Depends on what your definition of "sustainable" is. Sunlight is sustainable. Electric cars don't reproduce themselves. We mine expensive materials from the Earth, create cars, then toss or recycle the cars when they wear out. I want to drive a Sunlight, Hydrogen or [Nuke-e-lar] kit. (Just joking about the [Nuke-e-lar] rig unless I've got 43 on board with me and he's dressed in his flight suit.) Meanwhile I'll watch with bemusement the stop-gap electrical car fad. Electric cars are neat but they don't go far or fast enough on a charge. Until then I ride my bike to the grocery store and hack the Internet by candle light. Hey, baby, how you doin'?

Higgs boson

I too see "sustainable" as a rather slippery word, but perhaps today we should be somewhat open-minded in our definition. If a technology offers a dramatic reduction in carbon footprint without major down sides, and relies on fuel sources that are abundant and renewable, I'm okay with calling it sustainable. But sustainability, though important, is not the only critical factor.

What I think is a much more important dimension to the energy question pertains to the sources of energy actually tapped, the time frame in which they can be brought to market, and the ubiquity of their presence in the short term. Though we need long-term solutions, focusing on those at the expense of short- and medium-term innovation is utterly foolish.

One of the most common follies I see frequently mentioned is the opening of offshore and other new sources of oil. At the very best, these offer a modest benefit to our energy dependency in the range of one or two decades from now. If we do all we can now and for the next several years, by the time these new wells are producing, we won't even need the oil.

In the last few years there have been several X-prizes offered for various innovations. The highest profile among these was the prize offered for the first commercial space flight, which was won by Paul Allen's team. The prize was only $10 million, but the results were achieved in a surprisingly short time. What's more, if the winners had not succeed when they did, there were others just a step or two behind them who would have. This was not a miracle. It was just a demonstration of the power of highly intelligent and motivated people on a mission.

Another example from the field of space travel was the Apollo missions. In less than a decade we put a man on the moon, and we did it while prosecuting a very expensive war in Viet Nam, and amid great civil unrest. In terms of the burden it placed on our national resources, it was little more than a hobby project.

As to more serious national priorities, we need only look at the way this country responded to the needs brought about by our entry into WWII. We totally reinvented our entire industrial, and to a large extent social, structure in a way that allowed us not only to wage and win wars on two fronts, but to also elevate America to the status of a super power in the bargain.

So there is no lack of evidence of what we can do when we commit ourselves to a high priority goal. We got an energy wakeup call in 1973 with the oil embargo, but we just hit the snooze alarm and kept doing so for another 35 years. Now we are picking up the tab for that extra dozing time. But it is far from too late to start making up for that foolishness.

Imagine the results of creating a set of concerted and serious national priorities devoted to one thing: developing energy alternatives that are devoid of dependency on petroleum and other high-carbon resources, and that can be available for use in the near future as well as having longer-term (sustainable) benefits.

What if we established a $10 million X-prize for a technology that could be retrofitted to existing vehicles, making them dramatically more efficient, and could be ready for market within two years? Or even one year? What if we did the same thing for other goals, like solar, fuel cells, fusion, and others? How about a dozen such prizes? Or a hundred? And if needed, make the prizes $20 million, or even more. And what if we did so with every energy-related priority we have, short-, medium-, and long-term? Compared to what has already been authorized toward the current economic bailouts and stimuli, it is chump change.

What is really required is a sea change in our basic thinking. Instead of looking at what already is and trying to incrementally improve it, we need to look at what we really want and need, and plot a course that will get us there as quickly, cheaply, and effectively as possible. Then establish a structure, such as prizes and tax incentives among others, that will spur the best minds available to buckle down and make it so.

If we do less, then we richly deserve the less pleasant effects we are certain to encounter otherwise.

Doesn't "sustainable" mean sustainable? I don't think we should change the definition to meet our needs. Call electric cars something other than sustainable because they aren't. That's okay. You have truth when you call a thing what it really is.

Don't get too scared by the fear mongering of scientists and the media who are woefully short of being informed of the entire truth. Yes, we should reduce our carbon footprint, but we've got to do many things at once to get there.

Electric cars are relatively unimportant given that we haven't addressed the issue that we Americans use too much energy. Many of the new digital televisions consume more energy than what they replace. In February 2009 a lot of people are going to replace perfectly working analog televisions with digital counterparts and we'll throw away or recycle a lot of valuable resources that we shouldn't be spending the energy to convert in the first place.

Michael Pollan in Defense of Food describes that people are getting less healthy and mentally sicker because we have taken to bad eating from the health, spirit and social perspectives. We eat in our cars as we hurry to get somewhere we've convinced ourselves we need to be. We eat processed foods. We eat things our great grandmothers wouldn't know as food.

