Nissan first to Australia with EVs?

The Nissan Australia website, as well as a few other Nissan country specific portals have been sporting a EV badge for a short time now, which until just a few hours ago led to a sign-up page to register interest. Now that logo, as well as a top-row menu item on their website leads to a flashy marketing presentation touting their zero emissions strategy. A strategy headed up by a real zero emissions true electric vehicle.

It looks like the big announcement from Nissan slated for the 2nd of August is their new Leaf EV. The Leaf (its Nissan bonnet logo pictured left concealing a nifty two-port charging socket) is a nippy 4-door hatch, with a snub-nosed low-drag front, reminiscent of the Prius, and a rear that seems more Citroen/Renault.

But this announcement from the Japanese automaker is really about more than one car: they really have thrown all their weight behind the EV concept, in an uncompromising way - and the Leaf is just the first real world sign of this strategy.

Without mentioning Toyota explicitly, the Nissan EV strategy is clearly targeting the Prius which has until now been the poster child for eco-friendly high-tech automobiles.

However as climate evangelists will tell you a world full of Prius drivers is still a world addicted to oil. And still a world where tailpipe emissions take us closer to midnight on the climate change doomsday clock.

Toyota, and Honda too, are bearish on EV technology. Of course Honda has an ongoing dalliance with Hydrogen fuel cells. But why is Toyota, with its Prius full of batteries and clever electric technology not more gung-ho on electric?

While some view Toyota's Hybrid Synergy drive as a clever entree for the motoring public to full electric vehicles, their top brass are still saying that full-electric vehicles - with no internal combustion range-extender or cooperative power source - are not a viable strategy for them. Improvements in battery technology and commitments on infrastructure are needed, they say, before committing to EV's, and while they're busy selling the Hybrid Synergy drive to other manufacturers they'd be mad to say anything else.

Basically Toyota just don't think the motoring public are ready to buy pure EV cars.

Toyota have been toe-dipping with talk of an EV based on the Toyota iQ - a mini-car popular in Japan, they remain convinced that the incredible success of the Hybrid Synergy drive, and in particular the Prius is a golden goose that will keep laying for some time.

Mitsubishi dropped into the EV scene a year or so ago with lots of chat about their iMiev electric car. Earlier this year the compact four-seater was doing the rounds of Australia in a traveling road show to try and guage interest in the fully electric vehicle.

However like the iQ, the iMiev is stuck in the mini-car mentality - electric car equals under-powered.

Elon Musk recognized in Tesla that breaking down the "golf cart" myth was essential to getting broad take up of EV's as a real transportation option.

However, many manufacturers seem to be failing to innovate in their EV offerings, producing underpowered cars like the 47kW iMiev, or worse still "neighbourhood cars" that are not capable of highway speeds at all.

Note: don't try to compare those kW figures with the power ratings on an internal combustion motors - the whole power delivery and performance characteristics of an EV are completely different to ICE powered vehicles. Also power on an EV has more to do with the settings on the battery management system and drive-by-wire setup which balance range, safety and wear-and-tear against performance.

Don't get me wrong - I would be happy to see lots of folks buying the iMiev or even an neighbourhood car, and saving all those emissions nipping down to the shops, or dropping the kids at the bus stop.

And the Leaf is not the hairy chested sports car that the Tesla is.

But what Nissan is doing with the 80kW Leaf and its 160km range is truly ground-breaking in a consumer vehicle. They are producing a car that is designed to appeal to anyone looking at for example the Mitsubishi Colt or Toyota Yaris.

Nissan are not quoting zero-to-100km/h times on their website but from the looks of the car and the specifications it appears to be looking good for around 7 seconds zero-to-100km/h. And like all electric cars it will do a lot better in the 0-50km/h range than many gas-guzzlers, leaving them standing at the lights as it surges silently away.

I will be the first to admit that electric cars are not for everybody. If you're an outdoors type constantly tooling off to the waves or to where the fish are biting, then the electric vehicles coming out in the next few years are not for you - their range is not good enough, they won't have the towing capacity, and quite frankly they probably won't fit your lifestyle. A flex-fuel diesel is probably the best thing for those folks - and will be for some time.

But there are huge numbers of people for whom a peppy zero-emissions compact car is an absolutely ideal solution for daily getting around, commuting, buzzing out to visit friends, do the shopping and getting to the gym.

Oh, and forget about "infrastructure". With Australia's 220 volt power you'll charge up to that full range figure in 6-8 hours while you're sleeping. For typical commutes even if you forget the occasional night to plug it in you'll still have plenty of juice. Most EV owners will never ever need infrastructure - they'll just plug their car in, wherever they are.

