Since the invention of jet powered commercial passenger aircraft, the airlines have been our main stay for long distance travel and will probably remain so for some time especially for international travel. As part of the energy and climate issues we need to revamp our mass transportation system just like we need to do with our energy system overall. We need to diversify.

At any given time we have roughly 5000 commercial aircraft in the skies over the this country. With the rising cost of petroleum based jet fuel and our concerns about climate change and pollution in general and the limitations on airport expansions this mode of transportation is as I fear becoming a real problem. The demand for mass transit travel will only grow and I don't believe the airline industry can economically handle this problem. First there is the cost of the aircraft themselves.

Then there is the cost of operating the airports, lets take Los Angeles International for example. 

The cost of operation for the fiscal year of 2008 is $557 million dollars. LAX is expected to bring in $639 million for a gross profit of $82 million however that does not include required reserve funds or funds dedicated to special projects. The overall budget for the Los Angeles World Airports which include LAX, Ontario, Van Nuys and Palmdale airports is 3.2 billion dollars with an income of $775 million from LAX, Ontario and Van Nuys airports.

The industry is looking hard at ways of fueling aircraft with alternative fuels.

Please don't get me wrong, I am not saying that airlines and airports are bad, I just think that we may need to spread the load a little in regards to domestic travel. Again, with the increased cost of fossil fuels we need to rethink everything that runs on it. We have to rethink our modes of mass transportation.

This in itself is a great alternative for domestic travel. may other countries are far ahead of us in this reliable and relatively inexpensive mode of high speed mass rail transportation. Have a look at Europe for example. The following is a map showing the rail infrastructure through out Europe including high speed trains.

High-speed lines in Europe.      320–350 km/h        300 km/h        250–280 km/h        200–230 km/h

Here is the United States Amtrak Rail Map

No high speed rail.

Many cities have small local rail lines if the form of subways, elevated trains and standard short train lines. These systems in many places need to be improved, lines added and made more efficient. Hydrogen powered trains have a very promising future for freight and local passenger service. On a national scale we need high speed trains either in the form of high speed rail lines or better yet Mag Lev trains.

High Speed Rail is widely used in Europe and Japan. These trains travel as speeds exceeding 200 mph. This is a fast, comfortable, reliable and cost efficient form of transportation. The systems in place there are highly successful, perhaps we should learn from them for a change, there is much they can teach us.

It would cost about 125 billion dollars to build a coast to coast high speed rail line. Not much when you consider we spend 12.5 billion a month in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mag Lev trains would be better in the long run but much more expensive to build. Mag Lev Trains are safer, faster and cost far less to maintain and operate.

California is planning a 800 mile high speed train line connecting San Diego, Los Angeles and San Francisco. At a cost of $40 billion and a projected $1 billion in annual revenue surplus it would pay for its self within 40 years. Click image to enlarge

This proposed high speed rail system would serve more than 32 million passengers per year by 2020. Because the rail will be powered by electricity, and because of the efficiency of moving up to 1,200 people per train, CO2 emissions may be reduced by 12 billion pounds per year by 2020, and 18 billion pounds by 2030. If you have ever been stuck in gridlock trying to get to work between Orange County and LA, or between San Jose and San Francisco, you will appreciate that the high-speed rail would add the equivalent of a 12-lane superhighway. 

To build a 12 lane super highway would cost about the same as the rail line, take up at least 6 times more land, cost considerably more to maintain, would add millions of tons of CO2 and not turn a profit. Not to mention that it would be virtually impossible to build in the cities. The rail system create nearly 160,000 construction-related jobs and 450,000 new permanent jobs. As the populations grow in these urban areas and with the freeway systems to capacity now the answer is trains. There simply is no more room to build any more freeways and to do so would be just that much more destructive to the environment.

Express high-speed trains will take one hour and fifteen minutes between San Diego and Los Angeles, and a little over two and one-half hours from San Francisco to Los Angeles. To drive from LA to SF takes at least 8 hours if you don't stop for lunch and perhaps bend speed laws a bit and cost $100.00 (one way) in gas if your car gets 20 MPG. If you were to fly it would cost based on he best deal today on Travelocity.com $156.00 round trip and take at least 6 hours. The estimated one way cost on the high speed rail line would be $55.00 and take 2 hours and 53 minutes.

There is a study taking place now for a proposed high speed Mag Lev train running from Disneyland in Anaheim to Las Vegas. At speeds up to 300 MPH the trip would take less then two hours.

