The Blue State

Using plants to power your car?

It looks like the non-oil lobbyist wing of the Department of Energy is in the midst of a breakthrough on alternative fuel:

A new federal report concludes that the ability to make fuelefficiently from virtually any kind of plant is within reach, offeringthe promise of a technology that could dramatically benefit theenvironment, slash dependence on foreign oil, and one day even reorderthe global balance of power.

The Department of Energy report, to be released soon, offers a roadmap for moving from today's technology that makes the fuel ethanol fromcornstarch to a new approach using cellulose, the main ingredient inmost plants. That would greatly increase the country's ability toproduce ethanol, which can easily be used in most automobiles, andcreate unexpected sources of energy from the rice paddies of Californiato the paper mills of northern New England.

``I think this isvery doable," said Sharlene C. Weatherwax, a program manager in thedepartment's Office of Science, which helped prepare the report. ``Thisis not a blue-sky exercise for us."

The report lays out anambitious plan, a kind of Manhattan Project for biofuels, for solvingthe central obstacle: the high cost of production. The report, preparedin consultation with top scientists in academia, industry, and thegovernment, envisions solving the underlying scientific problems overthe next five years, followed by a 10-year program of transferringthese advances to industry.

Even though we are looking at the high cost of production, if we are paying $8 billion per week to fight a war in Iraq with the long-term goal of reducing the cost of oil, then we are also certainly capable of paying for alternative energy research that would significantly reduce our chances of getting involved in these oil-driven wars in the first place.

This report about plant fuel follows another encouraging report about a company called Verdant Power, which is in the midst of conducting an experiment in the New York river.  Verdant wants to use underwater turbines as an alternative source of energy.
---------------------------------------------------------
Other blogs writing about this issue: Cracks in the Facade, Lowem Public Weblog.

Court victory for gas station owner fighting Shell

Now this is the definition of populist activism.  A man by the name of Mehdi Shahbazi owns a Shell gas station in Marina, California.  The problem?  Ever since the oil companies gouged Americans following hurricane Katrina, he has been handing out fliers to his customers telling them never to get gasoline from big oil companies.  Shell learned of this, and immediately shut down the pumps at his station.  After erecting an anti-big oil sign, Shell tried to evict him.  So the two sides went to court over it.

Yesterday he won a huge victory at a federal court in San Jose:

U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel earlier this month denied ShellOil's request for a preliminary injunction aimed at forcing Shahbazi toleave his station on Del Monte Boulevard.

The ruling means that the bizarre, nationally publicized siege atMarina Shell could continue for months -- perhaps years -- as the caseis litigated.

At issue is whether Shahbazi, 63, broke his franchise agreement topromote the product last fall when he passed out fliers and erected twolarge signs outside his station attacking Big Oil -- and advocated aboycott of all stations owned by oil companies.

Although he can no longer sell gas -- Shell has cut off his fuelsupplies -- Shahbazi is still operating his mini-mart and car wash, andsympathetic customers patronize the station to support him.

``I'm going to continue keeping the station open as many hours as Ican. I will keep fighting until I die,'' Shahbazi said Wednesday. ``Iwasn't surprised at the decision. Judge Fogel is a very fair judge.''

Colin West, a San Francisco attorney who is representing Shell inthe case, said he also wasn't surprised because ``preliminaryinjunctions are very hard to get.'' But he expressed confidence thatShell would win the case on the merits when it comes to trial.

Since November, the pumps at Shahbazi's station have been surroundedby chain-link fences, installed as part of an environmental upgradeproject. Shell refused to take them down after the work was finished.

(full article here)

This man has lost more than $1 million worth of real estate because of his passion for this issue:

Shahbazi is also going broke because of a long-running battle withShell Oil. He just lost his $1 million Carmel condo. The pumps at hisbeloved gas station in Marina have been fenced off. The beer cooler inhis mini-mart is empty because he can't pay suppliers. He's living inhis minivan.

Well good luck to this guy.  If any of you are ever down in Marina, California, pay this true American a visit.  Here is the address of the Shell station:

3030 Del Monte Blvd
Marina, CA 93933-3803
(831) 384-8471

And here is a map for how to get there.  Show Shahbazi some support.  He needs it -- the man has the weight of a multi-billion dollar oil company on his shoulders.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Other blogs writing about this issue: Cool Blue, OSNN Forum, A Day in Norman's Shoes.