Imagine that - never ever having to go to the gas station again. Sounds great to me.

Where the BetterPlace model makes sense is for large fleet buyers who may currently have LPG fuelling setups at their depot, and want to take advantage of the lower maintenance costs and smaller energy costs of an electric fleet. Also they get to take advantage of green credentials - in their marketing, and in any future carbon trading scheme. Fleets like for example the Queensland Government operation are keenly aware of these factors and a BetterPlace battery swap station or two is entirely in their scope.

The question for us antipodean motorists will be - when? Hopefully since Nissan partners BetterPlace have been trumpeting their new infrastructure rollout in the Canberra Australia will be one of the early-adopters - we can only wait and see, but I'm picking this might very well be the first electric car on our shores.

Our Governator has the Cahoolies

Just in case you haven't heard, that legendary cigar chomping tough guy, Hummer driver and California Governor, has sent a sculpture of bulls testicles to lawmakers in a wry attempt to suggest greater fiscal and legislative courage was needed to make unpopular decisions in tough economic times.

Governor Schwarzennegger has however not been making the really hard decisions, when it comes to putting the bite on the heavy hitting oilmen who so far have been getting a free ride on taxation, and enjoy massive state sponsored benefits.

I was reading about all of this, after receiving an interesting email from Doug Korthof:

Sleazy California politicians join corrupt regulators in proposing new handouts to Big Oil, this time allowing new offshore oil drilling. This is the WRONG way to go, we need to leave all oil, especially exotic and expensive oil, IN THE GROUND, not pay subsidies to help drill it up and burn it.

Chevron admitted to the California Coastal Commission that they dump their "drilling spoils" in the Ocean because "it's too toxic to barge to land, we'd need an air resources permit". Now, they are asking for new drilling, and new threats to the Ocean, instead of paying their fair share of taxes.

(thanks Doug) and it occurred to me that we have a tough decision maker right here in Queensland that could show the Governator what it means to have the Cahoolies.

What I'm talking about is Premier Anna Bligh's excellent policy of abolishing fuel subsidies. These subsidies, like such subsidies everwhere go into the pockets of the fuel companies and fail to help the farmers and the bushies.

I sent Premier Anna Bligh MP a letter - which is only very slightly tongue-in-cheek - commending her administration on the policy, and suggesting that she tell her fellow state politician in the northern hemisphere how we roll up our sleeves down under.

Here's the text of the letter, faxed recently:

Anna Bligh MP

Premier of Queensland

PO Box 15185

City East Queensland 4002

Dear Ms Bligh

Your government is to be commended on its stand on fuel subsidies.

Removing these subsidies is not, as some have tried to say, a new tax, but a removal of an iniquitous burden on the tax-payers of Queensland, and an end to a system that rewarded wasteful and greedy behavior, whilst failing to help regional Queensland.

Additionally for too long those who maintained wasteful and negligent practices with regard to their own motor vehicles, have been subsidised by those of us who mindful of the environment and our energy security try to reduce usage of fossil fuels. The end to the subsidy is welcomed by those of us that want to see clean air for our children to breathe and a reduction in the hemorrhage of cash to foreign oil producing nations.

As a Software Engineer I recently returned to Brisbane from working in California's Silicon Valley.

As a Brisbane resident, rate-payer and voter, I am proud of the initiatives our state is promoting in these very difficult economic circumstances. Its a chance to make far-sighted reform for long term good. While Queensland works to define itself as the Smart State, these new measures of removing the fuel subsidy are world beating, and are to a standard of independence from industry influence, and courageous right-thinking that the Governor of California ought to aspire.

I would like to suggest that the Bligh Government send Governor Schwarzennegger a statement of support for his planned new tax regime, as his administration struggles to address terrible budgetary problems in the State of California. It might be appropriate to remind him of the previously planned tax on oil production which according the Los Angeles times:

How embarrassing is it for California to be hanging out there alone? That outstanding anti-tax crusader, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, in 2007 raised her state’s tax to 25% of the value of extracted oil and gas. ... At the current world benchmark price of about $70, the 6% tax contemplated by Proposition 87 would have generated more than $1 billion a year

Instead of raising these much needed taxes it seems independence from industry influence requires a fortitude that is lacking, as California's watchdogs:

dismissed assurances from the Schwarzenegger administration that his panel's
independence would not be eroded. ...

"You've taken the position of destroying several decades of work by this commission," he told Sheehy, pointing out that it was established in
the late 1930s after an oil scandal had snared state officials.

