The past eight presidents, including President Obama, have gone on national television and promised to move America to an energy secure future.  What’s different this time?  Hopefully, the dots are starting to connect.

The on-going BP Oil Spill tragedy has exposed the public to the tremendous risk our existing energy system poses to the waters, land, and air we depend on for our survival, well-being, and way of life.  The majority of voters now support legislation to limit greenhouse gas pollution, as well as policies to reduce oil consumption and greatly increase fuel economy standards.  Perhaps most importantly, we have technologies available to both decrease the consumption of oil and transition to clean energy.  We just need policies, investment, and consumer choice to drive the deployment of those technologies.

Let’s start with petroleum powered engines technology.  Interestingly, six of the top ten most fuel efficient vehicles produced since 1984 were in customers hands by the year 2000.  The 1986 Chevrolet Sprint ER got 48 miles per gallon (mpg), just under the 2010 Toyota Prius Hybrid, which gets 50 mpg.  Twenty four years later, the best we have offers a two mpg improvement.  Does this mean we haven’t made progress?  No.  It means we have not directed progress towards increasing the efficiency of the vehicles we depend on.  We have not had national policies in place to do so.

Significant gains can be made using existing technologies; automakers just need to be put up to the challenge.  This is why the May 19th, 2009 Rose Garden agreement announced by President Obama and the May 21st, 2010 presidential memorandumsigned by the President are so important. By 2016, light duty fuel economy standards will be raised to an industry average of 35.5 mpg, saving 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the life of vehicles sold in the next five years, while mid and heavy duty truck standards will save an additional 500 million barrels of oil over the life of the trucks.  This is the equivalent of more oil than we imported last year from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Mexico, Kuwait, Nigeria, Brazil, Iraq, and Angola combined.

These savings in oil consumption can be achieved using technologies and infrastructure available today.  Tomorrow can provide an even better story, one without oil.

Nissan’s battery-electric, zero tailpipe emissions Leaf is sold out for the year. Tesla already has more than 2,000 orders for its 2012 7-seater, all-electric, 300 mile range Model S.  Hydrogen Fuel-cell electric vehicles (FCEV) are already on the road, and based on auto industry projections, ten of thousands of FCEVs are expected on the road by 2016.  Progress continues to be made toward high-efficiency biofuels made from algae, prairie grass, and ivy.

Both battery and hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles consume no oil,  emit zero tailpipe emissions, and run on energy collected domestically.  Assuming we aggressively de-carbonize our electric grid (using solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal energy sources), future travel can and should produce close to zero emissions and avoid the potential for any oil spills.

We cannot get to this zero emissions future without enacting strong policies that give companies the incentive to develop and implement these zero and low carbon technologies.

The upcoming White House Energy Summit can be an important step towards in this direction.  With strong legislative action, we can set the nation on path to energy self-sufficiency.  As we’ve seen from the past, presidential proclamations do not get us off oil.  It will take a nation devoted to the cause, refusing to let established industry interests dictate our future by demanding a sustainable path forward.

The time for change is now.  Let’s demand it so that our next president will no longer only be talking about getting us off of oil, but reporting the tremendous progress we’ve made toward breaking our oil addiction.  Our waters, land, air, and the people whose livelihoods depend on them will thank us for it.

One of the most beneficial and practical early market introductions of hydrogen fuel is in public transit and Fuel Cell Buses(FCBs). AC Transit’s fleet of FCBs will soon carry passengers powered by hydrogen from two new and improved refueling stations built by Linde North America. These buses have been incorporated into AC Transit’s regular fleet and provide transit for thousands of riders while producing zero tailpipe emissions. The buses offer environmental benefits without sacrificing any traditional performance characteristics, as Jamie Levin, Director of Alternative Fuels Policy at AC Transit said, “We expect this project to prove that hydrogen fuel cell buses can perform as well or better than diesel fueled buses, while reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in excess of 40 percent.”