The showdown over Florida beach drilling

If you look at the voting records of most Republican Senators, you might come to the conclusion that the way to solve our energy crisis is by giving billions worth of subsidies to oil companies and finding new places to drill.  Florida Senator Bill Nelson and most Democrats think that drilling our way out of an energy crisis will do little to help things in the long-term besides increasing the stock values of Exxon and BP.

A proposal to drill off the coast of Florida will be decided this week on the Senate floor.  It passed the House easily last week.  Florida Senator Bill Nelson is vowing to stand up for his state and filibuster the measure:

The bill would end a 25-year ban on drilling off much of the U.S.coastline. It could bring rigs as close as 50 miles from Florida'sbeaches.

Rising fuel prices have increased support for drilling inenvironmentally sensitive areas. The bill last week cleared the HouseResources Committee 29-9 with bipartisan support.

Nelson and all seven of Florida's House Democrats oppose themeasure. They're joined by Florida's Republican Senator, Mel Martinez,and at least four of the state's 18 House Republicans.

A spokesman says Martinez may join Nelson in trying to talk the bill to death if it comes up in the Senate.

It takes 60 votes in the 100-seat Senate to halt a filibuster.

Nelson said in an interview that he is ready for the fight:

"Some of the pro-oil boys may well try to bring the House bill directlyto the floor of the Senate," Nelson said in a telephone interview. "Ifthat's the case, then we'll have to filibuster the bill."

There is also a worry that drilling will tar up the scenic beaches in Florida. 

Nelson needs our help.  E-mail your Senators.  Tell them that energy prices will drop when we start investing in energy alternatives, not by drilling our way out in the short-term and destroying our beaches.

-------------------------------------------------------

Other blogs writing about this issue: House Floor Plan Info, Florida Beaches, Watcher Magazine.

The strategic significance of Gore's battle with Bush yesterday

Al Gore is finally understanding how to confront someone rhetorically without making himself out to be the nerd that no one likes, a complete reversal from his losing fortune in 2000.  Yesterday, when Bush brushed off the credibility of the former Vice President's new movie "An Inconvenient Truth", Gore responded by turning it around on him -- making this global warming debate a war between Bush's lazy energy policy and a mindful alternative.

In response to a reporter's question about whether he will see Al Gore's new movie, Bush arrogantly replied, "Doubt it."

Now that is something an athletic older sibling would say to a clumsy younger sibling after being asked to play basketball.  It was Bush's way of telling Gore that the former vice president was old news, not his caliber and not worth his time.

Instead of sitting down with his hands over his knees like in 2000, Al Gore shot back by offering to give the President a private screening of the movie himself:

But Bush should watch it, Gore shot back. In fact, the formerDemocratic vice president offered to come to the White House any time,any day to show Bush either his documentary or a slide show on globalwarming that he's shown more than 1,000 times around the world.

"The entire global scientific community has a consensus on thequestion that human beings are responsible for global warming and hehas today again expressed personal doubt that that is true," Gore saidin an Associated Press interview from France where he attended the Cannes Film Festival.

To be fair, President Bush has acknowledged that humans have impacted the climate to a certain extent.  His statement during a foreign policy trip in July of last year was one example:

"Irecognise the surface of the earth is warmer and that an increase ingreenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the problem," hesaid during a visit to Denmark en route to Gleneagles.

Regardless of what Bush truly believes, a report on "60 Minutes" two months ago revealed that the Administration had been censoring government global warming data before it could reach the public.

Now back to Gore.  The one-time Democratic presidential candidate picked a great time to turn the tables on Bush.  This week the Competitive Enterprise Institute is unleashing attack ads against the global warming theory in an effort to destroy Al Gore's credibility.  That was why Gore acted smartly yesterday.  By quickly shifting the focus onto Bush, at the same time as gas prices continue to rise and smog worries loom during the summer in our nation's urban areas, this makes the debate less of a battle between Gore and his political motivations and more about Al Gore supplying a legitimate alternative to Bush's stay-the-course energy policy.  Just about any political strategist would agree that Bush's popularity left the building months ago.  He has not offered any new ideas.  Al Gore's movie is a new idea in itself.