It would be a great thing for Queensland to show its international credentials by reaching out to another state as it too struggles to manage energy policy in the face of public opinion, industry pressure and challenging financial circumstances.

Again I would like to congratulate your government on this policy, and hope it continues to show its world beating standards in governance and independence while also demonstrating good fiscal management in these difficult economic times.

I'm sure someone at the Premier's office fell of their chair with surprise at actually receiving a positive message regarding the fuel policy.

But its time we started paying the actual cost of the black gold. The fact that there is a federal tax does not in anyway construe this new policy of removing the state subsidy as a "new tax".

That removal of the subsidy is somehow a tax is a bizarre construction, straight from the spin-merchants hired by vested interests. Those vested interests want to keep up their unsustainable practices, filling our air with tail-pipe emissions, and they want our tax dollars to pay for it.

Bravo for a Premier with the cahoolies to say no!

Girl power

Just added Electric Cars are for Girls dot com to my blog roll - what a great website!

This woman captures pretty much why I'm an electric car zealot: we're dumping our garbage into the world that our kids have to live in, polluting the air they have to breathe and allowing rapacious corporations to raid their future for gross profits today.

Here's a call out to all women in Australia, and especially to those with kids, don't accept the gas-guzzling corporate deal that we have been given. Demand better! Demand zero-emissions!

Rock on Lynne Mason, and Hi from Australia!

Leave the oil in the ground, drive electric with the savings

You can leave the oil in the ground and drive in electric vehicles 15% of the distance the gas guzzlers would have gone just on the saved energy that refineries would have used to extract the petrol and diesel from that oil.

With many thanks to one reader, some corrections have been made to the figures in this article. Please accept my apologies for the error.

What these numbers mean is that the long tailpipe argument - that EV's just move their emissions to the power stations - is put to the lie.

It also means that claims EV take up by the public would result in mass over-subscription of power generation capacity are also not supported.

Read on.

As the USA shows its world beating credentials by making billions of dollars available for a range of climate friendly initiatives, inevitably the conservatives are coming back more loudly with complaints that the green spending spree is a "new boondoggle".

I've never really been sure what a boondoggle is. But Mr Carney writing in the Washington Examiner echoes the sentiments of plenty of other better dead than red types, when he compares the recent funding initiatives for battery technologies by the Obama administration to the dreadful corn ethanol initiatives of the previous administration. Lithium, necessary for battery technology being produced in a country like Bolivia has all the McCarthy-ists reaching for their propaganda manuals.

The Obama governments Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Program serves up billions of dollars in funding, 5.9 billion for example going to Ford for its new initiatives which include Electric Vehicle (EV) research, as well producing more efficient traditional Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicles.

If Mr Carney really wants a boondoggle, he only has to look back at the previous government grants to the big auto companies to make more efficient cars: money which those automakers cynically frittered away without only to arrive today at a financial crisis, and with rising fuel prices, and their caps in hands again.

Like many who are reaching for the handbrake on the clean vehicle charge, Carney is quoting the recent Government Accountability Office's report on Plug-in hybrid usage in the Federal Fleet. The executive summary of the report says in part

For plug-ins to realize their full potential, electricity would need to be generated from lower emission fuels such as nuclear and renewable energy, rather than the fossil fuels - coal and natural gas used most often to generate electricity today.

Sounds familiar doesn't it?

Its the same old FUD that's been going around for some time now.

As we already know, in answer to the GAO report and other "long tailpipe" arguments, the fact is that just replacing ICE vehicles with plug-in Hybrids without changing any of the electricity production would realize a saving of 27% in pollutants. And in California, where a cleaner mix of electricity production is used the figure is 40%.

But the biggest argument against the GAO report and other clean car naysayers is this fact: if you just leave the oil in the ground, your electric car has already done 15% of the journey for free, just on the energy saved by not running the refinery.

Add in the costs either side, of extracting and shipping the crude to the refinery, and then trucking it across the country in tankers - figures that are much more difficult to obtain - then the

Put it another way: that electric power which the naysayers claim electric cars would chew up, causing extra pollution would actually come for free - and actually even more save on pollution - just because the refineries are not pumping out so much of Chevron and Texaco's favourite money-spinner.

I first saw this in a ground breaking article by Doug Korthof. (Note that I now think Mr Korthof's claims are a bit strong, based on the numbers I have been able to produce, but I think the idea is still valid - but you have to include the costs either side of the refinery, just the refinery itself is not enough).

I just had to check the claims he makes for myself. I contacted the US Department of Energy for their take on it, and Paul Hesse of the Energy Information Administration got back to me with references to some of the DOE's figures.

