Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Electric Cars Are the Key to Energy Independence

By David Morris, AlterNet. Posted August 2, 2008.


Renewables won't give us energy independence unless that electricity is used as a substitute for oil in our transportation system.
Advertisement

Al Gore's heroic speech challenging us to make our electrical system 100 percent renewable promised it would simultaneously address three major crises: the weak economy, catastrophic climate change and the dire national security problems inherent in our dependence on imported oil.

He got two out of three right. A crash renewable electricity initiative would provide an immediate boost to our economy and could slow climate change, since electricity accounts for about a third of our overall greenhouse gas emissions.

But it would do little to enhance our national security.

Oil generates only 3 percent of our electricity. Therefore a 100 percent renewable electricity system does little to reduce our oil dependency -- unless that electricity is used to substitute for oil in our transportation system.

Al Gore knows this. In other venues he has mentioned electrified vehicles. But he needs to make electrifying our transportation the central element in his 10-year plan, for at least two reasons.

One is that it is an initiative that would prove far more compelling to the vast majority of Americans. Climate change is abstract, and the strategies to resolve it are remote. Our relationship to our vehicles, on the other hand, is both concrete and visceral. We desperately want to get off oil, especially when gasoline prices rise to $4 per gallon.

But it is more than a pocketbook issue for many of us; it is a moral issue. Americans hate being dependent for our mobility, and therefore for our livelihoods, on countries often hostile to our way of life. Electric cars promise to end that dependency.

And as a bonus, with rooftop solar cells, we can become independent not only from OPEC but from remote and often unresponsive utility companies. We can become energy producers as well as energy consumers.

And then there is the plain fact that once significant numbers of electric vehicles are on the roads, word of mouth will be a powerful marketing tool. The reason? As Marc Geller, a longtime advocate of electric vehicles, told me a year ago as we were traveling up Route 1 in Northern California in his all-electric small SUV, "Anyone who drives an electric car falls in love with an electric car." That love affair will be aided and abetted by a population eager to embrace a homegrown fuel and vehicles that offer quicker propulsion, a quiet drive and zero tailpipe emissions.

There is another persuasive reason for Gore to focus on an electrified transportation system: It is simply physically impossible to convert our entire electricity system to renewables in 10 years, but it is possible to convert our entire ground transportation system to renewable electricity within a similar time frame. That would require a national mobilization, to be sure, but it can be done.

Converting our electric system fully to renewables would require us to shut down about 80 percent of our current electricity-generating capacity, much of it low-cost, already paid off and capable of generating electricity for another 25 years or more. Moreover, to reach very high penetration rates of renewable electricity would require that we overcome the principal shortcoming of wind and sunlight: intermittency.

To electrify our transportation system, on the other hand, we could displace rather than shut down the existing system, and we would be replacing a physical stock with a relatively short life expectancy. Given the average seven-year life expectancy of existing vehicles and the high probability that we would offer an incentive for owners of older gasoline-powered vehicles to trade them in, new electric vehicles could constitute the entire fleet within a decade, and that doesn't take into account the potential for conversions of existing vehicles.

Powering 100 percent of our transportation system would require about 30 percent of the electricity generated in 2006. With a massive effort, using a combination of solar and wind power, we could generate about that much electricity by 2020.

The fact that we can even contemplate the rapid electrification of transportation is a testament to 20 years of grassroots activism at the local and state level. The enactment by Congress of a renewable electricity tax incentive in 1992 was important, but the wind energy industry did not take off until states began to mandate renewable electricity. Today more than 25 states boast such mandates. A recent report put together by a task force of California leaders urges the state to double its renewable electricity mandate to 50 percent by 2020.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: energy, hybrid, electric cars, plug-in hybrid

David Morris is vice president of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance. His report on the future of transportation, "Driving Our Way to Energy Independence," was published in April. He is also the author of Self-Reliant Cities (Sierra Club Books, 1982).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Outstanding Article ... EVs Are Our Only Hope ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Aug 2, 2008 12:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And why ? For several reasons.

First because we are facing Peak Oil. Crude Oil will only get geometrically more expensive as the world begins depletion and supplies stagnate then relentlessly shrink even as world demand accelerates. Our economy will crash with ever higher prices for fuel.

Second because it is the only way to salvage our suburbs. EVs are cheaper to produce, to maintain and to fuel allowing suburbanites affordability that will keep them in place and rescue what would become great ghettos and vast abandoned housing tracts. We don't have the room in our cities for everyone to move back in. Eventually, over time much more environmentally efficient housing will happen but we can't do it all at once.