Gore's rhetorical challenge to Bush is forcing Americans to take a side: Bush or Gore.  Judging from the way things are today from an energy standpoint, I'm sure you can bet which way the pendulum of positive opinion will swing.

Underwater windmills might provide energy alternative

We can complain all we want to about soaring prices at the pump.  But until we find some other alternative besides drilling our way out of this real energy crisis, like what many Congressional Republicans want to do in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, our military will continuously be needed to defend our strategic oil interests.

What we need is a revolution of new ideas about energy.  Some companies, such as Verdant Power, are rising to the occasion.  Verdant is investing money on an experiment that will be conducted in the East River between Manhattan and Queens, NY.  The energy experiment will involve underwater windmills.

David Ho of Cox Communications' Washington Bureau wrote about the experiment, and how Verdant believes underwater windmills will be even more effective than dams:

As consumers worry over an uncertain energyfuture, a Virginia company is eyeing an unusual untapped power source:the rivers of the Big Apple.

Within weeks, Verdant Power plans to submerge experimental turbinesin the East River off the coast of Roosevelt Island, a slice of landsqueezed between Manhattan and Queens.

Resembling and working much like stout underwater windmills, the six15-foot-tall turbines will draw energy from tidal currents to power anearby supermarket and parking garage.

The company calls the project the first to use multiple underwaterturbines to create usable power. Backers say the technology couldultimately provide a reliable, environmentally friendly and largelyinvisible solution to many global energy needs.

"It's very, very green energy," said Dean Corren, the company'sdirector of technology development. "There's a lot of energy in thatflowing water. Our goal is to capture a small amount of that."

Traditional hydropower from dams, where water is trapped at a highlevel and released, provides about 7 percent of the nation'selectricity, but worries over damaging river environments and harmingmigrating fish have hindered new development.

The "hydro-kinetic" or "in-stream" technology works by submergingturbines into the natural path of moving water, such as a river, canalor deep ocean current.

"Fish and marine mammals can easily swim around," said GeorgeHagerman, a Virginia Tech researcher who co-authored a study onin-stream energy issued this month. "It doesn't have anywhere near theimpact of a dam."

So not only would these underground windmills provide energy, but they don't harm the wildlife.  This is just one example of how valuable various kinds of water-based technology are to unlocking the solution to our growing energy need. 

Certainly, for many reasons, oil companies have an invested interest in preventing this sort of technology from taking hold.  That is why pro-oil advocates like Michael Crichton are being propped up by industry strategists, as was the case after he wrote the anti-environmental book "State of Fear" , to calm recent reactions to both the energy crisis and global warming.  That is why progressives need to give kudos to green companies, such as Verdant, who are trying to give America a clean way out of this current energy predicament.

Gas prices don't need to be high

Want to know why voters associate high gas prices with the 2006 midterm election?  Here's why (ABC News Poll):

"Do you think there's anything the Bush Administration reasonably can do to reduce gasoline prices, or do you think gas prices have risen because of factors beyond the Administration's control?"

Can do something - 62%

Beyond their control - 35%

Unsure- 3%

The GOP and Tony Snow's friends at Fox News can change the subject all they want to gay marriage and Patrick Kennedy's car crash.  But in the end, voters care about things that politicians can impact.

Tax cut bill: down with education, hooray for big oil

When you look at the details on paper, the tax bill that was passed last week should be enough to convince Americans to kick the GOP out of power in both the Senate and the House.  Aside from the fact that middle class Americans will only receive a $20 tax cut compared to a $42,000 tax cut for millionaires, there is another part of the bill that is even more disturbing.

During a time when gas prices are above even $3.30 in some places, the GOP inserted a provision into the bill that would give billions of dollars worth of subsidies to oil companies:

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., the chairman of the Democratic SenatorialCampaign Committee, noted that Republicans decided to drop a provisionallowing Americans to deduct up to $4,000 in college-tuition costsworth $4.5 billion.

