No bush just knows as gm and ford do that all us cars will be madeoutside the us by 2020. So it realy doesnt matter what he stands next to.

Bush has shown great leadership on energy issues going back to his time as governor of Texas. One of the first accomplishments as president was the NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY, May 2005. On 9/11, hearings were being held on energy in the Senate. Energy was always a top priority.

Bush has been blamed by liberals for the California energy crisis, failure to ratify Kyoto, and the decision to move forward on Yucca Mountain. Bush was not president until 2001. Arsenic drinking water standards, forest health, mercury are other issues pushed forward by Bush.

Recently Bush has gave a speech at a renewable energy conference, toured a wood fired plant, and a nuke plant.

Also, DOE is not building nuclear weapons. If fact, chemical and nuclear bombs are being destroyed. Approximately, 10% of US electric power comes from soviet era weapons material. Two reactors in the US are fueled uranium from Savanna River. One US reactor is testing burning plutonium (MOX). These programs predate Bush but he has been citied for those budget items.

Wayne,

You and I know that Prius owners are not smug, it's just a perception that has been perpetuated in the US media. I was quite shocked when I first read this tag as I don't think it's prevalent in other countries other than perhaps to some degree in the UK. If you were into conspiracy theories...

Ain't it sweet to see "The DECIDER" (GWB) actually getting in
a photo op with a PHEV car. Plug-in hybrids and all electric
vehicles will add a breath of fresh air to our urban centers,
but it will take alot more to get "W" to stand next to a
windmill or solar farm in support of a sustaianable power
grid. The increase in GHG will still climb torward the dreaded
550ppm while we drive around in our "feel good" cars with our Support the Troops bumper stickers.

If this administration could get the automotive industry, as a
whole, to get on board with graduated CAFE incentives to curb total carbon emmisions, progress would be expedited. Not only
would cars get cleaner, the power grid would be enhanced to
provide domestic generating solutions without playing into the
hands of foreign cartels and theit manipulating strategies. Our
foreign policy issues would be more focused and possibly more
benevolent. One could only hope that we could keep our addiction
to oil closer to home and hopefully those that defend us as well. The Big Three had better get off this "Stay The Course"
bandwagon wile the getting is still relatively good.

Ain't it sweet to see "The DECIDER" (GWB) actually getting in
a photo op with a PHEV car. Plug-in hybrids and all electric
vehicles will add a breath of fresh air to our urban centers,
but it will take alot more to get "W" to stand next to a
windmill or solar farm in support of a sustaianable power
grid. The increase in GHG will still climb torward the dreaded
550ppm while we drive around in our "feel good" cars with our Support the Troops bumper stickers.

If this administration could get the automotive industry, as a
whole, to get on board with graduated CAFE incentives to curb total carbon emmisions, progress would be expedited. Not only
would cars get cleaner, the power grid would be enhanced to
provide domestic generating solutions without playing into the
hands of foreign cartels and theit manipulating strategies. Our
foreign policy issues would be more focused and possibly more
benevolent. One could only hope that we could keep our addiction
to oil closer to home and hopefully those that defend us as well. The Big Three had better get off this "Stay The Course"
bandwagon wile the getting is still relatively good.

I think it means that Bush does listen.James Woolsey {setamericafree.org}the cia director under Clinton has been preaching plugin hybrids fueled with E-85 as one way to become energy independent.He is posing with the tech that is already being demonstrated and cheerleading the next wave{cellulosic} as talk show peeps I hear laugh at him for talking about woodchips and switchgrass.
As for war mongering;I can accept your venom as a valid position if you include Truman, Johnson and mebbe throw lincoln in as mongers also.

Well, there may good reason to be skeptical of claims about HEVs. Maybe you can provide an unbiased source of info to suggest giving rich people a tax breaks is good national policy.

Viva Bush for promoting these alternative energy platforms. Now, congress needs to pass AGGRESSIVE, PROGRESSIVE bills to spur alternative/renewable energy development unlike anything we have ever seen. BUT, they probably won't - because the left wing hates Bush so much, many moderate dems in congress now won't do much to work with him and risk looking like Bush sympathizers. Real reform will likely have to wait until the next president, no doubt a democrat, will get elected.

