Alternative Energy and Energy Independence

the column

A Glass Half Full or Half Empty?

  Click to return to beginning
wind. The Congress is taking the Climate Change bill seriously. Everyone is talking about how shocking it is to spend $80 to fill their tank. High mileage cars are selling at two or three times the pace of the same period last year. But, most importantly, the general public seems to have finally accepted that the era of cheap gasoline is over. At $3 a gallon it did not seem to happen, but $4 seems to have done it. (Of course, in Europe, gasoline is now closer to $8 a gallon.)
    Rather than wallowing in gloom, we decided to try spreading a little cheer by tabulating some of the reasons for tempered optimism that some of us feel:
   1) HITCH IN BIOFUELS: Every day we read about how biofuels based on corn are failing to reduce fossil fuel use and instead have driven the cost of food all over the world to new heights. This reporter believes that is a major overstatement. Sure, corn ethanol has run into a speed bump and slightly worsened a food price rise that would have happened in any event, caused by other factors, including growth in India and China, bad weather, a growing preference for meat over grain, and countries that are hoarding their food rather than exporting it. But, the infrastructure created to distribute ethanol will be helpful when non-food based ethanol (cellulosic) starts to come on line. This fuel does save a lot of carbon, and will be a very important renewable liquid fuel. There are literally dozens of well-funded initiatives currently seeking to solve the problems of mass production of non-food ethanol; some of them will work.
    2) GOVERNMENT INEPTITUDE: This reporter believes that the Federal Government is unlikely to be successful in developing and implementing a coherent energy strategy, both because they lack the technical ability, and because the structures at both the Federal and State levels make it impractical. It becomes an issue of States rights, and that generally useful construct becomes an impediment to progress. Therefore, entreating our government to correct this situation is not likely to work. But, it is not a hopeless situation: instead we must begin to charge everyone everywhere for using the atmosphere as a dump....another way to describe a system of capping carbon emissions and trading carbon credits at whatever the market says they are worth. In this way, consumers will pay more for what they have been getting for free up to now. And market forces will allocate capital and brains to where the best marginal improvements lie. Cap-and-trade is no panacea, but it has more potential to get us moving in the right direction than government fiat.
    3) LIMITS ON CARBON CREDITS: Some are concerned that carbon credits, under cap-and-trade will "run out". Alternately, we argue that they instead will rise in price to whatever level will encourage some entities to earn and sell more, or some other entities to reduce GHG output rather than pay that price, or both. Either way, the market mechanism should help bring about the desired end result in ways that no government, no matter how competent, could reasonably do.
    4) CONSERVATION: THE SECRET WEAPON: We have often spoken about the unique potential in the USA for conservation to make a difference. Ironically, we have more potential in this regard than any other nation because, heretofore, we have been so unfocused on the problem. We have treated energy, in all forms, as being almost free. Driven by costs, that attitude is changing rapidly, and, we think, permanently. Almost half the fossil fuel consumption used by motor vehicles, power generation and heating/cooling/lighting buildings can be saved by adopting hundreds of small steps to improve efficiency and eliminate waste. This reporter feels that the big surprise in the next year or two will be how much less energy we are using, rather than how little we have changed.
    Let's hope so.                   - DLA

Is Environmental Pragmatism Gaining Ground As a
Better Way?

For some years, a substantial divide has existed between two types of organizations that share concerns about the environment and our addiction to cheap energy, two subjects that are very closely related, as progress in one generally produces progress in the other.

Let's call the two groups "Adversarial Environmentalists" and "Environmental Pragmatists".

On one hand, adversarial groups like Greenpeace and the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) devote tremendous energy and passion to declaring how we human beings are trashing our planet every day, and how we need drastically to change our ways to arrest the damage before it is too late. The NRDC mounts legal challenges against corporations and the government as a means of changing policy. Others send a strong message that we must sacrifice much to achieve satisfactory results. Such steps as living "off the grid", replacing cars with bicycles, heating our homes to lower temperatures than before, eating locally grown foods to reduce transport costs, and abandoning air conditioning are considered correct and those who do not adopt such measures are considering not to be doing their part.

Their concentration is largely on environmental impact, and their concerns about the economics or politics of these changes are often secondary.