Links

California High Speed Rail (state site)

California High Speed Rail (cleantech)

Back in the late 1800's, early 1900's when cars were in their infancy the first cars both in the US and in Europe did not run on gasoline, they ran on electricity and bio-fuels such as bio-diesel, alcohol and ethanol. It is ironic that we have now come full circle right back to where we started and it is very exciting. We will always need oil, just no longer as the primary source to fuel our vehicles. Oil has had its day in the automotive sun, time to bid it farewell.

Alternatives, take your pick.

Lets take these one at a time...

This is by far the best and quickest way to relieve our addiction to foreign oil. Ethanol is already in our gasoline but in a far smaller percentage then E-85. E-85 is 85% Ethanol 15% gasoline.

Corn Ethanol vs. Cellulosic Ethanol.

Conventional ethanol and cellulosic ethanol are the same product, but are produced utilizing different feedstock's and processes. Conventional ethanol is derived from grains such as corn and wheat or soybeans. Corn, the predominant feedstock, is converted to ethanol in either a dry or wet milling process. In dry milling operations, liquefied corn starch is produced by heating corn meal with water and enzymes. A second enzyme converts the liquefied starch to sugars, which are fermented by yeast into ethanol and carbon dioxide. Wet milling operations separate the fiber, germ (oil), and protein from the starch before it is fermented into ethanol.

Switch grass yields 5 times more energy then it requires to process. Corn requires an equal amount of energy then it produces. Corn is a major food staple. The argument that corn ethanol could affect the price of food in general has some teeth. However with a very viable energy source such as switch grass that will grow in many areas that corn wont the solution is obvious.

With this technology ( along with others ) we can reasonably do away with our need for foreign oil and no longer have the need to open new areas such as Anwr, allow off coastal drilling and strip mining for oil shale. This country uses 400,000,000 gallons of petroleum based fuel every day. 1 barrel of oil produces 20 gallons of gas so we use 20,000,000 barrels of oil a day. We produce domestically roughly 1.9 billion barrels of oil per year, that equals 5.2 million barrels of oil per day which yields just over 100 million gallons of gas, approximately 25% of what we use. With plug-in hybrid and electric car technology along with others we should be able to lower need for fuel by at least 25% within 5 years. So now were using 300 million gallons a day, 100 million coming from domestic oil supplies and the rest, well it can be grown (switch grass) in an area of roughly 210 square miles. This does not include cellulosic ethanol made from other sources such as agricultural plant wastes, corn stover, cereal straws, sugarcane bagasse, plant wastes from industrial processes, sawdust, paper pulp.  Bagasse is the biomass remaining after sugarcane or sorghum stalks are crushed to extract their juice.

We force all automobile manufactures that sell vehicles in this country that use a petroleum based fuel to build them as flex fuel vehicles, a vehicle that will run on gasoline or E-85 Ethanol, diesel or bio-diesel within two years. The changes required to make a flex fuel vehicle are very minimal and would not greatly affect the sales price. Every gas station in this country carries three grades of gasoline, replace one of them with E-85. Any car built since 1996 can easily be converted to flex fuel, for more on this see SWITCH GRASS FOR Cellulosic E-85 ETHANOL.

For more information on ethanol conversion go to: Flex Fuels US

Done

I realize that these numbers are not exact but they are close enough. I realize what a huge effort this would be. I firmly believe that with an Apollo type program or a "Manhattan Project" effort in 5 years we can do away with the need for foreign oil imports which is in my opinion the biggest threat to our national security, dramatically reduce our carbon output and create hundreds of thousands of jobs right here in this country for a change. Its all about clean, its all about green and there are no more excuses.

In 1839, the first fuel cell was conceived by Sir William Robert Grove, a Welsh judge, inventor and physicist. He mixed hydrogen and oxygen in the presence of an electrolyte, and produced electricity and water. The invention, which later became known as a fuel cell, didn't produce enough electricity to be useful.

A hydrogen fuel cell uses hydrogen, produces electricity and its only byproduct is water, clear clean water.

Hydrogen fuel cells started their road to coming of age with the Apollo space program. 

The current problem for HFC's is cost and infrastructure. The future of this technology is incredible and goes beyond the automotive application. Several auto manufacturers are building HFC vehicles on an experimental basis and are just now making them available to a select public audience. Honda is leasing these vehicles in California where there are only three hydrogen stations in the Los Angeles area. The Honda FCX Clarity will lease for three years at $600.00 a month, again, much higher a cost then most can afford but considerably less then the estimated 1 million dollar cost for a fuel cell vehicle just a few years ago.