According to the figures in 2008 oil refineries in the USA purchased 42,682 million kWh of electricity.

Another major energy cost is 710,500 million cubic feet of natural gas, which assuming only 50% generation efficiencies is worth another 108,642 million kWh.

Coal is also used - 43,000 Tons (US), which at a typically quoted figure of 2.5MWh/ton electricity generation rate is good for 107 million kWh.

And we'll also include the steam purchased 98,769 million pounds. Assuming 0.3kWh energy content per pound and conversion efficiency of 60% (modern steam turbines are pretty good): 19,600 million kWh.

That's a total of 171, 031 million kWh of electricity.

That is a hell of a lot of electricity being used by oil refineries.

Now that power went to produce 5,119 million barrels of petroleum and oil products.

Lets imagine that green citizens of the USA buy up the electric vehicles that the Obama initiatives are funding, and that 0.1% of the production capacity of USA refineries is saved as a result.

Just imagine how good it would be if 5.12 million barrels of petroleum and oil products don't have to be produced, and 0.1% of energy costs at refineries is saved as a result.

What could that 0.1% produce?

The answer is - according to the DOE figures (their diagram left) that one 44 gallon barrel produces around 19.15 gallons of gasoline for ICE cars, and around 9.21 gallons of diesel fuel.

The gasoline - around 98 million gallons of it from the 5.12 million barrels - would make for 24 million trips of 100 miles in internal combustion engined cars, and another 16 million trips of 100 miles in diesel vehicles - that's assuming an average of 25mpg EPA mileage for the cars and 35mpg EPA mileage for the diesels.

But since the 5.12 million barrels of production didn't happen, and the USA saved that money - the refineries also saved the energy costs involved 151.3 million kWh worth.

Turns out that is enough to do 6.1 million 100 mile trips in an electric vehicle, like a Tesla, which uses just 28kWh to do 100 miles on EPA figures. See my bar chart at the top of this article for a graphical representation of these figures.

What that means is that if 40 people took their fossil fuel powered vehicles off the road, 6 of them could travel for free just on the power saved by not running the refineries.

The other 34 people would just be travelling at the 27% pollution saving, and at a fraction of the cost to the hip pocket compared to the fossil fuel powered vehicles.

These same figures work for Australia too, and for other countries, although here we have slightly better average fuel consumption in our vehicles, and less nuclear power stations, so the figures are a little different - but the general message is just the same.

Now I'm sure there's some play in my figures - for example critics might say there's line loss in the transmission of the electricity, and there are extra products in the barrel of oil, such as aviation gas.

But I haven't yet counted the costs of extracting and shipping the crude oil, or the cost of trucking of refined petroleum to gas stations.

Petro-politics and the energy security implications are difficult to evaluate, but the costs of wars and military protection for oil shipping also should be factored into these numbers.

I'll say it just one more time in case it didn't stick first up: leave the oil in the ground, put the petro-dollars back into education or something useful, and the power saved by winding back production at the refineries will run 15% of your EV's.

When you add the other costs, the figure is probably close to 100%. Anyway - its got to be better than the damage we're doing now, and the only way to know how much better for sure it is to start making the changes.

Every way you look at it, EV's are a much better choice for the world - its time for the oil men and their cronies to say uncle - the game is over guys, its been a great century for you.

Now its time to join the 21st century, stop burning fossils and join the technical revolution.

Clean Vehicle Adoption - VHS & BetaMax all over again?

One of the things that drives me crazy about clean vehicle debates is the binary nature of the dialogue: hydrogen or electric? Plug-in hybrid & range-extended or flex-fuel?

Sides are forming, straw men are being thrown up, and in the technology of the new clean green car it looks like a VHS versus BetaMax argument all over again.

When new technologies come on-line the supposed way things happen is that the best tech wins as the relative merits are discovered by an unsung army of innovative consumer investigators who compare the offerings and vote with their wallets.

Innovators in small numbers buy the new technology just because its new. These folks love trying out new stuff, and don't mind if it doesn't work perfectly.

Then the early adopters get on the bandwagon - they can see that the new tech actually provides a pragmatic solution to their real world need, and are willing to spend a bit extra in time and cash to find out how. There's lots more numbers of these trend-setters, and a key difference (at least according to the theory) is that they'll send out the message via journalism, blogging, and the whole range of public expression.

You can see from the diagram how the rest of the population takeup follows on from these ground-breaking types. In the ideal cleaner world, at any rate.

But in the case of VHS and BetaMax the best product didn't win. It was a case of marketing, politics, vested interests, sides being taken and sheer chance.