The silver lining to this is that the companies that gain a strong foothold now will be stronger later on because they will know that they don't even need the government to help. Those that rely on government help will be a lot less competitive.

You go for it Stan. I am all for faith based politics, and you obviously have faith in W. Me, I believe he is an opportunist with good press agents. Anybody (any President of the US) can get a photo op, but I don't see any action. He mouthed hydrogen when that was in the news, put a man on Mars when the Martian rover made news, support the troops when he wants war. But is there policy behind any of these -- no just budget cuts. The Walter Reed Hospital story is a metaphor for the Bush administration. All talk, no action. All hat, no horse.

I am glad to see the photo op. Some of his followers might be confused enough to believe he supports fuel economy and act on that. That would be a good thing. Or maybe I am wrong and the leopard has changed his spots. After all, even a blind squirrel will find a nut once in a while.

Actualy Bush has always supported fuel economy just remember cars arnt all about fuel economy ay more then tvs are all about just showing something you can see. The car indistry also has a large leasure and sports side and is a major entertainment industry too. Just because you might think a car is just to get from a to b as cheaply and efficently as possible doesnt mean its true.

Bush cant push too hard or he pushes up against one of those uses and that he cant do alone or even with a fair group of congress behind him.

That by the by is one of the reasons for h2 and now ev. To fulfill all the things cars do now not just going from a to b. And thats why bish is now keen on batteries.. only now can batteries REALY cover all the functions.

Kit P. writes: Maybe you can provide an unbiased source of info to suggest giving rich people a tax breaks is good national policy.

Well I'll be damned. Kit, you're finally talking sense. Giving tax breaks to rich people is NOT good national policy.
Let's start by getting rid of the $25,000 gift to buyers of giant SUVs who use them in a "business".

For me this event has only one useful meaning. Altair’s technology is verified by White House advisers as not being scum “pump-and-dump” scheme. Their technology is real. Period.

If next gen batteries are deployed will cafe even be relevant?If GWB can help get us to electrification of auto industry would he not have done much more than inching up cafe?
Repubs carry the water of the big 3 and dems were in the pocket of the UAW,so who sold us out?Dems delayed the Bush energy policy that has sparked much of the rush to renewables.This renewable wave was delayed five years by partisan{dont give the other side credit for anything}politics.After he was reelected they couldnt justify any more delay.
It is my hope that gcc posters can aspire to a more mature and productive discourse than the left right WWF steel cage match politics seen on the airwaves and in Washington.Lets manipulate the pols rather than allow them to manipulate us into left right tin hat invective.
I write to dems and repubs who push independent and green tech.I lean a little aharder toward independence because I have three children in the military.I believe we are warming and that we are contributing to the warming.Is it all man made?What pct man made?Can such questions be asked without being accused of heresy?What caused the mini ice age{1300-1800 approx}?I think the common interests of greens and independencers can be nourished and exploited for the good of all.Lets work it.

Hi Allen, I may be confused but I think the DOD advanced research budget is about 150 Million out of a 400 billion annual spending program. Just to replace the Tomahawk's used in Iraq will require about 400 million or about 3 times as much as the total DARPA budget, of which only a small fraction goes to battery research. What we need is domestic battery production facilities.

We could build wind farms to generate about 10% of our total current electrical consumption, and we could build nukes to generate 50% of our total current electrical consumption, and we could power our plug-in hybrids without emitting green house gases. But instead we have photo ops on the white house lawn.

Rumor has it that the 2009 Prius will have a 3 KWH lithium ion battery, but the battery will not be manufactured in America. Thus we are simply moving in the direction of trading dependence on foreign oil to dependence on foreign production of batteries.

When I was young we had a saying, Hey, Hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today. We could replace it today with "Hey Hey NIMBYS, how many GHG reduction efforts have you blocked today."

EJ, you will be happy to learn that your “AGGRESSIVE, PROGRESSIVE bill” was passed in 2005. The 2005 energy bill is over 1100 pages long. Pick your favorite emerging technologies and write down what you would want government to do to promote. Chances are that you will find it in this bill.

