme would have to protect those unable to bear the burden.

If the entire nation could bring its costs down to match the lower-spending regions of the US that are more cost efficient, the country could cut perhaps 20 to 30 percent off its health care bill, a tremendous saving. That would require changing the long- ingrained practices of the medical profession. Public and private insurers might need to revise coverage for high-cost care that adds little value.

The American health care system lags well behind other sectors of the economy — and behind foreign medical systems — in adopting computers, electronic health records and information-sharing technologies that can greatly boost productivity. There is little doubt that widespread computerization could greatly reduce the paperwork burden on doctors and hospitals, head off medication errors, and reduce the costly repetition of diagnostic tests as patients move from one doctor to another. Without an infusion of capital, the transition from paper records is not apt to happen very quickly.

In pockets of the United States, rural and urban, a confluence of market and medical forces has been widening the gap between the supply of primary care physicians and the demand for their services. Modest pay, medical school debt, an aging population and the prevalence of chronic disease have each played a role.

But there is little dispute that the general practice of medicine is under strain at a time when there is bipartisan consensus that better prevention and chronic disease management would not only improve health but also help control costs. With its population aging, the country will need 40 percent more primary care doctors by 2020, according to the American College of Physicians, which represents 125,000 internists, and the 94,000-member American Academy of Family Physicians. Community health centers, bolstered by increases in federal financing during the Bush years, are having particular difficulty finding doctors.

There have been slight increases in the number of doctors training in internal medicine, which focuses on the nonsurgical treatment of adults. But the share of those residents who then establish a general practice has plummeted, to 24 percent in 2006 from 54 percent in 1998, according to the American College of Physicians. While fewer American-trained doctors are pursuing primary care, foreign medical school graduates and osteopathic doctors are replacing them in droves. There also has been rapid growth in the ranks of physician assistants and nurse practitioners.

Numerous studies, in this country and others, have shown that primary care improves health and saves money by encouraging prevention and early diagnosis of chronic conditions like high blood pressure and diabetes. Presidential candidates in both parties stress its importance. Officials with several large health systems said their primary care practices often lose money, but generate revenue for their companies by referring patients to profit centers like surgery and laboratories.

There is a growing political consensus among Democrats that universal health care can be achieved by subsidizing coverage for low-income people, establishing new purchasing pools to help others buy affordable insurance, and requiring most businesses to offer health plans to their workers or pay a fee.

Most proposals contain these elements, as well as the option to buy into a public plan. There are striking difference is on whether to require everyone to get a policy or have a universal mandate. Backers say the lack of a mandate would doom any universal coverage system. Critics of the individual mandate say forcing people to obtain insurance is unfair and ineffective, but without one only the sick and those most likely to need care buy in, insurers would need to charge higher premiums. That, in turn, would make policies harder to afford and increase pressure on the government to further subsidize the plans, driving up the overall cost.

Governmental budgets will face the crisis even sooner. States are already complaining that they have to crimp other vital activities, like education, to meet soaring Medicaid costs. And federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid is surging upward at rates that will cause the deficit to soar. That means politicians will have to raise taxes, severely cut a wide range of other governmental programs, or chop back the health programs themselves.

We need only to revisit the recent tragedies at one of our major Universities to also explore the failure in the mental health sector. We have failure by a system beset with guidelines that require a direct emergency to provide and sustain help to many Americans. We also have failure by a system that turns away many Americans and allows insurance companies to cap lifetime benefits without regard to personal needs or safety.

We should hold as inviolate the relationship between a patient and their health care professional, not between an insurance company and a drug manufacturer, just as we hold as inviolate the relationship between the clergy and their ministry, and between an attorney and their client. They all need be an essential part of the free and just exercises of Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness in any future America.