Third because it will reduce pollution dramatically. Even electricity from coal is cleaner than burning gas and diesel.

Fourth for national security. We are now dependent on unstable countries and long supply lines to get 60% of our crude oil.

A great article everyone should read and get others to read. We must move to EVs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And the Bad News ... The Internal Combustion Engine will be saved at any cost ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Aug 2, 2008 1:07 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The jobs and taxes the internal combustion engine creates would have to be replaced with higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy. As long as they keep this mode of trasportation going it will be buffer for their money machine.

The problem is the battery electric car is cheaper to buy (-50%), cheaper to maintain (-90%) and cheaper to fuel (-60%). And there is the problem, fewer parts and less asssembly means lots fewer workers to tax, far less profit from parts suppliers and carmakers to tax. Then there are the gas and sales taxes, Federal , State and local that would evaporate. Banks and car companies would lose all that loan interest from cheaper models. Gas Stations would disappear. Car repair work, smog certificates and tire shops would all be cut way back. Car Insurance would have to go down as prices went down along with speed limits causing fewer accidents and fewer injuries. Where's the money for the roads to come from?

The internal combustion engine is a tax revenue machine.

Where do you go to raise the tax money to suport the War Machine, the Homeland Security Honeypot and the Healthcare Hegemoney? Who does that leave to tax? Them that has the Money!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yes, let's save the cars Posted by: Cherenkovrad
Gore DID advocate electric cars!
Posted by: jhecht on Aug 2, 2008 2:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I quote verbatim from Gore's speech, challenging us to eliminate carbon based fuels in 10 years:

"We could further increase the value and efficiency of a Unified National Grid by helping our struggling auto giants switch to the manufacture of plug-in electric cars. An electric vehicle fleet would sharply reduce the cost of driving a car, reduce pollution, and increase the flexibility of our electricity grid."

Why didn't the author point this out?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The rest of the story
Posted by: Rod on Aug 2, 2008 4:21 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Solar cells wear out, they degrade from sunlight, like to 50% efficiency is 20 years or less. Solar cells can be damaged by storms.

Batteries wear out. Lithium has a high density and a short to medium life. Lead acid has a short life, and NiCd and NMh are low density medium cost, all wear out and cost to replace.

Windgenerators need maintained, they get hit by lighting, bearings fail, the blades need cleaned, on a tower this is not cheap.

It is unfair and unrealistic to describe the nirvana of EV without a frank discussion of the dark side, and these problems may never be solved, just improved.

Most of us have families that are spread out and we do place a high degree of importance on seeing them, long distance travel by EV is not really possible, and even IF batteries are unproved 10 times it will not compete with internal combustion in range, time, and cost until gas is a lot more expensive than now.