Michael suggests we go through the hard work of growing our food or become better informed consumers of food so that we can appreciate what effort is truly required to maintain our personal infrastructures. Basically Michael is saying we need to reconnect to the Earth that nurtures us instead of paving it over to meet our perceived convenience.

What I'm saying is there is a lot we can do before we laud electric cars or any other new technologies as the way out of our energy dilemma. I'm surprised when I realize how many products I can unplug. I don't need the stereo. I don't need the television. If I want to conserve energy and reduce my carbon footprint I need to get serious about it.

There are lots of things I can do without new technology to reduce my footprint in this planet's back side. How much carbon would we remove if we didn't eat so much red meat? Deep down I know I don't need to eat meat to survive. Over time meat has become a convenience more than a necessity. If I want to get serious about being sustainable on this planet I need to make better decisions. I need to replace my lazy action and thinking with a more holistic, mindful and sensitive approach.

Humans must become more sensitive of their impact on Earth and on each other. We can't continue doing what we want to do because our selfish interests have consequences beyond our immediate fulfilment.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti technology, I am anti stupidity. Let's stop reacting and knee jerking by implementing poorly thought out solutions. Let's take a moment and re-evaluate what is really beneficial versus what is not. There is a lot we can do without re-inventing the wheel.

I hope to be walking, riding my bike, and using public transportation in our "green future." It's a massive paradigm shift, but I truly believe that it's time to start planning to give up our cars, whatever sort of fuel they use. It's not difficult to imagine in a city like ours. Giving up your car takes a heck of a commitment, but folks all over the city –– folks with kids and jobs and long commutes –– are doing it with great success. I'm not suggesting that it would be easy to give up our vehicles –– I don't think we have the physical or social infrastructure in place yet to support car-lessness. Yet.

That is what Zipcar is all about. My last car got rid of me in 1999 and I have not owned one of my own since then. But I have access to all kinds of cars, trucks, vans, etc. The longer I go, the less I need a vehicle of my own, but there is just no other way to pick up a yard of compost, or pick up someone at the airport at 2am. And there are always those times that you need it.

I am a bike commuter so I like this idea, however as Emily noted, not everybody lives in an urban area where cycling is a reality. If we assume that not everybody is going to cycle or take public transportation, then we need alternative methods to power vehicles.

My second dictum as Car Czar:

I would promote the manufacture of my ideal car/truck.  My new "Ideal" auto is a plug-in electric car/truck.  This is an all electric plug-in light weight vehicle - along with an accessory of a trailer that is a diesel generator.  The generator can either be a "rental" or a purchased trailer, depending on the owners use of the vehicle.  

That way, if you want to go on a vacation or visit your relatives that live more than the range of the batteries (and charging stations), you can hitch on the trailer and let it generate the electricity needed to power the batteries of the car.  Rentals much like U-Haul trailers can be created so that you “rent” the generator trailers from charging stations. When not being trailed along with the car, it would be housed in a weather/security shelter, and plugged into the house to act as a back up to the grid for the house.  Cool or what?!?  

You'd lessen the weight of the car by having the engine & generator as a variable - included only when needed, and then by being trailed.  The generator would also serve double duty, acting as a back up for the house.  Also... as we develop "smart grids" that can monitor and draw from local home generated power, these "trailer power" generators could be automatically started and furnish electricity for the grid when needed.  This would lessen the demand for new power generators and level the creation of electricity.  

Separate parts and standard connection specs on the trailer facilitates the ability to then later shift the engine part of the trailer power to any other form of power. Developement will continue with Natural Gas, High Efficiency Gasoline, Hydrogen, etc, but still maintain the value of the generator and parts without replacement.  One of the best ways to be green is to maintain assets and oppose obsolescence!  

One of the many valuable aspects of this type of power is the level power demand of the engine - constant velocity.  Engineers are thus able to design and manufacture efficient engines that are sized to the power need without having to oversize for the maximum power as auto engines are currently needed.  Currently Diesel is the most economical engine to fit that profile, but this model would allow invention by a large market of power trailers.  

I like this idea. Since the trailer is connected to the electric car's computer, it can have its own braking system, controlled by the car. It could have an oversized battery pack to optimize braking energy recovery. If you're just going to see Grandma, you use the standard trailer generator. If you're helping Grandma move, you rent a big trailer generator. And if you're going to the quarry for a load of gravel, you rent the reeeally big trailer, which has its own auxiliary propulsion system, again tied into the car's computer system.

As suggested, the trailer could also become part of the power grid, which would make the grid more robust- fewer chances for a disabling single point failure. The linemen would probably want a way to tell all the generators to disconnect from the grid at a certain time to allow for safe maintenance in emergencies.

Of course, the downside is that everyone has to learn to parallel park a trailer...