-Thomas P Love
Posted by TomLoveforTexas.com at 8:16 PM Monday, May 19, 2008

HEALTH CARE : The Public Option

Few issues are more pressing to President Obama right now than health care reform. As the New York Times recently reported, Obama has decided to "exert greater control over the health care debate," with an "intense push for legislation" that includes "speeches, town-hall-style meetings and much deeper engagement with lawmakers." Yesterday's speech to the American Medical Association (AMA) was a major part of this effort, since the group recently registered its opposition to the creation of a public insurance plan -- a key plank of Obama's health reform efforts. "The public option is not your enemy, it is your friend," Obama told the nearly 500 attendees at the address. Indeed, as The Wonk Room's Igor Volsky has explained, the public option remains the best way to "restore competition into the consolidated health insurance market, lower health care premiums, lead the way in innovation, and improve health quality." (The Wonk Room has put together a document debunking the top myths about the public option here, and the Center for American Progress Action Fund has a new analysis showing how few health insurance choices most Americans currently have.)

DOCTORS SUPPORT A PUBLIC PLAN: The AMA is opposed to the creation of a public health insurance option, claiming that it "threatens to restrict patient choice by driving out private insurers, which currently provide coverage for nearly 70 percent of Americans." While the organization has tried to walk back its criticism, it still seems to oppose the essential aims of a public plan: the ability to negotiate cheaper rates with providers and push private insurers to do the same. Obama's speech yesterday before the AMA's House of Delegates -- "the burial ground of health overhaul efforts past" -- was thus widely anticipated. In fact, he is the first president to address the group since Ronald Reagan in 1983. In the speech, Obama stayed firm in his commitment to a robust public option. "Insurance companies have expressed support for the idea of covering the uninsured -- and I welcome their willingness to engage constructively in the reform debate. I'm glad they're at the table," Obama said. "But what I refuse to do is simply create a system where insurance companies suddenly have a whole bunch more customers on Uncle Sam's dime but still fail to meet their responsibilities." Not all doctors are on the AMA's side. Although the group still calls itself the "house of medicine," only about half its members are actually practicing physicians and the group "represents maybe 20% of physicians in this country." Indeed, doctors nationwide have begun to distance themselves from the AMA. Doctors For America -- a grassroots organization representing doctors in all fifty states -- recently issued a statement and hosted a conference call in support of a robust public option.

THE GHOSTS OF 1993: Part of the drive behind Obama's recent "push" on health care legislation, according to the New York Times, is the memory of President Clinton's failure to pass reform. Yesterday, The Progress Report joined other progressive bloggers for a small meeting with Clinton at his office in Harlem. He said that Obama has a far better chance of passing health care legislation than he himself did in 1993, when Clinton faced a hostile political environment and severe budget constraints. "I had just passed a budget in which we raised taxes on the wealthy, cut taxes on the working poor, and were on track to reducing the deficit, and...we couldn't raise taxes again," explained Clinton. "So when I had an employer-mandate that in effect, guaranteed that the health insurance companies would be joined by the small business community -- at least the organized small business community -- which made it harder to pass." Clinton said that he believes Obama will work with the Senate to achieve the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster. But he urged Obama to be ready to use the budget reconciliation process if necessary -- which would require just 51 votes to pass health care -- to achieve a bill that would ensure universal coverage, cut costs, improve the delivery system, and boost preventive care. "If he can't get a good bill, I wouldn't give away the store on that," he said.

CO-OPTING THE DEBATE: Although the AMA opposes the robust public option that Obama is proposing, it has said that it is "willing to consider other variations of the public plan that are currently under discussion in Congress." One of the alternatives that has received the most attention is Sen. Kent Conrad's (D-ND) idea of consumer-owned health cooperatives that would "be subject to the same standards [as private plans]." But co-opts, however defined, are not a substitute for a public plan with the capacity to "improve health quality by championing payment innovations or other delivery system reforms." As Volsky writes, "After all, one of the advantages of a truly national public plan is its ability to improve care quality by spearheading reforms and innovations."

"The Progress Report"