Earl,

You make some excellent points. Global warming and energy independence should not be made into political wedge issues. There should be no party line on policy preferences. Personally I favor:

1) Build new, better and safer nuclear power plants; keep the cost of electric power down to keep the economy strong.
2) Raise the tax on gasoline to encourage conservation; use the revenue to phase out the AMT, with some increase in the EITC to help people at the bottom end of the income scale.
3) Drill for oil off the Florida and California coasts and in ANWR.
4) Tax carbon to stop the ludicrous expansion of coal (our current energy policy).
5) Eliminate the E85 loophole and the tax credit for large SUVs used by businesses; phase out the ethanol subsidy over 10-15 years.
6) Raise CAFE standards a lot more than Bush has proposed.
7) Eliminate the import tax on ethanol; ban imports from countries that decimate rain forests to produce fuel.

Numbers 1 and 3 are straight from the Republican playbook. Numbers 4, 5, and 6 are supported by many, if not most, Democrats. No serious political candidates are talking about numbers 2 and 7 (narrow constituencies benefit greatly from the status quo -- auto industry and UAW from low gasoline prices, farmers and the ethanol industry from the subsidies and import taxes).

Somebody hates every single one of these policies. I've alienated everyone, and couldn't get elected as dog catcher. Can you tell which party I belong to?

Both sides will have to compromise to ever get an energy policy that reduces GHG and energy dependence.

The suv tax break was not a break for the richit was a keep the uaw alive program. Uf not for it ford and gm would have cut thier domestic workforce much farther much sooner and the uaw would have toppled.

Did anyone read the transcript of the panel discussion at Novozymes?
If you read one document on alcohol from cellulose, read this one:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/02/print/20070222-5.html

I found the views of the scientists & businessmen very informative
regarding the progress thats been made
and the prospects for biofuels.

Thomas Nagy, Novozymes president:
The research we do in cellulosic ethanol right now is the biggest research of what we have in the company, where more than a hundred researchers around the globe work on solving the issues ahead of us. What we have been able to do since 2000 until we reported it in 2005, on a grant provided to us from Department of Energy, is to reduce the cost of conversion by a factor of 30.

Kevin Wenger, manager of the NC alcohol R&D group:
I'm very optimistic, but also I can see how the 20-in-10 goal is very achievable.
If you look at what's happening now,
what's been happening with corn ethanol over the last five years
and the developments that are coming in terms of implementation of cellulosic,
it's really amazing.
Things are really starting to happen.

Mike Pacheo of NREL:
I agree with Kevin, your 20-in-10 goal is very achievable.
But we have to begin the transition to use a broader base of fuels.
Two years ago we issued a study with USDA, two agencies together, that showed that the U.S. could produce enough raw biomass that's equivalent to about 60 percent of all the oil that we use in the United States. The problem is that most of that biomass is not an easy material to convert.

One of the challenges when we started this project between NREL and Novozymes was that no one in the world really felt like enzymes could be a cost-effective technology in producing ethanol from raw material. Today all the leading researchers in the world are working in that area because of the partnerships and because of the progress that Kevin has already talked about.

But we're not there yet. And while I'm optimistic, like Kevin, there's still a lot of hard work left to do, Mr. President.
And we have work in the pre-treatment area, we have work still to do in the enzymatic hydrolysis, and we still have research in the fermentation side.
And so DOE right now is considering proposals to work with industry in the area of developing fermentation organisms, which is a really important part because the yeast, the bugs today that we use to make ethanol won't work in the future with these new feedstocks. So it's really important that we start this transition.

Ratna Sharma Biological engineer:
There is a lot of potential like switchgrass, which grows in marginal lands.
And we have, like you mentioned, a big swine industry in North Carolina.
So the advantage is we could possibly put the two together,
use animal waste as a nutrient source to grow the switchgrass
and then convert it into ethanol
so you're getting energy from waste.

Ryan Adolphson, University of Georgia:
We're looking into the concept of a bio refinery, and really taking a little bit bigger picture view, stepping back, not looking only at ethanol, but counting ethanol as a significant piece to the puzzle, but looking at all the other products that can be generated from bio mass.
You know, similar to a petroleum refinery that takes a barrel of crude
and doesn't just make diesel and gasoline, but 50, 60 other products.