Groups like these accomplish enormous increases in public awareness and affect many worthwhile changes. But also, almost by definition, they isolate themselves somewhat from the mainstream public, where their approach to life and manner of protest is less popular. As a result, their effectiveness is limited to those audiences who are a little more radical than average. Also, the divide between these folks and the typical American business corporation is very wide, with Adversarial Environmentalists barely concealing their contempt for what they perceive to be greedy, corrupt businessmen, and the business managers also finding it very hard to find common ground.

Environmental Pragmatists, on the other hand, share the same worries about climate change and our addiction to cheap energy, but they are devoted to seeking solutions within the existing economic and government structures than are their counterparts. Examples of such organizations are Environmental Defense,  Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI), Easy Being Green and ACEEE. Each of these groups has its own mission and culture, but they share the view that much of what needs to be done to curb emissions and energy consumption offers standalone justification, before considering the benefits in those aforementioned "externalities". In our view, this is a vitally important concept, because it captures the attention of many who are unpersuaded by the Adversarial Environmentalists to make conservation a priority. This produces incremental progress.

Both groups, for example, promote the replacement of incandescent light bulbs with the new fluorescent bulbs to save energy. While the Adversarial Environmentalists emphasize the reduction in emissions, the Environmental Pragmatists promote that each bulb saves more electricity in a year than it costs to buy the bulb, producing a more than 100% per annum return on investment. So, not only does the new light reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but it also makes excellent sense as a standalone investment. Guess what? Adoption rates multiply because consumers are almost bound to be convinced by either one argument or the other. And the result is good for both.

On a much grander scale, something similar took place not long ago that is likely to be considered a bellwether event. When a group of private equity firms made a bid to purchase the Texas Utilities Company, they requested and got approval from Environmental Defense, with the extraordinary condition that TXU cancel 8 of the 11 pulverized coal plants that were on the drawing board. The company was seen to be worth more as an environmentally responsible utility than as one that was thumbing its nose at the climate change issue. This could be a watershed event for a host of other U.S. companies.

Even Wal-Mart Gets the Message

Take Wal-Mart, the biggest retailer in the world; it has been working closely with RMI on energy efficiency. Wal-Mart operates one of the largest truck fleets in the world and they plan to reduce fleet fuel consumption by 50% per ton-mile over the next few years. They are ahead of schedule already, and are learning that the investment in better trucks, though a very large investment indeed, nevertheless returns enough per year in fuel savings to justify the investment based on economics alone. Again, the action curbs emissions and saves carbon fuels, but those benefits do not need to be counted to justify the program.

The same phenomenon may well ultimately apply to the development of lighter and more efficient cars. They will be made of carbon fiber panels and will likely be powered by hybrid power plants with small, ultra efficient engines and large battery banks. They will cost very little more or even less than current cars, but will consume about 75% less fuel. When oil passed $50m a barrel, investing in such a car made excellent economic sense for every consumer. Many will adopt the new cars for this reason, while others will pursue the environmental benefits.

So what? This is all good news, because the early heralds of these issues, largely adversarial groups, have been joined by a growing number of intensely practical pragmatists, and the net effect is that more good things are happening faster. More and more people of every economic and political background are getting on the bandwagon.

In fact, it may well be that somewhere between October 2006 and March 2007 will, with the benefit of hindsight, be seen as the major "tipping point" on these issues and that we may be pleasantly surprised by what ensues in the next few years.

Does this mean that we can return to a state of complacency because the free markets will take care of the problems? Not at all. We believe that legislation regarding capping and trading greenhouse gas emissions is needed. We also believe that, in the increasingly unlikely case of oil falling below $50 a barrel, our government should collect a tax that would restore the cost to one that reflects the external costs not reflected in that price. Much cannot be left to the free market to regulate in its own way.

But, we are saying that the rules, laws, incentives and sacrifices combined with the impact of free markets and profit motives will be vastly more effective in controlling energy consumption and reducing GHG than either could be alone.
      - DLA

Man's Impact on Climate —
A Fresh Perspective

At PlanetWatch, we spend very little time debating whether global warming is caused primarily by human-beings. We believe the time needed to answer that question completely is greater than that required to learn that "no" is the wrong answer. Therefore, we believe in behaving as though the answer were "yes", and saving our time and energy for remediation.

Nevertheless, an interesting related theory has come to our attention that brings fresh insight.

William Ruddiman, retired Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, a few years ago authored the book Plows, Plagues and Petroleum, which advances persuasively an argument about man's impact on the climate of Earth. He proposes that, not only has man been influencing the climate since the Industrial Revolution, but that his influence goes back much farther.....probably about 8000 years....since the introduction of widespread organized agriculture. In fact, he argues that man's clearing and cultivating large areas of forest may have warmed the planet enough to have forestalled what would otherwise have been a new ice age!