So how do the folks out there make their choices? What makes a technology debate finally settle to where it seems like it was always meant to be that way? What will Joe Sixpack do? What car will he choose?

Those lining up behind Hydrogen as a solution are running the argument that Joe Sixpack is on their side, and therefore manufacturers and governments should focus on the hydrogen highway. The argument goes that Joe and his friends will choose the hydrogen cars, because they look like that SUV he already has.

Of course the Honda FCX Clarity is a big four door car. And it looks like a valid choice. Hydrogen filling stations, SUV's with gas pedals: its not a hard sacrifice for Joe Sixpack to make.

But its actual on-road cost is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, you can only lease them, and then with a insurance bill that reflects the units actual value. It will be 5-10 years before the investments in hydrogen technology research produce a vehicle that can be mass produced.

And Honda has now committed to electrification as the way forward, with plans to produce a range of electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles, including electric motorcycles.

Toyota, Mitsubish, Nissan, GM and most major manufacturers have now switched to electrification as their key strategy for clean vehicles with plans for either all electric or plug-in hybrid/range-extended vehicles starting from 2010.

But doesn't Joe Sixpack get a wallet vote here? How do these manufacturers know they've chosen VHS or BetaMax?

As much as I hate to say it I don't think the noble consumer vote is going to carry much sway here, since our decisions are going to be mostly made for us by pricing - hydrogen cars are way to expensive to produce.

At present if you live California or Iceland you can refill the hydrogen fuel cell that supplies electricity to your electrically powered vehicle. But in Australia, and most of the rest of the world, where hydrogen is still a commercial gas for industry, produced in relatively small quantities from fossil fuels, pulling into the local hydrogen station is at least 10 years away.

Yes, hydrogen can be produced from water using electricity - but then why not just use the electricity?

Why do we have to build out a collection of hydrogen filling stations just to act as middle-men? Are we trying to keep Joe Sixpack happy here, or is it actually ExxonMobil?

I have cheap electricity already coming out of a socket in my garage, so explain to me again why I should drive somewhere, and queue up so I can pay someone for it?

And what the manufacturers and governments are realizing is that it will not be a reality for the early and late adopters in their very large numbers, for ten years at least.

Another compelling argument for going straight to electricity over using hydrogen as an electricity middle-man is the Smart Grid.

Its certain that the Smart Grid will be a necessary innovation to both enable new efficient energy consumption strategies for consumers, and to manage the growth of solar, wind and other alternative electric power sources. The way we get power at present is that each turbine and generator that is bought online at the local power station to meet a days peaking usage results in a big step up in power availability. Its like power is sprayed out over the consuming public from a fire-hose, and another fire engine just backed up to pump out more.

Its a hit-and-miss operation, where the amounts we choose to use bear little relation to the generation capacity power authorities have to produce. A SmartGrid allows a feed back loop where intelligent management of capacity and consumption makes the consumers partners in the process - instead of a firehose, we get to channel more like what we need.

Also the SmartGrid enables balancing and management of clean energies at the times they're produced - on windy days, or sunny days for example.

When we see large scale take up of clean vehicles that don't use oil to power them, an amazing by product will be the free electricity no longer needed by the refineries - one analyst at least says that this amount of electricity would power the equivalent electric vehicles of the petroleum that would have been produced. This changing face of electricity production and usage in the face of climate change initiatives and a new greener high-tech economy will necessarily require a smart grid to manage it.

So we're going to have to get a SmartGrid - where does Hydrogen fit into that? Answer, nowhere that I can see.

Electric vehicles can use the SmartGrid to charge at off peak times, and even take an active part in buffering the SmartGrid. Hydrogen doesn't work that way, and the Joe Sixpack consumer model hydrogen gas station is even worse of a fit.

Nevertheless, common-sense and the good of mankind have never been good enough reasons to do the right thing.

And its certain that adoption of cleaner vehicles will be slow going.

If you follow the "Crossing the Chasm" theory of technology adoption, there is a big gulf between those true-believing converts in the early adoption camp, and their reticent counterparts in the early adoption majority.

But this is yet another win for electric vehicles, in my view. Electric cars are the ideal chasm bridging technology, because they provide a way to "sharpen the wedge".

Hydrogen has a big hump to get over with its requirements for new fuel cell technology, hydrogen filling stations, cryogenic storage and a laundry list of high-tech advances.

But with electric vehicles, ordinary folks are building them out of spare bits and pieces in their garages. The technology is really nothing new. That innovative spirit that has us rolling up our sleeves and tinkering in the shed will give traction to the already burgeoning grass roots electric car movement.