Hears what's out there currently

BMW

Mercedes Benz

Mercedes Benz is working on the B class F-cell vehicle, a true hydrogen cell vehicle.

General Motors

Honda

Honda has a vehicle out this year, it is the 2008 FCX Clarity. It is being offered in California and available in a lease only.

Hyundai

Toyota

Toyota has a version of their Highlander converted to a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle but is more focused on marketing their 100+ MPG plug in hybrid Prius being released this year.

Ford Motor Company

Hydrogen fuel cell technology has a very bright future. Some would argue with the technology where it is today and its application tomorrow, why would we invest in a biofuel strategy such as switch grass ethanol, here's why, read on.

Experiments are currently underway to make hydrogen from cellulosic ethanol. The by product from this process is Supercritical Carbon Dioxide, AKA SCCO2. SCCO2 can be used in some industrial processes as a solvent, or in certain processes it can react with some simple industrial waste products to make a form of carbonate mineral. This process makes a high quality form of pre-cast concrete. It can be used to make concrete block, concrete bricks, pre-cast stone or structural members. The process could sequester a couple of pounds of CO2 in every concrete block made with the process. 

With this process of making hydrogen from ethanol a stand alone station that pumps ethanol can also generate hydrogen on site, make ice and water their plants at the same time. So grow it, drive it and build it.

Yes they do. I am not talking about the need for air that every internal combustion engine requires, I am talking about cars tat run entirely on compressed air, a very exciting technology.

The concept of a pneumatic engine, one that runs on compressed air has been around since 1838 by Frenchmen Andraud and Tessie of Motay. A car ran on a test track at Chaillot on the 9th July 1840, and worked well, but the idea was not pursued further.

Along comes 2008, MDI enterprises in France has developed a car that runs on compressed air that has been very successful.  

More than ten years of research and development in the field of Compressed Air Technology (CAT) has yielded CATs Type-41 engines of two categories. The Mono-Energy engines, which can drive a vehicle “completely clean” with “zero pollution”, operating in urban areas using compressed air only. Whereas, the Dual-Energy engines, using supplementary energy source of minimum quantity of either fossil fuels (petrol, diesel or LPG) or biofuels (vegetable oil, alcohol, biodiesel or even gas), producing ultra-low level of pollution, in non-urban or rural areas, require :

- Less than 2 litres per 100 kilometres (over 140 miles per gallon) in non-urban areas.
- Zero Nitrogen Oxides.
- Three to 4000 times less un-burnt hydrocarbon than a conventional car engine.
- Three times less Carbon Dioxide emission than a conventional car engine of same      power.

Tata, India's largest auto manufacturer is gearing up to build and sell these cars in India.

In the US, a company called Zero Pollution Motors will be taking orders for the Air Car in 2009 for delivery in 2010. This will be a compressed air hybrid, at speeds under 35 MPH it will run on just air, at speeds over the car uses fuel to heat the air for better performance. Overall the car will get in excess of 100 MPG and its emissions will be four times less then the average car.

ZPM are estimating that the a six-seater will cost approximately $17,800.

For more information go to: Zero Pollution Motors

Engineair Research and Development in Australia is working on a very efficient alternative to the piston compressed air engine in the form of a rotary compressed air engine.

The Di Pietro motor concept is based on a rotary piston. Different from existing rotary engines, the Di Pietro motor uses a simple cylindrical rotary piston (shaft driver) which rolls, without any friction, inside the cylindrical stator. The space between stator and rotor is divided in 6 expansion chambers by pivoting dividers. These dividers follow the motion of the shaft driver as it rolls around the stator wall. The motor shown is effectively a 6 cylinder expansion motor.

Variation of performance parameters of the motor is easily achieved by varying the time during which the air is allowed to enter the chamber: A longer air inlet period allows more air to flow into the chamber and therefore results in more torque. A shorter inlet period will limit the air supply and allows the air in the chamber to perform expansion work at a much higher efficiency. In this way compressed air (energy) consumption can be exchanged for higher torque and power output depending on the requirements of the application.

Motor speed and torque are simply controlled by throttling the amount or pressure of air into the motor. The Di Pietro motor gives instant torque at zero RPM and can be precisely controlled to give soft start and acceleration control.

For more information go to: Engineair Research and Development

These are the best known of the "newer" technologies out there. Electric is not new, in fact some of the very first cars built were electric. An electric car is of course one that runs on electricity. A hybrid is one that runs on electricity and a conventional internal combustion engine. A Hybrid runs on the internal combustion engine until it needs assistance from the electric motor or visa versa. The electric motor also doubles as a generator when it is coasting. Some hybrid vehicles such as the Toyota Prius and the Honda Civic get 35+ MPG up to 50 MPG, others such as the Ford Escape SUV gets less then 35 MPG which is still good but not great. 