We will have EV's. they will be far from perfect
Rod

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The rest of the story Posted by: jhecht
» Flawed Logic Posted by: jeffreyd00
» RE: The rest of the story Posted by: sheena2u
» RE:Nicely put Sheena2u Posted by: nightgaunt
» RE: The rest of the story Posted by: wthwaites
» RE: The rest of the story Posted by: lenteach
» RE: The rest of the story Posted by: ranger1
Indict Oil & auto industry Execs for Treason
Posted by: Purple Girl on Aug 2, 2008 4:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This Oil/Fuel effieciency vehicles has been an issue for 30+yrs.
When we were grabbe by the balls in the '70's by OPEC Americans Screamed for Change.
Innovators began building possible solutions in their garages- eelctric car is about 20 yrs old!
the Auto industry only scaled down once the Japanese car sales started kicking their ass.
so thanks to the deals the western Oil Coprs made with the oppressive Oil Royals of the M.E.- Prices went down, and they auto industry responded in kind by re introducing SUV's with illegitmate marketing tactics- Selling 'Elitism', a symbol of Rank, Social Status - they targeted Egos.
This tactic is NO diffeent and just as deadly as the Tabacco Companies lies and Deception.
Americans not only wanted US out of ,and off M.E, Oil for economic reasons - we wanted out because our citizens had been held Hostage for over a year, planes were being Highjacked, bodies being thrown on to tarrmacks....We KNEW then that to continue to do business in the M.E. would cause far more National Security Issues. anyone alive then - or having read history regarding- Was NOT Surprised by 9/11- In fact saw it for what it was- the Result of decades of Corps flirting with a national disaster- Economically and Security.
who did not realize the Lies Bush spewd "No one expected such attacks'- BS! they had been highjacking planes since the '70's, they hit the WTC in '93,Our Gov't had previous contact with Binny in the '80's- when our Gov't aided his band of fighter against the Russians! Who didn't think We would also be seen as 'conquering Powers' becasue of th enumerous US Flags flying around Oil Fields & refineries!
Who hasn't figured out 9/11 was NOT an attack on Americans- but an Attack on the entity which has used US as camoflague/Human shields....The MIC!! More Accurately the Military/ Oil complex, which has been allowing Saudi Arabia to Breed and instill anti US Sentiment- Afghanistan was just the 'Off to College' country. And why would the Royals want to encourage such hatred of US - because it deflected the blame for the Human condition in their region away From THEM!
so now we not only have Treason charges these Oil/Auto industry execs should face, but also War crimes and Crimes against Humanity. They are th ecause for All deaths in not only these 2 wars - but th enumerous they have been involved with throughout the world- in a quest for the Modern worlds black "gold". The actions which have caused this speculated commodity to skyrocket has lead to food shortages and faimine.
So when Indictments for High Crimes are finaly being issued- we Must not forget those in the Oil AND Auto industry who have spent 30 yrs leading US not only to 9/11, but to todays economic Fall Out!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WellAWARE
Posted by: wellaware lec on Aug 2, 2008 5:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
MADISON, WISCONSIN WAS JUST the site of the third annual HYBRIDFEST which also featured other alternative energy transportation options and LOTS of presentations on energy-efficient transportation. It was fabulous and gave me much hope for future of transportation, if people can get on the bandwagon quickly now.
Go to HYBRIDFEST website and you can tap into all sorts of great info. Also, cleanmpg.com superb website for info on many levels re. this topic. I now have been driving a hybrid for several years and feel great about that. Where I live, Madison, we have the most hybrids/Priuses/capita in nation, so I see hybrids everywhere I drive in this town. Fascinatingly, once I leave city limits, they immediately become very unusual to view. Prius easiest to identify because of shape.
NEV's now approved in Madison and several other cities. Lots of variety in styles/options; one company producing these in Reedsburg, WI. and the dealer is in Stoughton, WI. Go for a test ride! NEV's can go on roads 35 mph or less. Completely electric.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Of course electric cars will work!
Posted by: HughScott on Aug 2, 2008 5:15 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
America has been using electric cars for decades. They're called "golf carts."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Excellent point, Rich. Posted by: HughScott
» Even better golf carts Posted by: PaulK
» Yes, let's save the cars Posted by: Cherenkovrad
Where was Gore...
Posted by: ShrubtheWarcriminal on Aug 2, 2008 5:32 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...and Clinton when the auto industry killed the electric car in the 90's?

They were in office at the time and not a whimper came from them as GM removed and DESTROYED all the EV1s that people were fighting to buy.

All were leased at the time and GM would not allow them to be bought. (See the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car")

Why does not Gore, even NOW, ask GM to bring IT back? Not the pie in the sky Chevy volt which is estimated to cost 50K.

Gore and Clinton are pseudo heroes, who fiddled while Amerikkka started to self destruction under the helpful eye of corporate Amerikkka.