An important aspect of this project is an innovative technology introduced by Linde at the two refueling stations. According to Linde, the refueling stations will feature a technology called Ionic Compression, which uses less electricity to compress the hydrogen and deliver it to vehicles than other hydrogen fueling stations, and requires less maintenance, by eliminating certain mechanical processes in conventional systems. The technology will be introduced in North America for the first time at the Oakland station and will showcase important performance characteristics such as the ability to refill one of AC Transit’s FCBs in just six minutes.  The stations will also be available to refill hydrogen fuel cell vehicles being produced by automakers such as Honda, GM, Daimler, Hyundai, and Toyota.

This project highlights some critical components of a transitioning transportation sector. First, many alternative technologies, such as fuel cell electric and battery electric vehicles, initially come with costly premiums that an average person simply cannot afford. Along the same lines, many of the most polluting mobile sources (i.e. dirty diesel buses and trucks) that impact air quality and public health are found in economically disadvantaged communities. Fuel cell buses can offer affordable access to clean transportation in all communities, spreading the public health benefit of initially expensive alternative technologies to traditionally disadvantaged communities (through reduced local emissions).

Secondly, a common misconception of alternative vehicle technology is that a sacrifice must be made in an aspect of performance: range, refueling time, or another characteristic. With advancements in refueling technology such as Linde’s, and continuous advancements in vehicle technology, consumers no longer have to sacrifice performance for environmental benefit. As Steven Eckhardt, Linde’s west coast head of Alternative Energy Business Development, said,  “Our fueling system can fill an automobile in three minutes for 300-400 miles of operation.”—Surpassing performance characteristics of most internal combustion engine vehicles.

The expanding Gulf of Mexico oil spill is a blatant reminder of the critical importance of ending our addiction to oil.  As long as we continue to drive our petroleum powered cars, and travel and ship goods in petroleum fueled airplanes, buses, trucks, trains, and ships, we can expect oil spill accidents to occur and wreak havoc on coastal and forest ecosystems.  This New York Times Map shows the estimated extent of the current BP spill.  Not only is it expected to devastate the already compromised  fisheries that fuel many of the local Gulf State economies, the oil will likely enter the loop current, which has the potential to spread the mess up the eastern seaboard.

This is not the first time a major oil spill has occurred.  The New York Times put together a History of Major Oil Spills, started with the 1969 leak of 4.2 million gallons off the shore of Santa Barbara, California.  Is the risk of having these spills, and the countless other small ones, worth it?  On the backdrop of this spill, and the potential for future ones, it should be difficult for anyone to argue that we should continue down the path of oil dependence, especially when viable alternatives exist and/or are being developed. We need to end our dependence on oil.  Period.

We cannot expect to stop global oil consumption in one, five, or even ten years. We can, however, push alternative low carbon fuels and platforms to commercial levels that can ultimately replace oil.  With strong state and federal policy, and enlightened consumer decisions, there is no reason the next generation should have to ever drive a petroleum powered vehicle.  Instead, their first driving experience should be with an electric drive vehicle (either hydrogen fuel cell or battery electric), or biofuel powered combustion engine with state of the art emissions control equipment.

To be clear, these technologies are ready today.  Nissan expects to deploy its 100% Battery Electric Leaf to consumers by December 2010.  According to numbers aggregated by the California Fuel Cell Partnership, 45o Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles (FCV) from various companies will be in customer hands by the end of 2012, with 4,200 FCVs on the road by 2015.  Tesla is already leasing its high performance Battery Electric Roadster, and expects to have its seven seat Model S deployed in 2012.  And these are just examples of what is coming down the road.

Energy Independence Now continues to work with the State of California to ensure that these technologies continue to move forward toward replacing oil.  The implementation of state policies such as the Zero-Emissions Vehicle Mandate, Low Emissions Vehicle Program, the Low-Carbon Fuel Standard, AB 32, Clean Fuels Outlet Regulation, and the Alternative Fuel and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program remains critical to the move to use less oil and transition to new, spill-free (and climate friendly) fuel sources.  Successful development and implementation of these policies is ultimately contingent on public support for ending our addiction to petroleum.  Given the visibility of this recent oil related catastrophe, it is hard to imagine this support waning.