Also making the take up slope less of a hike is the the time-saving and budget-conscious aspects of electric vehicle ownership. I don't have to do anything new with my electric car - just park it and plug it in. The socket is right there, where I park my car - its a no-brainer. No more finding time to get to the gas station, or adding up those 4c per liter savings vouchers.

Don't get me wrong - its not that I don't think hydrogen has a future. It definitely has a future, especially in fleet and heavy vehicle usage.

But to get over the hump of clean vehicle adoption before we all choke on our collective soot, we can start with an easy curve to climb.

2010 will be the year when we see these new cars arrive in numbers sufficient to make a difference. Zero tail-pipe emissions is a really good difference to be able make, especially around our schools, our cities, and our local environment.

It will be exciting to finally have the chance to be part of that difference.

The Answer Man

How do we save the world as it teeters on the brink of an energy crisis and a climate change catastrophe?

Many governments now are scrambling to put together a coherent set of answers: some sort of plan to address this question.

I recently read a slim volume by investigative journalist and author Edwin Black which steps up to provide such answers.

"The Plan" is nothing less than a no-holds-barred manifesto of energy security politics. It reads as a apocalypse survival plan, detailing week by week how western civilization might save themselves when the black gold stops flowing, and anarchy rules our streets.

From my perspective - not being a politician looking for a policy - the most eye-opening part of the book was the coverage of the fragility of oil supply. The book opens with this important background, before it gets into the survivalist stuff.

Oil has over a century ago stopped being a commodity - it no more follows supply and demand or any other market place rules than nuclear weaponry. Oil is a political issue.

Enter the IEA. This is an organization dedicated to protecting nations who join it from the impact of oil supply loss. Set up after the oil shocks of the 70's, the IEA member nations recognize that loss of even a fraction of supply would lead to an apocalypse - the signatories agree to help each other in the event of such a calamity by immediately executing a three-pronged action:

• stockdraw - releasing strategic reserves
• surge production - increase of supply from internal oil sources
• demand restraint - reducing oil consumption

This material is compelling reading. It puts a lot of what I already knew about the Oil Shocks of the 1970's and later into chilling perspective.

But doesn't this sound like a plan?

It would if the first two items would address a tiny part of the impact of an oil shock. Even a drop in oil supply to the USA of 5% would trigger the stock draw - raiding the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The month or so that the SPR would last is nowhere near enough time to enable demand restraint. Anything that had not been already prepared would be overwhelmed by chaos before it got off the drawing boards.

And surge production - the USA is already using and drying up its own oil wells. If the 5% drop is more widespread than just the USA then the chances of other countries being willing or able to surge supply enough to get the USA out of the fat-fire are near zero.

But the big flaw is demand restraint.

Demand restraint? Are you kidding?

If there's one thing that will get an American president shaking in his boots, its trying to get US citizens to restrain their gas guzzling ways. And a century of GM marketing teaching them that success is the same as a big car is going to take a long time to turn around.

New Zealand responded with great restraint during the Oil Shock times by instituting carless days.

USA has no plan and no ability to do anything like carless days, even though its obligations through its membership of the IEA decrees that it should.

But do we really have to worry about another oil shock?

Black shows why we should expect it as a virtual inevitability. He covers a range of threats from military, through economic, to pragmatic which will likely realize the substantial ruination of oil supply.

It won't take much.

After Hurricane Katrina hit the continental USA and took a number of refineries offline, the availability there dropped by 5% - this is the figure sufficient to trigger releases from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

A drop of 7% is enough to precipitate an international crisis, and trigger obligations under the IEA membership.

Losing 10% of oil supply in the USA is unthinkable: so "off the charts that we can't model it" according to one of Black's sources.

This is because the USA has already hit its Peak Oil - its been many decades since those cocky Texas oilmen were supplying anything more than a trickle of the black gold gushing into the USA's unquenchable gullet.

Around 60% of the oil used in the USA is imported. But what is more interesting is that due to Oil Market intricacies, while it would appear that most of that oil comes from friendly countries such as Canada - the true picture is that USA is far more exposed to the middle-eastern oil markets than raw import source percentages would suggest.

But even looking at raw figures, Saudi Arabia supplies over 10% of US oil.

This fact alone leaves the super-power critically vulnerable. Its why twice during his presidency as Black describes, George Bush went cap in hand to the Saudis asking for price breaks. The volatile nations of the middle-east have the the international oil market in the palm of their hand.