I think electric cars are an important potential medium- to short-term solution to develop. But I consider it an intermediate solution. The reason I think it’s intermediate is that no matter what solution is developed for the current infrastructure, I’m not very inspired to support it. It’s tough to get excited about spending large sums of money to participate in a mode of transportation that can be so slow, inefficient and frustrating - and getting more that way every year. If I could see a way for that trend reversing, I might get more enthusiastic. Unfortunately, I don’t.

So for now, I ride my bike to work a good portion of the year - and it takes me about the same amount of time as driving - sometimes less. My wife and I haven’t bought a new car in many years and we plan to keep our current ones running as long as possible.

I would be much more excited in participating in the development of ‘the next big thing’ in transportation - a long-term solution. Because, ultimately, the current mode and infrastructure will reach a point where it will no longer work as a viable or desirable solution. I just happen to already be at the point where it’s not that desirable any more.

I’m sure that’s not what your guests John Viera and Mark Perry would like to hear. I certainly have great respect for the design, technology, and manufacturing skills that go into each of their company’s products. I don’t know how anyone can sit in a new Ford or Nissan and not be impressed with what they have accomplished. I just wish it was heading down a different road, um, or track - I mean, direction.

T. Boone Pickens had it right when he said that Detroit should build more cars that could run on compressed natural gas. Every vehicle fueled by natural gas can run on hydrogen and most every vehicle on the road today can be retrofit to be fueled by compressed natural gas. For about $25,000 a compressed natural gas car can be bought off the self from Honda.

T. Boone has bought a company called Fuelmaker. Fuelmaker manufactures two appliances: one takes natural gas from the gas line into ones house and compresses it to the point that it is dense enough to fuel a compressed natural gas vehicle; the other takes water, splits it into oxygen and hydrogen, compresses the hydrogen to 5,000 pounds per square inch, and puts that into a tank. Tanks that hold 10,000 pounds per square inch stand up to everything but the AK- 47 test. The Honda should have a range of about 150 miles on that and if one needs to go further, it will run on gasoline too.

T. Boone has sunk billions into wind energy. He has the sustainable power to produce and process hydrogen from water. You can too if you put solar panels on your roof.

Because there is no carbon or sulfur in hydrogen, an internal combustion engine fueled by hydrogen will have crankcase oil that will never have to be changed, just topped off. The filter will have to be changed.

The dominant environmental problem of a hydrogen internal combustion process is that at temperatures above 700 degrees Celsius, atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen combine to form nitrous oxides, which are greenhouse gases. This problem can be controlled.

I have heard it said that a fleet of electric cars is impossible because there aren’t enough copper resources to manufacture it. The State of Oregon should be covering its’ garages with Energy Conversion Devices’ solar roofing and fueling the Compressed Natural Gas vehicles it already has off of Hydrogen.

All of the pieces are in place that we can do this and maybe a more efficient hydrogen vehicle will evolve out of it, perhaps based on the Axial Vector internal combustion engine. Let’s keep it simple.


Link to Fuelmaker: http://www...Refueling/

Link to Energy Conversion Devices: http://www.ovonic.com/

Link to Axial Vector: http://www.axialvectorengine.com/

Sustainable Auto Industry is by any definition an oxymoron. Electric cars may reduce the use of fossil fuels, but in such a limited degree that it will not matter. The bigger issue needs to be a discussion about sustainable transportation, and highways are the least sustainable, economically and environmentally, of any transportation infrastructure. Electric cars, which will not pay gas taxes, will not reduce congestion, improve safety, or reduce the need for the hugely expensive highway system. More importantly, electric cars do nothing to reduce the huge fuel consumption of big trucks. Unfortunately, we have an economy that depends heavily on road construction--rather than construction of schools, parks , hospitals or other things we really need. Note that the Governor may be talking about "green cars," but he plans to put even more money into our obsolete highway system.
The real reason that the federal government has not pushed for more efficient autos is because the federal government, just like Oregon, depends on gas taxes to pay for highways. More efficient cars mean less money for highways, but as along as we all think we have to drive our own cars, rather than investing in public transportation and moving freight more efficiently, we will still need roads, and don't forget, asphalt is a petroleum product.

The following website, http://zeropollutionmotors.us/, promotes a car that runs on compressed air at lower speeds and uses fossil fuels at higher speeds. It recharges via a regular electrical outlet in 4 hours or in 3 minutes via a special filling station. The engine was developed by Frenchman Guy Negre. Compressed air seems to be greener than battery powered cars as it would not have the issues with mining lithium and then the disposal of spent batteries. To me this vehicle is one of the most exciting alternatives yet.
Please see the following is info from the above website:
At Lower Speeds: Since the Compressed Air Vehicle is running exclusively on compressed air, it emits only air - zero pollution. The air expelled from the tail pipe is actually cleaner than the air used to fill the tank. This is because before compression, the air is run through carbon filters to eliminate dirt, dust, humidity, and other urban air impurities that could hamper the engine’s performance.

