END production of fossil fuel-burning cars within TEN YEARS

Ridiculous!! Ignorance to the level that is discribed in this blog will not solve the energy problem or global warming. Put a windmill in your own front yard before you start having the government forcing it on everyone else.

yes, electric cars work. I drive one. Its too bad no gas station will let me plug it in, its too bad that auto makers refuse to sell us cars that don't need lifetime parts, fluids and service. They'ed rather sell hummers and Escalades. Good electric motors never wear out.

Um, gas stations have to pay for electricity too. Electric cars aren't free to build, run, or maintain. And the practical bugs aren't out yet.

First of all, batteries are an inefficient way of generating power. The batteries in those dual fuel cars are inefficient and, at the end of their five year life, non disposable. Second, raising corn to create fuel takes more energy than using fossil fuels directly. Third, Americans are all reluctant to walk or ride bikes. Fourth, we dismantled the rail system instead of making it more flexible and increasing its service because we are so centered on individual transportation.

1) Batteries don't generate power, they store it. Yes, current battery technology is insufficient to support an electric car revolution, but this is why we need real, sustained investment in this type of technology. New types of NiMH batteries show a lot of promise, but need more research to improve efficiency. The government has an important role in supporting this R&D, but has been little more than a cheerleader for Chevron for eight years.

2) Agreed, ethanol is a sham concocted by Big Oil, and not a true energy option.

3) Americans don't walk or ride bikes because our communities were designed around automobiles. Understanding that we can't rebuild all of our communities overnight, we need options that work alongside our automotive reliance, not against it. Electric cars are the ONLY realistic option. Not a perfect one, but the best hope we have.

Maybe generating was a less than perfect word choice and I should have written supplying. A battery powered car has its energy supplied by batteries.

As for communities being designed around automobiles, that is just another statement of the shirking of responsibility. Leadership begins with me. So, if I begin walking as much as I can -- and I have -- then I will lead by example.

Now, let's work on dialing down thermostats.

Also, I don't really understand the gas station argument. Gas stations will continue to make money whether the fuel they cell is petroleum or electricity - they will continue to upcharge consumers the same way they do now. The only thing that's missing is a charging technology which will fuel a car with electricity as quickly as one can with gasoline - right now with the best technology it takes approx. 2-3 hours to give an electric car a full charge. Yes, the "practical bugs" haven't been worked out yet, but this is NOT a reason to not pursue an energy alternative. When Kennedy pledged we'd go to the moon in 1961, all the "practical bugs" of space travel hadn't been worked out yet either... that didn't prevent us from doing it, and shouldn't prevent us from pursuing an end to burning gasoline, either.

But NASA did it in an incredibly wasteful fashion, as all government programs tend to do.

The cheap and easy way to do it is to come up with the performance specifications we want- "It can do whatever a Ford Escort can do, within the Ford's size and cost limits, on less than one gallon of fossil fuel per hundred miles." Or whatever.

Then set up a billion dollar prize for designing it. I know lefties hate to empower the private sector to do what it does best, and that this idea won't create any new government patronage. But if you want a hundred mile a gallon Escort, that will get you one.

And yes, everybody wearing a sweater will save lots and lots of energy right now. As would turning off the lights when we aren't using them. If we wanted to, we would. We as a country don't care about saving energy. I think that's stupid, but it's still true.

It isn't stupidity necessarily that keeps people from wearing sweaters and walking, it is a misguided sense of individualism.
The notion of sacrifice, of slight personal discomfort in the name of the greater good or simply in the name of one's own future, is a dirty word. Saving energy is fine as long as it is not done by me. The measure of a man in the sense of adult needs to be renewed to include not taking more than one is entitled to. The problem really is that sense of entitlement.

When my daughter was born 30 years ago, parents temporarily set their thermostats to 65, dialing back to 60 when their babies reached 11 pounds. When I moved to this house in the late summer, several people said to me that the size of the house and the new gas furnace I installed meant I could live comfortably, none of the "60 degree stuff."

A temperature much higher than 60 is not healthy. At 68 degrees, artificial heat dries out the sinus passages, creating an opening for upper respiratory infections. However, as I have only a single part-time job, I set my thermostat to 54. 60 degrees is the highest I would ever set it. I currently dial up to 58 when I bathe.