Then again others such as the GMC Yukon and its sister the Chevrolet Tahoe which get only 21 MPG city and 22 MPG highway. The standard versions of there trucks get 14 MPG city and 20 MPG highway. When you average these numbers out you end up with a average mileage increase of only 2 to 4 MPG. Not really worth the additional cost of over $12,000.00 for the hybrid version. This vehicle is by definition a true hybrid however, the whole idea behind hybrids is to greatly increase fuel economy and reduce emissions and this thing is an insult to my intelligence and that of the general public. I don't know what they were thinking. I had a GMC dealership tell me that they don't want any on their lot, It does make sense however coming from the same company that killed the EV1 program in the 2003. 

In 1996 General Motors introduced the EV1 as a very limited lease only vehicle available  in Southern California as a pilot program. The EV1 was a sporty two seater all electric vehicle. 660 were built. These first EV1's were powered by lead\acid batteries. In 2000 GM released the EV1 Second Generation which used nickel metal hydride batteries making it much more efficient.

In late 2003, GM officially canceled the EV1 program.  Despite unfulfilled waiting lists and positive feedback from the lessees, GM stated that it could not sell enough of the cars to make the EV1 profitable. In fact, during the later stages of development for the car, GM officials claimed that they stood no chance of ever making a profit on the EV1 itself.  So instead of keeping the cars and allowing the currently built cars to be sold the company elected to shred all of these cars after numerous promises to reuse the cars.

The end came when GM decided it was cheaper to sue the State of California to roll back clean vehicle regulations than it was to build electric vehicles. How's that for corporate civic responsibility. They recalled all the cars and crushed them. The bottom line is the EV1 was a very successful program, it proved that electric cars could work. The people that drove them loved the cars and fought to keep them. If you are interested in the whole story, and it is one that everyone should know about, I highly recommend seeing the documentary "Who killed the electric car". This film is available most everywhere on DVD.

There are many newer independent manufacturers of electric cars these days and some of the major manufacturers are gearing up for their versions of electric cars. Since I trashed General Motors over their Yukon and Tahoe, I will talk about their car first, the Chevy Volt.

The Volt uses an electric motor fed from batteries for the first 40 miles then a three cylinder generator steps in to power the car and charge the batteries . The Volt is a series hybrid design, it uses what's called a E-Flex System where the electric motor does all the propulsion work aided by the engine which generates electricity to power the electric motor.

The engine is flex fuel capable.

Unlike most vehicles, this one starts out well and as you drive the fuel economy drops. The first 40 miles are all electric. If you drive 60 miles and the generator runs you get 150 MPG, if you drive 200 miles that drops to 50 MPG which is still fairly good when you average the MPG over all. The range is very impressive at 600+ miles. The Volt can be plugged into any 110 volt outlet for charging. The volt is slated for a 2010 model year release. This is a good technology, I just hope they will improve upon it. US auto manufacturers tend to be very complacent and fearful of change.

Here is a list of some electric cars that are available now.

Zenn Motors — Zenn NEV (Neighborhood Electric Vehicle) As with some other available electric vehicles currently available, this vehicle is strictly for short ranges and slow speeds. Fuel type: All-electric Price: $12K - $15K Range / top speed: 35 miles / 25mph Funding: This company is publicly traded on the TSX. Release date: Available now

Tesla Motors — The Roadster The most-publicized, most-hyped electric car company around. Tesla’s high-performance electric vehicle is reportedly a blast to drive, but various production problems have set the release date back. Fuel type: All-electric Price: $98K Range / top speed: 221 miles / 125mph Funding: Backed by Bay Area Equity Fund, Compass Venture Partners, Draper Fisher Jurvetson, Technology Partners, VantagePoint Cleantech Partners, and VantagePoint Venture Partners, as well as various angel investors (including Elon Musk). Release date: First quarter 2008

Think — City A pre-existing company whose older cars are still driven in Norway, this European manufacturer will release its new model in Europe this year, and in the United States a year or two after. Business 2.0 had an extensive story on the company. Fuel type: All-electric Price: $34K in Norway, $15K - $17K in US (projected) Range / top speed: 112 miles / 62mph Funding: Backed by DFJ Element, British Hazel Capital, Canica, Capricorn Investment Group, CG Holding, RockPort Capital Partners and Wintergreen Advisers, as well as various angels. Release date: First half 2008 in Europe, but not until 2009 or later in the US