He further shows in this scholarly but highly readable book that periods of plague reduced populations so substantially, that resultant climate cooling can be seen in the historical data by which paleo-climatologists like Ruddiman determine temperature variations from long ago.

Now, of course, widespread consumption of fossil fuels (ancient sunlight stored as hydrocarbons) may well be causing accelerated effects.

Ruddiman's hypothesis is likely to be debated for many years by fellow scientists, as is normal in that field, and, as a professional, he welcomes the process. It seems likely to us that his ideas will survive such challenges, because they are thoroughly researched and he presents considerable evidence from both sides of the argument.

Looking ahead, Prof. Ruddiman finds it deplorable that the issue of how much humans influence climate has been "hi-jacked" by powerful special interest groups, from both sides of the debate, who argue fiercely over the subject and waste precious time and resources in a fight that that need not be resolved in order to move ahead with conservation and mitigation.

In that, he shares our general view of the matter.       - DLA

Subscribe to
Free Updates
We e-mail you no more than weekly to tell you what's new. Energy independence is the most vital issue confronting the nation. An informed citizenry needs to make government face its responsibilities. Start by staying informed. Join us by clicking here .

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A To-Do List For Energy Policy

Any serious discussion of the issue of energy independence and global warming must recognize the extreme complexity of the topic, as well as the wide variety of views of the problem and the remedies. And since energy use is such an important issue, not only for humanity, but also for us as a nation, it calls for a major, multifaceted, comprehensive approach.

Even if the body politic were united on the need, which it is not, there are so many interests and factors involved that it will be a major challenge to arrive at a rational energy policy which will effectively address the problem and move us towards true energy independence, a secure economic future, and a cleaner environment, while preserving our planet.

Even for those who question whether human activity has caused recent global warming, it makes sense to develop new sources of energy that do not drain our national resources by importing oil or protecting our access to oil through military force, at the same time providing cheaper and cleaner energy. Since fossil fuels are finite resources, we should also be actively searching for new sources of energy before they are exhausted or their cost becomes prohibitive.

It also makes sense to foster the development of new technologies that will make this independence possible, while employing thousands of Americans at high skilled jobs. If we wait for other countries to develop these new energy systems, and we are already behind Germany, Japan and Denmark, we will lose a great economic opportunity and will end up importing technologies instead of developing our own and exporting them. Instead of importing oil or liquified natural gas, we will continue to out source good manufacturing jobs and import costly equipment to generate electricity.

Alternatives Are Not Without Consequences

Recent initiatives to increase the production of corn-based ethanol to replace imported oil, however, are counterproductive, since its production consumes as much energy as it provides, some of it from fossil fuels, and it has already led to higher prices for corn and other foods. Therefore, while an increased reliance on coal and ethanol would promote energy independence, neither would reduce harmful carbon emissions.

Other bio-fuels might be more efficient than ethanol, thereby saving energy while creating new jobs. Nuclear energy would provide power without emissions and increase energy independence, but any new plants would be very expensive and no one has solved the problem of nuclear waste disposal.

This leads to the potential of alternative, renewable sources, like solar, wind and ocean wave-produced energy. Though the last is still unproved, it does show promise and is currently being tested in several coastal areas. Wind turbines and solar installations currently require substantial investments, but more efficient systems are being developed and as the market expands, costs will be driven down. Here is where government subsidies, or tax deductions, could play a major role by promoting the development of new technology, creating new jobs and lowering equipment and installation costs.

While solar and wind power are intermittent or not available in all areas, they are providing clean, renewable energy at increasingly competitive prices. Public institutions and corporations have recognized the opportunity to reduce energy costs and are already installing solar panels and wind turbines to replace traditional sources of power. In order to make wind and solar more viable, improved batteries or storage systems need to be developed, as well as more efficient transmission arrangements between these remote sources and the markets where the energy is consumed. To make this happen, cooperation between government agencies and the private sector is crucial.

Wind and solar systems also have the potential to create more jobs than relying on capital-intensive industries like coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power. Since all of these, including ethanol, also require large amounts of water, they increase pressure on an increasingly scare resource, vital to human survival and a major source of conflict throughout the world.