The remainder of The Plan presents a range of energy initiatives that would allow a shattered country to try to survive the impact of an oil apocalypse:

• upfitting vehicles to CNG, and other alternative energy sources
• using sugar cane and other sustainable ethanol programs
• stopping corn ethanol production - it uses more petroleum products than it produces
• hydrogen and electric vehicles
• moving off oil fired heating

Of course Blacks point is that if the Plan is instituted now, instead of waiting for the disaster then maybe we can pull back from the precipice.

Hydrogen Update

This is an update on an earlier blog article about Edwin Blacks book "Internal Combustion: How Corporations and Governments Addicted the World to Oil and Derailed the Alternatives".

Mr Black responded to my offer of commentary - his comments are in red below.

Where as for hydrogen:
A 2008 report from the National Research Council estimated it would take $200 million from government and industry over the next 15 years to commercialize hydrogen fuel cell vehicles to the point they could be competitive with gas vehicles.(Reported by reuters)

These are just politicized numbers. Last year, I drove a GM hydrogen car that used water dispensed from a Shell station to create the fuel.

The problems of practical transport using hydrogen are well known - see this article in Popular Mechanics for an even handed analysis.

Hydrogen has its hands as dirty as oil, since it is traditionally made from natural gas, a fossil fuel. Companies mentioned by Black in his chapter on hydrogen, such as Linde, and Air Liquide are now leading members of the National Hydrogen Association, along with guess who: General Motors and Shell.

A common feedstock is not natural gas but pure water.

There are 3 main ways to make hydrogen--reform it from natural gas as some wish so they can use existing infrasture, electrolyze it from water like the Shell station in Santa Monica ( I favor), or use bacterial generation which still being perfected to yield higher amounts.

Hydrogen could be synthesized from your hat--it is in 99% of the universe.

Hydrogen futurists such as Dr Alan Lloyd were pivotal in killing off the California zero emissions mandate. The ZEV laws brought in by the California Air Resources Board to fight chronic smog had led to a huge flurry of electric vehicle activity in California. In the period where Lloyd was the Chairman of the California Air Resources Board and Secretary of the California EPA the electric vehicle innovation and recharge point infrastructure rollout was crushed literally, and replaced with a highly touted hydrogen program.

I know Lloyd. He was not a hydrogen futurist. The hydrogen fuel cell was invented in 1838.

Lloyd was also Chairman of the California Fuel Cell partnership. He vehemently denied that this was a conflict of interest.

Of course proponents of hydrogen with vested interests ranging from pet research to major investment, are ready with all sorts of arguments against the view that electric is superior to hydrogen for transport. Even if they're not all Lloyds with a cash register tune playing in their ears, their views are based on theory.

Remember Sarah--the hydrogen car is just an electric car with the electricity generated from as hydrogen reaction. Now you can generate electricity from a battery, from on-board hydrogen, or a squirrel in a cage--just the end product is all the same--electricity out of the fuel combination to run the wheels. Batteries are a dirty business. It is brown green, not green green. Water is clean. It only takes a zap of electricity to electrolyze it. In Vegas that is done with solar.

Electric Vehicle Update

In October the Australian Electric Vehicle Association has its first ever field day. Yours truly will be there and I plan to report on the event.

The guys from the AEVA have been building and driving electric vehicles, approved for driving on our roads now for decades.

I agree with Mr Black that hydrogen can be generated cleanly, and I hope some day soon that it will.

I believe that avoiding the Oil Apocalypse will take a broad ranging response - a response from all of us. And an effective robust response will involve a range of technologies.

We have to start now - and we can start with non-oil burning technologies that we have on our roads right now - and for me electric vehicles are the most exciting reality, but of course CNG and LPG will play a role, as will biodiesel.

I'm sure that the current success and innovation in electric vehicles will pave the way for a viable hydrogen powered car, since as Mr Black says, hydrogen is essentially another way to power an electric vehicle.

I look forward to seeing a hydrogen vehicle on our shores as soon as possible.

In the meantime, come and join me at the AEVA's electric vehicle open day!

Idiocracy

I wonder what the Americans think of Senator Fielding.

I hope they don't think we're all like him: "Yuk, yuk - y'know, humans ain't the cause of Global Warming. Its the sun."

Trying to explain the fact that we cannot keep crapping all over the planet we live on is getting chillingly like something out of a bad horror movie.

Its like Secretary for the Interior Not Sure, played here by Luke Wilson, in Mike Judge's Idiocracy, who tried to explain that "Brawn-Do" soft drink was not suitable for watering plants.