Phoenix Motorcars — Sport Utility Truck / SUV No cars here, just trucks and SUVs. The company will have an extended-range battery option for 250 miles later in 2008. Fuel type: All-electric Price: $45K Range / top speed: 130 miles / 95mph Release date: Mid-2008

Universal Electric Vehicles — Spyder UEV’s Spyder has a sporty design, but the company itself doesn’t seem as slick and polished as some of the competitors. We’re not sure whether that means anything, though. Fuel type: All-electric Price: $70K Range / top speed: 150 miles / 100+mph Release date: 2008 (month TBA)

Aptera — Typ-1e / Type-1h The Aptera Typ-1 is a three-wheeler (two front, one back) available in two configurations. We’ve covered the vehicle here. Fuel type: All-electric or hybrid, depending on configuration Price: $27K electric, $30K hybrid Range / top speed: 120 miles electric, 600 miles hybrid; top speed TBA Funding: Backed by Idealab and an angel investor, the CEO of Esenjay Petroleum, Michael Johnson. Release date: Late 2008

Obvio — 828e Sold in the United States by Zap, the diminutive but high-powered Obvio could almost race a Tesla. It’s designed and manufactured by a Brazilian company that is also working on a cheap combustion engine version. Fuel type: All-electric Price: $49k Range / top speed: 240 miles / 120 mph Release date: Late 2008 or early 2009

Miles Electric Vehicles — XS500 Founded in 2004, this company already makes and sells two low-speed electric vehicles which are manufactured in China. We chose to list details for its upcoming highway-speed model, which should have a mass market appeal, if the price is low enough. Fuel type: All-electric Price: TBA Range / top speed: 120 miles / 80mph Release date: 2009 (month TBA)

Venture Vehicles — Venture One e50 / Q100 / EV We previously suggested that some might call this vehicle a “glorified scooter.” Far from it. The three models listed are actually one car with different configurations. Fuel type: Two hybrids, the e50 and Q100, and the all-electric EV Price: $20K - 25K Range / top speed: e50, Q100 and EV respectively: 350 miles / 100mph; 300 miles / 120mph; 120 miles / 75mph Backing: Backed by NGEN Partners. Release date: Second quarter 2009

Smith Vehicles Electric truck line.

Electric vehicles are not the answer by themselves. Like this countries power grid, it will take a well rounded system of different alternative energy technologies. With electric, plug-in hybrids, serial hybrids, compressed air, biofuels and hydrogen we can stop the need for imported oil and greatly reduce our need for domestic oil. We will not have the need to drill off the coasts and certainly will not need to strip mine for oil shale or consider any other major damage to the environment. The impact of all this, new jobs, new businesses, much more affordable green fuels and a much cleaner world.

At one point in history, ships all over the world were the definition of green, at least in how they were powered. Sailing ships were of course powered 100% by wind energy. Unfortunately, that is where most of the "green" ends.  Back in the day there were no regulations in regards to throwing trash overboard and we all know about the devastation of unregulated whaling.

With a few small and unacceptable exceptions, those problems do not, or should not exist today. Lets just stick to energy. Most ships today are powered by diesel, some using that energy directly as propulsion and some use it to generate electricity for electric motors for propulsion. The "hybrid" diesel electric systems are more efficient the the direct drive systems. If these systems could be retrofitted to run on bio-diesel they would become considerably more efficient and far less polluting, however realistically that is really just a pipe dream. 

Where the focus needs to be in regards to this sector of the transportation industry is a change in future shipping such as bio-diesel, wind and even solar systems. When it comes to shipping, wind is pretty much self explanatory, here is where we come full circle. A wind bio-diesel hybrid ship could use considerably lees fuel by utilizing wind power just like the old sail and steam powered hybrid ships did toward the end of the 19th century. Of course with the limited use of bio-diesel there would be far less pollution. You can even include solar power in the equation to make then even more efficient. Then there is the use of LNG (liquefied natural gas) which is much cleaner burning the regular diesel and don't forget the promise of Hydrogen and hydrogen fuel cells. Here are some examples.

AquaSailor - The concept involves a series of supertankers using unique Solar Wing sails with solar cell array technology which reduces fuel consumption and emissions by nearly 50% on the voyages compared to the conventional tanker of this size and hydrodynamic characteristics.

Fuel consumption can be reduced by 10 to 15% with the use of computer controlled sky sales that pull the ship.

Smaller ships can be powered by solar sails. This technology is being used currently in Australia with great results and is coming to the US in 2009.