In California, it is estimated that 20% of the energy is used to pump water, mainly to supply the thirst of Central Valley agriculture and Southern California development. Using non-renewable sources seems counterintuitive in sunny California, in as much as the power to move water over mountains increases the state’s energy budget and carbon footprint.

In other parts of the world, however, millions lack potable water, often because of a lack of electricity. Every year more people are displaced because of a lack of potable water than from war and thousands of children die every day from diseases due to tainted water. Wind and solar power, however, have been harnessed in some of these remote areas to pump water from the ground or run water purification and desalination plants.

Solar Doesn't Always Mean Photovoltaics

The sun not only enhances the quality of life by providing electric power for these communities, but in some areas of Latin America, Asia and Africa, solar box cookers have replaced wood or cow dung as fuel for domestic cooking. Thanks to the efforts of various NGOs, these basic devices have slowed deforestation, reduced the time and energy expended in collecting fuel, mainly by women, and decreased the unhealthy fumes they breathe, while improving the nutritional value of food through a gradual cooking process.

Since we are such intensive users of energy, buying more appliances with shorter life spans, living in larger homes, commuting longer distances and consuming goods from distant lands, none of the above will come close to solving our energy problems, especially as our population grows and other countries raise their standard of living.

What we need, therefore, is a comprehensive program that emphasizes conservation, reduces waste, encourages the development of new technologies and builds a new more efficient infrastructure. It is estimated that conservation alone would not only reduce operating costs for homes and businesses, but also eliminate the need to construct any new coal-burning energy plants.

By developing a more efficient energy infrastructure and promoting conservation, we can slow the rate of increase in our energy consumption, and combined with the development of renewable sources of energy, reduce our dependency on imported or native fossil fuels, foster a more stable energy future, create jobs and reduce harmful carbon emissions.

Given the energy costs and the emissions released to transport our food and consumer goods, this national energy policy should also emphasize buying locally, supporting local producers and workers and encouraging community development. Since it is estimated that much of our food travels an average of 1500 miles to reach us, consuming local goods would lower their cost, reduce energy consumption and emissions and support local growers.

Trains, Planes and Automobiles -- Nothing Can Be Left Off the List

Clearly a comprehensive national energy policy must include the development of more efficient and cleaner cars and trucks, as well as more accessible public transit. Even if we manage to produce and sell clean cars running on electricity or bio-fuels, however, urban sprawl and liberal land use policies will continue to foster energy waste, not to mention stress levels and road rage. Currently the focus is on making our vehicles more fuel-efficient, not on redesigning our cities to reduce commute times or lessen the fuels consumed and emissions released.

Green building is catching on, encouraged by government mandates as well as promising reduced energy costs over the lifetime of the structure. But will Americans be willing to accept changes in lifestyles or be willing to invest in more energy efficient, but also more expensive, cars, homes and appliances?
      - DAW



Further to the Question of Highway Speed Limits and Compliance

Our face is red because one of our many alert members pointed out an inaccuracy in our article below ("Something Big We Can Do NOW") on the above subject.
    The article said that drag due to air friction increases according to the square of the ratio of the speed increase. So, a 20% increase in speed increases air drag by 44%. That was correct. What was incorrect was our contention that the power needed to overcome that increased friction, and therefore the fuel consumption, would also be higher by 44%. That was incorrect.
    High school physics tells us that power required is proportionate to speed times force. So power needed to overcome increased air drag varies as the cube of the ratio of speed, making the argument for reducing highway speeds and compliance with them even more compelling.
    Of course, there are other components that determine fuel consumption, like road friction, which depends heavily on weight. So, a 20% increase in speed does not imply that fuel consumption will increase by the cube of 1.2, or 73%, but it does mean that the estimates in the article are probably understated.
    And, it will take a few years for all of us to be driving lighter cars. But today we can start driving our already too-heavy cars a bit more slowly.       - DLA

Something Big We Can Do NOW

Just today I saw in a major daily newspaper an ad for a new (expensive) synthetic oil that Exxon-Mobil claims will reduce engine friction enough to reduce fuel consumption about 1.5%. They point out that this would reduce CO2 emissions by millions of tons and have the equivalent impact of removing 1.5 million cars from the road.

Commendable, for sure. Every bit helps.

But it brought to mind an idea arising from an incident that happened yesterday.