FuelCell Energy has just been awarded a $2.1 million sub-contract from Air Products to provide a fuel cell for a hydrogen fueling station in Fountain Valley, CA. Air Products was awarded the prime contract for the project from the California Air Resources Board in order to demonstrate a renewable hydrogen fueling station. The first large-scale project of its kind will produce roughly 140kg of hydrogen per day from renewable biogas sourced from a wastewater treatment facility using an Air products’ concept that incorporates FuelCell Energy’s DFC-H2 Technology in a hydrogen fueling station. The hydrogen produced from the facility will be available for public use and can also be used in early market fuel cell applications such as backup power and forklifts. Potentially, the facility can produce enough fuel for a fuel cell vehicle fleet of approximately 100 vehicles. The fuel cell will also generate 300 kW of electricity per day, which will be used by the Orange County Sanitation District in its daily operations.

This new facility will demonstrate an important component of the development of the hydrogen infrastructure in California. While hydrogen production from other sources (i.e. steam methane reforming of natural gas) shows a significant savings in GHG emissions on a well-to-wheel basis, hydrogen production sourced from a renewable feedstock is significantly better, and one of the only pathways currently available to curb almost all GHG emissions. This project will demonstrate that such renewable hydrogen can be made in centralized facilities together with electricity generation, an especially attractive option while there are still few fuel cell vehicles around.

If we are to achieve California’s aggressive climate change goals, then renewable hydrogen combined with fuel cell vehicles must be included as part of the solution. The hydrogen fuel produced from this facility will also count towards meeting the goals of SB 1505 legislation, which requires that, in the aggregate, 33% of hydrogen fuel will need to be produced from renewable sources. The legislation will play a vital role in ensuring that renewable hydrogen pathways are included in the roll out of California’s emerging hydrogen infrastructure.

For the official press release from FuelCell Energy please go to:

http://www.globenewswire.com/news.html?d=186376

On December 14th, the National Academies of Science released the pre-publication copy of Transitions to Alternative Technologies – Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles.  The report looks at the expected costs of deploying plug-in electric vehicles (i.e., the Chevy Volt, Toyota Prius Plug-In, etc.).  The general conclusion:  plug-in hybrid costs are likely to remain high, and the benefits are expected to be modest, for decades.  What does this tell us?  It tells us that there is no easy solution to reducing our petroleum dependence. Plug-ins are important, but they will not get us there alone.

According to the report press release, “a portfolio approach toward reducing U.S. dependence on oil is necessary for long-term success.  This should include increasing the fuel efficiency of conventional vehicles and pursuing research, development, and demonstration into alternative strategies, including the use of biofuels, electric vehicles, and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.” Plug-in hybrids are an important bridging technology that will help facilitate the transition to broad adoption of 100% pure electric vehicles.  But we cannot expect them to save the day alone.  We need to pursue every potential non-petroleum solution we have.

The summer of 2008 showed us that at some point, consumers do respond to gas prices.  As prices approached $4/gallon, people started to drive less, take alternative forms of transportation, or just stay home.  Perhaps, then, one of the easiest ways to get people to drive less is to increase the price gasoline (or take away all of its subsidies).  How about a gasoline tax?  This idea is supported by auto industry executives as a way to get Americans to use less gasoline.  They support a gas tax over giving out billions of dollars in loans and guarantees to develop new technologies.

This sounds great at face value.  If the general market demands more efficient technology, we can expect the producers to respond.  However, we cannot stop pursuing and developing the technologies that will get us off oil: hydrogen fuel cells, battery electric technology, and sustainable biofuels.  Taxing gasoline, or having consumers pay for the real cost of oil, will almost certainly lead to efficiency gains within the the internal combustion engine.  The fact that auto executives are calling for it is an incredibly positive step.  We, as a society, need to make sure that such a step would lead us away from oil altogether.