I agree with you, staghounds - if we are going to be saved, the private sector will need to do the heavy lifting. But, we need government to provide the spark - a prize type scenario like you envision would be a great start, but either way, this is going to require a sustained commitment at the Federal level, or nothing is going to get done. There are trillions of dollars to be made in alternative energy, it just requires a paradigm shift to get us there, and only the next President can provide that impetus.

I think we can all agree that we should turn our thermostats down and wear sweaters and install compact flourescent lightbulbs. But altogether that's a drop in the bucket, and none of it will matter when the oil and coal run out. To really change the world, we need to tackle both the demand AND supply ends of the problem. The eventual solutions will need to be compatible with a typical American's way of life - asking me to walk or bike to work, when I live 20 miles from my office, isn't a practical solution, and if anything, just addressing the demand side is a huge distraction, when we need to solve the supply problem first.

Can't get much innovation by command. But you sure can inspire it.

And I believe it IS stupid to pay a higher electric bill than to wear a sweater.

Hey I would love to walk and ride bikes, but unfortunately I live in Phx, az ( now German occupied france) where it gets 120 degrees in June and July, not to mention it is 100s of miles square and the dust ( with spores in it) and the pollution is so bad that all you will do is suck all that in, the population doubled while I was in SF, Ca in the last decade. The utility companies are building another power plant that WE are paying for and AGAIN the energy is going to Nevada, like the Nuclear plant they built in the late 70s powers Ca, they do NOT want to give up all their trillions, becaue Air conditioning in the valley of the sun is their ticket! Electric cars huh? Can they be affordable?? I mean there are so MANY issues in this state, like all the snow bird, retired republicans moving here and trying to put ALL our youth in prison, because they do NOT contribute much to the state. They have literally ruined my families home since 1800 and we are sick of all these wanna-be cowboys and then their families have moved here, because their states are depressed, because of the traitors sending all our jobs out. Bring back american manufacturing and convert to CLEAN energies and fuels NOW! What about the car that runs on water? These cavemen that have infiltrated the people's government with monies that banks and corporations stole from the new american slaves plan to leave us all here while they go to Mars with OUR trillions on the shuttle WE build! It is a joke! they are a joke and If there is a bike with air conditioning hey, cause 3 sun strokes is enough for me. But u can try it! Sf, has electric buses and they run every 8 minutes, In fact having a car there is a nightmare! Trains and electric, from solar And if I can put a windmill in MY yard I will! Oh and that politician from Texas saying americans have to come to "Terms" that their high paying jobs are gone??? (get the rope)!!!

The Innovative designs ALREADY exist. Watch Eco Tech on the Science Channel. What we need for the government to do is to put a cap on any more Internal Combustible Engines being produced and percentage of electric cars being ADDED to the sales floor. We need to catch up to where we WOULD have been if the CARB hadn't been forced to buckle.

Soon I'll learn to "You Tube" keep an eye out, search for my screen name aicram62 or Eco Tech and I'll show you. These inventions mean JOBS for Americans
space age, computer sge, environmental age!!!
come to the ZEV Independence from Oil Rally

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/zev-independence-day-rally
Thanks

Look, all this debate is fantastic and necessary.

However it always perplexes me as to why steam powered cars are never mentioned as a viable alternative to gasoline. My cynical perspective is that the oil companies back in the 1920's bought the patents to steam cars and crushed the prospects of it becoming a rival. However:
1) Steam is very, very powerful. You can have almost instant pressure and a continual surge of power, without the need for power draining gearboxes. Over ONE THIRD of the gasoline used for internal combustion engines is wasted before it gets to the wheels, which is very inefficient. Steam does not have this problem.
2) FORGET the idea of belching steam engines. The steam can be reused and not released. Simple high school science can tell you how!
3) Steam engines can be run on a minimal amount of water with technology improvements and recycling the steam
4) NO POLLUTION
5) The water can be heated within seconds to start the car through electricity, which is stored in a similar battery to what current cars have.
6) It is much safer than gasoline, hydrogen and nuclear.

It does make logical sense to include steam in a debate about renewable energy. I'm just perplexed as to why nobody has jumped on board with it. Perhaps we are all just scared of those oil companies and too afraid to change.