There is NO leadership in this country and based on the two bozos who are running, there is none in sight either.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Where was Gore... Posted by: sheena2u
» RE: Where was Gore... Posted by: ShrubtheWarcriminal
» RE: Where was Gore... Posted by: sheena2u
» RE: Where was Gore... Posted by: cmaciain
» Yes, let's save the cars. Posted by: Cherenkovrad
» RE: Where was Gore... Posted by: BlackbirdHighway
» RE: I guess we could argue about time lines... Posted by: ShrubtheWarcriminal
ATH
Posted by: ATH on Aug 2, 2008 5:42 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There will be disadvantages to any kind of system, but electric cars, and getting off fossil fuels have the extreme advantage of saving our planet! I think that justifies any inconvenience. There's a guy that recently converted a Mustang to get a hundred miles to a gallon, also. We could fix all of this if we applied the same money and R&D as we did to the Manhattan project to build our wonderful method of planetwide destruction, the nuclear bomb.
Unfortunately, it's probably not going to happen because most humans are easily fooled by the sold-out, corporate controlled media, and oil companies have so much control over our politicians.
What's going to happen is, our economy is going to completely collapse very soon, because we've waited far too long and done too little too late--actually, we really haven't done anything at all, STILL! We saw this problem coming back in the 1970s when oil production peaked in the U.S.
If we'd started then, we could have done it. Do you realize how long it will take to transform our infrastructure? And they will never allow us to make and control our own energy. No way.
We've been takin' it up the yoo yoo for a long time; unfortunately, we've been more concerned with Michael Jackson & Britney Spears and who she's currently banging, and a bunch of other banal subjects, that we haven't paid attention to what has been going on.
This country lost its freedom back in 1913 when the bankers tricked and bribed Congress into passing the Federal Reserve Act--giving the power of issuing our currency to a private corporation run by the greediest, most immoral men to ever disgrace the face of this planet..at least until W and Cheney came along.
We let them get away with assassinating JFK, Martin Luther King, Jr., beating in the heads of college students for protesting...Most humans are just plain stupid, unfortunately. The only way we could take back this country is if all 330 million of us stood up and demanded accuntability and truth.
The founders believed we should have a revolution every 20 years. Well, maybe that was a little radical, but not much. Now, there's no way to stand up to the kind of weapons they have unless, as I said, ALL of us stood up, and that's not going to happen because most people are still spending the majority of their time sucking on what Harlan Ellison called "The Glass Teat" in his book of the same name--TV! The most mind-numbing device ever created, and now that they control the media--who were once trustworthy--they control the minds of most Americans..or what little minds they have.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» David Model Posted by: david.model@senecac.on.ca
A fully electric car
Posted by: lclark on Aug 2, 2008 5:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author focused on just the part that is missing in the public dialogue. To free the country from reliance on foreign oil, and the export of dollars to obtain it...as well as wars, we need an alternative form of energy for vehicles. Abundant and cheap electricity is just how this could be done. There is no need for overregulation, just require that any auto manufacturer that sells autos in the U.S. provide a total EV choice in its offering. Many households have two cars and many people would choose an electic car for commuting. And batteries that can be charged in 20 minutes are not an impediment for longer travel.
An overall plan would include :
-an electrical based transport system by rail for goods to be moved around the country, with EV trucks for local transport of goods. That national system could also include convenient ways of moving personal vehicles over long distances when traveling.
- improving the rail system (electrical based) so that rail travel was as convenient as plane travel.
-replacement of local public transportation with EV vehicles.
-the augmenting and gradual replacement of electical generating facilities with renewable methods so that electricity was both abundant and cheap. Some may argue that the maintenance of wind turbines are labor intensive and expensive compared to central power generating facilities, but that has to be compared to exporting those dollars to buy oil versus generating jobs and opportunities...manual, manufacuring, and engineering/technical joba at home. ( As a bogus solution you see the phony two-parties offering nuclear as a solution, even though nuclear fuel is itself a limited and controlled fuel source and the disposal of nuclear waste remains and unresolved serious problem.)
- yes, the wind and sun are 'intermittent', but the problems with these have a number of known solutions and the overall availability of ample and even flow of electricity throughout the nation is primarily dependent on improving the grid so electricity can be efficiently transported form places where it is being generated to where it is needed.
- as an aside, wind turbines should also be placed on family farms to augment their income to allow them to continue to produce food in a market that has become dominated by multinational corporations that have gained control of the purchase and distribution of food supplies to store chains. Abundant and cheap electricity would also provide incentives for farmers to mechanize more of the labor associated with farming.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A fully electric car Posted by: sheena2u
» Yes, let's save the cars Posted by: Cherenkovrad
So How Obvious Is This?
Posted by: shortpantz on Aug 2, 2008 5:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Has no one seen "Who Killed The Electric Car?" A truly eye opening film - and wonder why, when in the early years of this decade there were at least three working production plug-in electric vehicles on the road (GM's EV3, Ford Ranger EV and the KIA Rav4 EV) these auto manufacturers who's job it is to look into the future of transportation basically screwed themselves by dropping these vehicles. Now look at GM and Ford; both of which are looking at huge losses and job cuts. Right here in St. Paul where they make the Ranger pickup Ford has been looking to close the plant and put all of those people out of work when all they should have been thinking about is retooling to build the EV version and be ahead of the curve for once. The manufacturer argument has always been that the battery technology is not up to par yet for mass consumption, but I feel that all it takes is to get the vehicle on the road and demand will push innovation (and don't believe the auto makers when they say the demand is not there) to better storage and shorter recharge times. It would also push business to provide an infrastructure for employees to plug-in at work, as most commuters let their cars sit in a parking lot all day anyway; they could be recharging all that time.
There is not one good excuse for not moving to electric vehicles as soon as is humanly possible. We need to push hard on manufacturers and legislators to look at where we are and make these changes right now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: So How Obvious Is This? Posted by: Namaimo
» Yes, let's save the cars Posted by: Cherenkovrad
Air Cars
Posted by: Abe on Aug 2, 2008 6:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here is another great alternative I haven't heard too much about and folks should take a look at.
goto
www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4251491.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Air Cars Posted by: PaulK
» RE: Air Cars Posted by: Squarehead
» Yes, let's save the cars Posted by: Cherenkovrad
EVs are the only way to go
Posted by: sheena2u on Aug 2, 2008 6:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The car manufacturers are too slow in the release of hybrid and electric vehicles. We need them now. We need to move to rail transportation, and electric busses and cars within the next year. It may take us up to 10 to 20 years to completely implement it, and realize this, but we need to get it going now.