Instead, Schumer pointed out, Republicansincluded a tax break for oil companies worth $4.3 billion despite theindustry's record profits.

"The choice is stark and clear --Big Oil or middle-class families," Schumer said. "The RepublicanCongress chose Big Oil, and that's why voters want change."

The Democrats need to get their act together and start strategizing more preventively and pragmatically.  Why was this not talked about until after the bill was passed?  Why did the DNC not raise more of a fuss?

If the strategists over at the DNC had a clue, which they unfortunately don't, then they would be courting conservative voters by saying things like ever since the Republicans took Congress twelve years ago, the debt limit has gone from $4.9 trillion to $10 trillion.  If that is fiscal conservatism, then that I am proud to be a liberal.

But as usual, the Democrats will sit back and watch from the attic as the turmoil below that has been inflicted by this Republican Congress goes unchecked and affects millions of Americans.  WAKE UP DEMOCRATS!  This is not just about taking back Congress.  It is about standing up, pushing for reform and thinking in the long-run about how to make America stronger than ever.

Learning a lesson from Brazil's flex car makoever

The average price of gasoline per gallon nationwide is continuously on the rise, at some places even above $3.25.  Contrary to the oil shock in the 1970s, today's issue centers around demand.  With China and India using more oil ever than ever, U.S. consumers are feeling the squeeze.

But it does not have to be this way.  Over in Brazil, the sugar industry is creating a cleaner, cheaper form of energy used to make ethanol-powered "flex cars".  Jim Avila of ABC News filed a report on how Brazil got it right:

When Brazilians say fill it up, they're not getting the oily mixAmericans see at the pump, which is 90 percent gasoline and 10 percentethanol.

They get pure ethanol, as Brazil now produces 5 billion gallons of thesugar-cane distilled fuel annually. That's enough to powerthree-quarters of the nearly 2 million cars South America's largestcountry makes every year.

The production advantages are obvious — with sugar cane the energysource is above ground and can be produced for $30 dollars a barrel.Today a barrel of oil is priced at more than double that.

At the Brazilian pump, ethanol is nearly half the cost of gasoline. Italso burns cleaner and is the leading reason this country is nowentirely energy independent, no longer buying any oil on the foreignmarket.

...Gas dealers were forced to offer ethanol at their pumps, and carbuyers who purchased flex cars that are built with the technology torun on ethanol, gasoline or a mix of both received tax incentives.Today ethanol outsells gasoline, and three out of every four new carssold is a flex car.

Once drivers start driving these vehicles, the economics take over.

It would cost $529 in gas to make a cross-country trip from Californiato New York in a Chevy pickup. To make the same trip in the samevehicle powered by ethanol would cost $218.

And some Brazilians even say their cars have more power when ethanol is pumped into the tank.

Even more ironically, the same car companies such as Ford that have failed in the U.S. to make more fuel efficient cars are supplying Brazil with just that.  The technology is there.  But the energy lobbyists at Exxon on Capitol Hill are preventing that from happening.  So politically speaking, it would be smart for a lawmaker to stand up and say, "Hey everyone, look at Brazil."

Cartoon: Checking the gauge

(Courtesy of Andrew Wahl, The Wenatchee World, OffTheWahl.com)

My good friend Andrew Wahl, a cartoonist for the Wenatchee World newspaper in Eastern Washington, is back with his weekly cartoon.

Al Gore's political stock goes up

Do not count Al Gore out as a possible candidate for a White House run in 2008, despite his comments to the contrary earlier this year.  His recent global warming film is sparking sudden interest, especially with gas prices being as high as they are and most Americans favoring an alternative to today's status quo energy policy

The former Vice President is touring cities to promote the film:

"Sooner or later, those who are enthralled by oil companies and coalcompanies and tar sands companies and subordinate the public interestand the habitability of the planet to these short-term considerationsare going to have to check in with their consciences and look at thefacts."

When asked if Hollywood science fiction movies about global disastershelp or hurt the issue, he recalls what he said when The Day AfterTomorrow - a cautionary tale more about global freezing - was released.

"The science was partly fictional but not nearly as fictional as the science being put out by the Bush-Cheney White House!"

On the CNBC Money web site, viewers are split over whether they want Al Gore to run for President.