So we're looking at our wood chips as that barrel of crude, taking that,
and turning it into a larger profit stream than just a single product,
and we believe that's going to drive the economics --
One product we have left is the carbon that's left over.
We're able to look at that as a soil amendment and take that carbon
without releasing it into the atmosphere and put it back into the ground.
I like to say, we're not there yet, but we can see it from here.

Terry Ruse Chief Operating Officer for Agri-Ethanol:
I've been able to develop a really flexible project in that we have a design to start out as a corn plant to process corn.
We were building 11,000 foot of track -- big loop track to be able to bring corn in by rail and take ethanol back out.

In the center of that loop track, we've engineered the ability to handle wood chips. We've got all that in place. We have a CO2 company that will process the CO2, anything -- any of the CO2 that doesn't go to that direction to make food grade liquid carbon dioxide will be directed into hydroponic gardening or into growing algae to support an adjacent biodiesel plant. Now we have the real estate to put one of those on.
Each one of these plants will produce about 400,000 tons a year of highly digestible, high protein feed to help the hog farmers get over their heart pain of high corn.
And the one last piece of our project is that we intend to build a green truck stop on each one of these sites that sells biodiesel, E10 and E85.

I'm reposting because I fear the significance of Phoenix/Altair's claim is getting lost in the political squabbling:

The Phoenix/Altair battery claim:

1) Top speed 95mph--all electric
2) Range 135 miles--all electric
3) Recharge time--10 minutes with 440 electric
4) Battery life--12 years. Actually 15ooo cycles inhouse labtest with 85% capacity left at the end.

This boils the claim down to the essence. So why isn't this the premier format for development in the industry? Basically this is IT. We just need a real manufacturer to buy ALTI and hammer down manufacturing costs for IT.

About the photo-op. It could have been a GM Precept, or a Chrysler ESX-3, or a Ford Prodigy, but no, it's a Toyota. Kudos to Toyota (and Honda) for following through, shame on Detroit and Washington.

Sure is a lotta hatred being thrown around on this site.

Bush brings on a bleeding edge car company utilizing latest battery tecnology and all people can do is bash him with political ideology?

There's much to be done. The President knows that. He gives the weight of his office to these projects. GM & Ford are now scrambling to catch up. Certainly I want him to do more, but I don't hate him. Continue to write your Congress and the Whitehouse. I did and it makes a difference. And one does not have to hate to do it.

Democrats take oil and car money as well.

War-mongering? How many have been to Russia? Belarus?

Try Russia invading Afghanistan for no purpose at all. Russia invading all of Eastern Europe. Try going to Poland, Estonia, Czech Republic and ask those people what true war-mongering and oppression is. Ask yourself why these nationes joined us in our fight. Why is Polan in Iraq? We've been at war with Saddam since his invasion of Kuwait. There were multiple reasons for invasion, least of which is that he broke all agreements of the original treaty. We're fighting a war on terror all over the world. Al Qaeda sends suicide bombers and trained foreign fighters into Iraq every day. They understand they cannot lose Iraq. It is time we understand we cannot afford Iraq to go back to tyranny.

Our soldiers are freeing people in Iraq, 12 million who voted for freedom. Millions who have been under oppression all their lives are for the first time experiencing a free media, freedom of speech(like blogs and forums like this). They're learning how to be free and not depend upon their government like sheep. They're also not begin brainwashed to hate America, the West and Israel. Our nation stands for good, it is rebuilding a nation torn apart for over 35 years by a meglomaniac and tyrant who taught millions how to hate. The Iraqis are pulling together now, both Sunni and Shia against the onslaught of foreign terrorist entering their country from Iran, Syria and other countries like Sudan.

They're learning for the first time that Americans are good people, protecting them from terrorist, and now they're getting as angry at the terrorist as we are.

Lets stand by our troops, stop making this political and believe in our nation.

America is not the enemy.

We can all do more, but lets first stop blaming ourselves and remember that there are soldiers who volunteered after 9/11 to fight in Afghanistan and there are thousands who reenlisted for Iraq. None of this is simple and we all need to come together during a time of war. If we succeed in Iraq, we will make friends for life in the Iraqis, just like those in Europe.

Good for Phoenix and great news about progress on alternative fuels. I think having the President involved can only be good news for these companies and the universities.