In Judge's spoof movie vision of the idiotic future, the global corporations have irrigation systems pumping their soda pop resulting in an increased stock price, even though all crops have failed. And Secretary Not Sure has the balls to stand up and say "I think plants need water."

"What? You mean we have ta use water, like out of the toilet?"

Wilson's character tries hard to explain that you need to use water for watering, not soft drink.

In the end he resorts to saying that the plants talk to him and they say they want water.

So what are the smart guys saying right now?

What does the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change say?

• "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal."
• "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

Hundreds of scientists from over 100 different countries, working for 5 years to produce a single compelling report. These are the guys our governments asked to work this out and produce an answer.

Yuh, see - the problem is scientists say words like "likely".

I won't repeat what the yokels in Idiocracy have to say for this kind of scientific talk, but its not complimentary. Scientists deal in theories, hypotheses, and the scientific method - which allows for experiments to offer supporting evidence for those hypotheses.

But that doesn't sound like the kind of clear cut answer that Senator Fielding is looking for.

Lets look at the similarities between the climate change skeptics that Senator Fielding has been hob-nobbing with, and the tobacco lobby.

We now understand that cigarettes cause fatal diseases.

You know those kind of diseases? They're the ones that kill you.

Lung, throat and other cancers; cardiovascular and chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases, early aging and the list goes on.

Remember back last decade or so when the large tobacco companies were paying "researchers" and "think tanks"? These are the guys who amazingly enough came out with statements about smoking not being definitely linked to cancers, and filter cigarettes being milder.

Well, not so amazing really, when you realize that the "think tanks" were having their rent paid for them by the cigarette companies.

Big Tobacco sunk millions into fighting the public health initiatives that were being pushed through by doctors and government health agencies, to make the public aware of the dangers of these fatal products. There was even a movie about all this starring Russel Crowe - so it must be true.

Well, do you know what happened to those "think tanks" and "researchers" geared up to sew uncertainty and doubt about public health warnings against the dangerous products and activities of their corporate masters?

Guess what - they're still here, and still in business!

The Heartland Institute during the 90's received hundreds of thousands of dollars from Phillip Morris, a large tobacco company, to support its "think tank" activities drumming up "research" to counteract reports of the dangers of smoking. That's just the amounts that were documented in public records.

These days most of its funding comes from energy companies like ExxonMobil.

And guess what - its luxury gabfests for climate change skeptics including fully paid up conference stays at the Marriot Hotel in New York for politicians are more of the same tricks from their standard playbook.

And "conferences" like the one in Washington that Senator Fielding went to are just another weapon in their arsenal of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt or FUD.

"The dangers of acting too soon...". "There is disagreement on the evidence...". "We're just not sure...". Not Sure?

But wait!

Even if the provenance of these "scientific" opinions has a cloud over it, isn't it important to look at all the opinions and evidence before the Australian Government makes up its mind on climate change policy?

Ought'nt they look at both sides?

No, no and no.

No, Senator Fielding, no they should not.

Solar flares are a red herring, and there are bound to be more fishy science to come from our friends at the think tanks.

We ought not stop and listen to the dross that you have recycled from the corporate flunkies of Exxon and other global polluters.

Not because opinions aren't important but because we have to listen to the scientists who were known to have been paid to assemble the authoritative report, the IPCC scientists who have nothing to gain, the hundreds of scientists from all over the world, who are desperately trying to save the world from the pollution being generated by the giant corporations paying to cover it up.

For just. One more. Quarterly. Profit. Report.

And another quarter.

And another after that.

The ExxonMobils are saying "We just have to run this FUD for one more year. And we rake in billions. Buy more 'scientists' - hold more 'think tanks' - just hold them off for another year!".

Each year, for billions in government incentives and subsidies, billions of dollars in profit.

Trillions of dollars worth of damage to the environment.

Oh, and just one thing - a question: do you know what the "environment" is? Here's a clue: we only have one of them. We live in it, and breathe its air. Our kids grow up in it, and play in it.

Its our world.

And "sustainability" - do you know what that is?

If you start telling your boss your Grandma died, whenever you want to get a day off work, is that sustainable?

Not sustainable means: You cannot keep doing this. Period.

That's what sustainable means, and that's what environment means.

You cannot keep spewing garbage and pollution into our air, and our water and expect to keep living here like we do.

There's been a century and change, of governments listening far too eagerly to anything these guys have to say.

We've heard all about how all that pollution pouring out of tailpipes everywhere, and those burning tire dumps, and Exxon Valdez oil slicks are not really harming the environment.

Its now really time to listen to the other side.

Step aside Senator Fielding.

Let's listen to the smart guys now.