I drove a few miles on our local Interstate Highway, where the speed limit is 65 mph. I was in the right lane, not in a great hurry, driving 65 which increasingly, at least for me, is fast enough. It was unsettling to find that the rest of the cars and trucks were passing in the middle and left lanes at fully 80 or 85 mph, all with virtual impunity. I was almost a hazard to them and to myself by going "only" the speed limit.

As an aeronautical engineer, I understand that aerodynamic drag on a rolling vehicle, not needing to generate lift like an airplane, increases as the square of the ratio of forward speed. So, going 85 versus 65 produces 71% more so-called form and skin friction drag. That means that the power required to push the car along, when more or less constant rolling friction is taken into account, is about 50% more, and of course fuel consumption varies roughly in proportion to power generated, as efficiency stays about the same.

That got me thinking about things that we can do in America to show our willingness and ability to reduce CO2 emission with something we can do today.

We all applaud the progress in solar energy, geothermal power, wind generators, fuel cells, efficient buildings, new PHEV cars, lighter airplanes and so on. But most, if not all, of these offer improvements in the fairly distant future.

Staring us in the face is an opportunity to reduce fossil fuel consumption and carbon emissions almost immediately. We have even done it before (which could be a problem) so we know what to expect.

Obviously, I am talking about reducing and/or enforcing speed limits. It would take significant effort and severe penalties for violations. I envision Federal mandates, for example, and ca. $250 fines for exceeding the limit by more than 10 mph.

Do the math.

After coal for making electricity (which is really not an "energy service" like light, heat or motive power, but is instead a delivery system, like a gasoline tanker truck), transportation, including cars, buses and trucks, is the second largest emitter of CO2. If we merely obeyed the speed limits we could save at least 20% of the fuel we burn in cars and trucks. If we lowered maximum limits to 55, and obeyed them, the results would be even more impressive. In addition:

  • We would save more lives and serious injuries per year than all those suffered in the last five years by our troopers in Iraq.
  • We would almost certainly reduce the cost of petroleum because the drop in demand would be felt worldwide.
  • The impact could be almost immediate, in contrast to so many other programs.
  • We would set an example that the USA is finally getting serious about energy efficiency and fossil fuel emissions.
  • We would restore a sense that laws are on the books to be enforced, not ignored.
  • We would generate significant penalty revenues from those who continue to speed, despite the new rules.
  • Computing an auto's speed by its elapsed time between stations, electronic toll readers could impose fines scaled by excess speed, vastly increasing those penalty revenues beyond what highway police can reel in.
  • The effect of such a program could be ten or even twenty times as important as the Exxon-Mobil synthetic oil.

But almost nobody is talking about it, much less promoting it.

We wonder whether some such program might be a good plank for one of the Presidential contenders. Let us hear whether you agree, and give us some ideas for how to add this to the "national conversation".

      - DLA

Other Reasons to Promote Alternative Energy Sources, NOW

Oil prices are at or near all-time highs. By 2010, we may wish for oil as low as $100. Normal seasonal declines in oil prices did not materialize this year. OPEC just announced it would not be raising production this quarter and Iran announced it would support OPEC's traditional spring cut in production. That combination nearly assures continuance of near term higher prices for oil. Of equal or greater concern, however, is that OPEC may no longer have the reserves it forecasts to sustain higher production, but is hesitant to say so.

How about other indications of energy inflation? Recently, a few South African mines were forced to shut down for a few days due to shortages of electricity. These mines expect to get only 90% of the electricity they need over the next four years. Logically, one could ask why South Africa doesn't simply mine or import more coal and use it to produce the electricity the industry needs. We are repeatedly reminded that coal is abundant throughout the world without the corollary reminder that it is intensely adverse to efforts toward reducing atmospheric CO2 emissions. China no longer has enough coal for its seemingly unbridled expansion. Although coal is abundant in many places, it is not always located at depths or in terrain accessible without expending inordinate amounts of energy or new infrastructure. It may not be long before it takes more energy to mine and transport coal than can be economically extracted from it and transported. This could be the case for oil and natural gas as well.

The problem is not simply a shortage of hydrocarbons. Rather it is where deposits are accessible with an economically efficient expenditure of overall energy. Otherwise, the cost/reward balance shifts and costs start to overwhelm benefit. That is one pending peril that may be nearer at hand than we are led to believe. Reserves a thousand miles off shore should not be counted on as practical. Thus the point is not so much if or when fossil fuel resources are depleted as it is when their recovery and conversion costs become too great for reasonably functioning economies to absorb.