Michael,

OMG! With such jingoistic over-the-top propagandistic nonsense, either you are on the WH payroll, part of a CIA or DOD psyops team, or simply watch Fox "News" 7 days / week and have been brainwashed beyond belief. I cant believe anyone, with even the most cursory review of the facts, can believe what you are saying. Unbelievable!

Kit P,

The EPA produced a study of the US output of GHGs by sector of the economy, documented on these pages.

Everything that you wanted in your 7 point program has been implemented. This has led to the increase of GDP by 55% for a 16% increase in the CO2 equivalent release, in the 17 years since 1990.

That is better than all the Kyoto signatories except for Russia, who just recently signed since it cost nothing. Russia's GDP has declined by an enormous percentage, after the socialist make work was factored out. Using two out of three people to spy on each other, issue and check neighborhood, and city, and regional passports, and man the secret police, kept everybody employed, but provided little real economic output.

Please note that US industrial sector alone, of all of the sectors, has actually seen its GHG emissions increase and then decline to essentially its 1990 GHG emissions, that are/were the Kyoto targets.

So our industrial sector has increased GDP by 55% and hasn't increased its GHG at all since 1990. That sector includes electric generation from all those "evil coal plants", and in spite of an essential moratorium on new nuclear generation. Little or nothing came from the renewables save hydro electricity from Churchill Falls.

That progress did not come from just Republicans or just Democrats, or just moving jobs overseas (that movement reduces and is not part of our GDP). Both political parties, rhetoric aside, helped.

The increase in the US GHG emissions came from population increase; and the demand to heat and cool and provide mobility for the larger number of households and people.

Unlike any of the developed world, the US is one of the few to have large scale immigration, legal or illegal, so our population increases as our replacement birthrate is below zero, like the rest of the developed world.

Europe and Japanese populations are plummeting, yet their GHG emissions are all increasing much more than the USA.

Why?

I maintain that the socialist approach chosen by Europe is very inefficient as a method to do anything; including reduce GHGs if you should want to accomplish that.

But some regulation is certainly useful, and government can act as a spotlight and promote certain actions while discouraging others.

Our land water and air is much better off than it was in 1970 when the EPA and the first Earth Day occurred.

The entire USA airmass is complaint with the original 1970 targets, and vast majority of locations have met the revised and tightened targets; and the re-revised and re-re-tightened targets as well.

The US has substantially been re-forested. Did you know that more land is parkland today than all the acreage of the original thirteen colonies? It is true. Our water and rivers are incomparably cleaner.

Thankfully that cleanup job is almost done; and it was accomplished by both Republicans and Democrats.

Some body actually accused the Republicans of cutting CAFÉ. We all know that CAFÉ has never been lowered, so it is something that never happened, so it must be characteristic of Bush hatred dementia.

Actual CAFÉ has been raised, as the standards have been toughened by instituting more realistic measures of fuel economy. The testing rules, have been toughened and implemented. Many complain that EPA mileage figures are still "unrealistic"; but it's much more realistic, fully 10% city and -20% highway tougher, than it used to be, nonetheless. Oh, and the gigantic SUV "work truck" loophole has gone away, too.

Stan, it's great that US GHG emissions per unit of GDP have decreased, unfortunately the atmosphere doesn't recognise such 'successes' and CO2 concentrations keep going up. There have been mitigating factors in Russia's case but the US may have also benefited from a declining manufacturing base. The dirty industries are mostly now in China, see steelmaking as an example.

I agree that Kyoto hasn't exactly been an outstanding success but it is a huge undertaking with no precedent to draw on. It shouldn't be thrown out without allowing for some time for fine tuning.This is a global problem and ultimately requires a global solution if equity is to be preserved.The EU bureacracy and vested interests have to take some of the blame for the average record of Kyoto.

The US does have a great record with clean air regulation but we're all waiting to see meaningful, across the board, cuts in emissions.

Stan, I agree with most of your points except I think you might have confused me with JamesEE who also has good points. Polly also presented some good stuff.

IMO, Bush is very results orientated with energy policy. He is willing to support new ideas and at the same time is realistic about playing the cards we have. There are reasons not much coal is used in California, France, or Japan. Coal must be imported. While California has more electoral votes, West Virginia is also part of the US. It is just as important to improve the use of coal as anything else.