At Higher Speeds: At speeds over 35mph the Compressed Air Vehicle uses small amounts of fuel–either gasoline, propane, ethanol or bio fuels–to heat air inside a heating chamber as it enters the engine. This process produces emissions of only 0.141lbs of CO2 per mile. That is up to 4 times less than the average vehicle and more than two times less than the cleanest vehicle available today.

You folks may have noticed that the comma in the above URL disables the link. You can read general info here:
http://zeropollutionmotors.us

And see a few explanatory videos here:
http://zer...page_id=46

Being a retired automotive engineer, previously employed by a local truck manufacturer, I have enough experience and education to feel comfortable with my opinions, although I have to admit I HAVEN'T done the math on this compressed air car.

I checked out the ZPM site, specifically, http://zer...age_id=64. It's basically horsepucky- the diagram on that page is meaningless. It's the graphical equivalent of, "Well, stuff goes in here, and other stuff comes out here, and, well, everything really works good." I've worked w/ pneumatic equipment and I know that compressors are very inefficient, air motors are very inefficient and big high pressure air tanks are very heavy, and to work in this application, would have to be very well insulated. Not really a recipe for efficiency, safety or zero pollution.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to defend American automotive engineers, although not necessarily their employers. Believe it or not, we're not all a bunch of craven, bought-off, dull, uneducated idiots. Turn us loose and we can do wonders, just like the Japanese, Indian, German and Chinese automotive engineers. Unfortunately, management has often asked American engineers to focus on heated cupholders, power sliding doors and various Hummer wannabes. And in the opinion of many knowledgeable people, we have created many cars that are world class in quality, durability, low pollution, styling- you name it.

To quote the engineers who designed GM's EV1, ya gotta realize this IS rocket science- Ronald Reagan already answered all the easy questions- we're left with the hard ones now. It's not easy to design a car that's less polluting than the ones we have now and no one- I repeat, NO ONE- is going to do it in her garage. Do people really not believe that Toyota, Nissan, Honda, and VW are in a battle to the death? Do they not understand that every auto company on the planet is fighting for its life? And, of course, that, mostly because of mismanagement and foolish government policy, US companies are losing that battle?

Hear, hear!

Here's an interesting video from OPB's Field Guide about an Oregon man who made a record-breaking electric drag racer out of an old Datsun:
http://www...rag-Racing

The full story page is here:
http://www...g%2Bracing

thank you for posting this, people really need to see this, it's Awesome!!!!

Anyone who has been to Europe will see many vehicles that we cannot purchase here. Over 50% of new cars sold in Europe have high-mileage diesel engines. Even BMW's and Volvo's are available with turbo diesels that get great mileage and have plenty of power. But we cannot buy them here.
I drive a VW Jetta with a turbo diesel and get up to 50 mpg. using bio-diesel. Volkswagen is still the only company selling small diesel powered cars in the US. Ford and GM make diesel powered cars in Europe, why don't they import them?
We also power our nursery tractors and delivery van with bio-diesel.
I believe that Americans would like the option to buy small, diesel powered cars that get great mileage. That would save us money and reduce our carbon footprint, especially if using bio-diesel.
Best of all would be a diesel, plug-in hybrid!

I've been hearing good things about the compressed air engine. Zero pollution,good power and acceptable speeds and distances. India, France and Australia already have working models in progress, why not here?

I second your question. Why are they not exploring this technology? They are getting over 100 miles to a fill up in France ans Spain in taxis. It takes less than three min. to fill the tanks at a station. Why are we not making the change at the pumps here, we will never have change if we don't start at the pump. Don't believe anyone posting here saying they are an expert on air pressure, and defending the auto industry.

We should not bail them out. No one bailed out the timber industries in the 80's, or the steel industries.

The guy from Ford had ready made "talking points" saying that we need to buy new cars to get the older higher carbon producing cars off the road is Hog wash. We should as one of the callers said, stop making cars. Start fixing and retro-fitting the existing cars.
Thank for your post.

I second your question. Why are they not exploring this technology? They are getting over 100 miles to a fill up in France ans Spain in taxis. It takes less than three min. to fill the tanks at a station. Why are we not making the change at the pumps here, we will never have change if we don't start at the pump. Don't believe anyone posting here saying they are an expert on air pressure, and defending the auto industry.

We should not bail them out. No one bailed out the timber industries in the 80's, or the steel industries.

The guy from Ford had ready made "talking points" saying that we need to buy new cars to get the older higher carbon producing cars off the road is Hog wash. We should as one of the callers said, stop making cars. Start fixing and retro-fitting the existing cars.
Thank for your post.

I think that the answer to your question is American auto industries are more intrested in making money and they are too intrested in making bigger trucks that use more gas when the core of the problem is we need to get rid of gas-powered cars.