The recent surge in commodity prices is not confined to energy resources because the latter are essential to mining of all metals essential to industry, chemical formulation and producing fertilizers for food crops. As pressures of cost escalation cross pollinate, the prices of most commodities are rising due to scarcity. Even water is not exempt.

This implies that world leaders, and the populations who are still free to influence them, have precious little time to change their ways. Constantly increasing consumption must be anticipated. Unless wastefulness is cut and transformation of solar, wind and wave forces become economically viable soon, emerging poor populations expecting to emulate the quality of life Americans have enjoyed will be frustrated. Wars can erupt between developing nations when their hard-working citizens feel denied fair access to their fair proportion of worldly benefits, and wars are more wasteful of energy resources than peaceful consumption. Everything necessary for the sustenance of modern civilization depends upon an affordable supply of non-polluting energy exceeding demand. Unless that is achieved relatively soon, the prognosis for life to continue as we have become accustomed is not promising.       - RPW

Energy Bill Falls Short

Despite self-congratulatory expressions by congressional leaders and the President, the much acclaimed energy bill falls short in several major aspects. In fact, the final bill reinforces a point made previously on PlanetWatch, that reaching agreement on energy policy given the influence of the automobile companies, the energy industry — including oil, coal and nuclear power — and the public utilities, would be problematic, especially since both political parties receive substantial donations from all of these sectors.

But politics is the art of compromise and the change in public opinion, based on all-time high prices for a barrel of oil and pressure on the economy, apparently persuaded Detroit to lift some of its objections. The most important advance, therefore, is a 40% increase in the CAFE standard by 2020 and its application to the whole fleet, including SUVs and light trucks, thereby removing a giant loophole in the old standard.

Before the enactment of this bill, the average car fleet actually got less mileage than when the original standards were adopted 30 years ago. However, while increasing the average fleet mileage to 35 miles per gallon by 2020, it is estimated that we will be using the same amount of oil in 2020 as in 2007, and we will still be far behind Europe in improving energy efficiency in transportation.

Sacrificing Food for Fuel

While the second improvement provided by the energy bill calls for a major increase in the production of biofuels, or ethanol, it is unrealistic and perhaps counterproductive. Already, thanks to federal subsidies and an increased demand for corn-based ethanol, the price of corn has risen, affecting other sectors of our economy and aggravating food problems in developing countries that import corn and other grains to feed their people. But this is an election year, Iowa is the major corn producer and this energy bill may surpass the subsidies already provided by recent farm legislation.

The cultivation of corn for ethanol also raises issues of draining aquifers, polluting streams with fertilizers and pesticides and the relatively low energy efficiency of corn-based ethanol. Since the legislation includes a stated goal of 36 billion gallons of biofuels by 2022, a fivefold increase in today’s ethanol production, it implies that other fuel stocks will be used, though the technology to convert other stocks is untested and the costs unknown. Moreover, the infrastructure to convert to ethanol as a major fuel source does not exist and will require substantial investment or subsidies.

The third major provision of the energy bill calls for new efficiency standards for appliances and the gradual elimination of the incandescent light bulb.

Notably lacking from the energy bill are provisions for public utilities to derive a certain percentage of their power from renewable sources, a step that California and some other states have already taken. Also, under this “massive energy” bill, not only will no new taxes be imposed on oil companies, their current subsidies will remain untouched. Although there was talk of imposing new taxes on oil and using the revenue to develop new technologies or fuels, it is not in the final energy bill.

Something Completely Different: Bipartisan Support

In spite of the reservations expressed above, the energy bill is a step in the right direction and indicates that there is agreement on the need for reducing our energy dependency, improving air quality and reducing our carbon emissions. It is significant that the bill passed by a large margin in the House and the Senate and therefore has bipartisan support. In view of the less than impressive results from the conference in Bali this past week, perhaps the energy bill deserves celebration.

Although incomplete, it will increase automobile efficiency and reduce emissions temporarily while buying time to develop new technology and fuels. It may also encourage new players as unknown investors or companies enter the market with new, cleaner fuels or more efficient vehicles. Several NGOs have already developed electric prototype cars, combining hybrid technology with plug-in batteries as the major source of power.

In addition, California and other states had already adopted higher fuel efficiency standards than the federal CAFE standards and passed legislation requiring utilities to produce a certain percentage of their electric power from renewable energy sources. Though threatened with suits from the car and energy companies, the courts have upheld the right of California and other states to pass higher standards for cars and public utilities.       - DAW