Existing railways need to be optimized, and more tracks and stations need to be built. More ride sharing and public transportation needs to be available, and more electric vehicles need to be available to the public. More bicycle paths, too, need to be made available to the public.

We are essentially out of oil. We may need oil for plastics and other necessities in the future, and we cannot be so visionless and clueless by talking about further drilling for oil, or further jumping to the tune of the oil companies every time they throw around their considerable weight, and say jump.

We can't use fossil fuels any more. Floods, drought, earthquakes, hurricanes of unusual force and frequency are with us now, just as had been predicted. No matter how unified or smart we think we can be, there is a point where there will be nothing we can do to save ourselves. We may still have time, but we are playing Russian Roulette with the future of humanity for every day we delay meaningful action.

Not just Vice President Al Gore, but Senator Barack Obama, and every leader in the world has to know this, and must move now. I believe Senator Obama has the good sense, and vision, to understand the problems we face, and the will to move and challenge Americans to make the changes necessary to save our world from total catastrophe and destruction.

In the 21st century the old attitudes toward oil, coal, gas, and nuclear power must be new, and we must change to honestly clean renewable power such as solar, tidal, geothermal, small hydro, wind, and biomass. We must change to electric cars, and widespread, viable public transportation with trains and electric vehicles. We have no more time to waste, to wait, or to lag behind.

There must be a way to end the chokehold the oil companies have on America. The oil companies can diversify and invest in honestly clean renewable energy, and do their part for life on the planet, and still prosper.

The EV was taken off the roads some ten years ago for suspicous reasons, and under suspicious circumstances. See the documentary, "Who Killed the Electric Car," for confirmation that we have had viable EV technology since at least the 90s. However, some of our very first vehicles were electric, so we have, of course, had it for much longer than that. It is time to bring the EV back, and we must do it now, not soon, but now.

The party is over. The jig is up. The tipping point has passed. We have to be sane, and move to clean technology like clean renewable energy and EVs, and shun excuses and demand better than more delays or lies such as clean, safe nuclear and "clean coal." We need EVs on the roads, and for public transportation. We are out of oil for transportation, and we need to conserve it for other uses. The airline companies, too, will have to undergo a major shift rather than the desperate bandaid measures they have been scrambling to put in place for the last several years.

Of all the candidates, Senator Obama seems to be the best bet for any hope of vision and progess in these important areas in the next few years. We do all have to work together, and we do not have an unlimited number of years to ponder what to do. We have a good enough understanding already that we cannot use fossil fuels in the same manner as in the 20th century, and that major, dramatic shifts in energy use and modes of transportation, among other conservation methods will be required of us from now on.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yes, let's save the cars Posted by: Cherenkovrad
ATH
Posted by: ATH on Aug 2, 2008 6:39 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look at these republicans--and a lot of democrats, as well--they base their policy decisions, like deciding to torture people, on TV programs, mainly that damn show "24"! We don't even know what happened on 9/11! If you believe the official story, it's because you haven't done any real research for yourself, and are therefore ignorant, or can't accept that the government might induce something like that to happen, and then run all these war games to make sure our fighter pilots were so confused, by the insertion of false radar blips onto their screens, that they didn't know where to go--despite concrete evidence that shows that this is the rule, not the exception, as proven by the "Northwoods documents," "Pearl Harbor," "The Gulf of Tonkin," Hilter's "Reichstag(sic? Fire, and those are just a few we know about. We're supposed to believe that WTC 7--which most people don't even know about, that there was a 3rd building that collapsed, but was not hit by anything, and was farther away than other buildings which were fine. Then you have the overwhelming evidence of police, firefighters, and reporters displaying knowledge that they not only knew this building was going to collapse--which they shouldn't have had any reason to suspect--but exactly when it was going to collapse. Then, you have Larry Silverstein on public T.V saying that the building was "pulled." I have the video clip.
But the story was buried because people started realizing, by asking questions, that to rig a building of that size for wireless demolition usually takes a week, and no amount of rushing could have pulled it off on that day--which means, if it was demolished, it was set at least two or three days prior to 9/11.
A steel-framed building has never collapsed from fire alone--ever. The 9/11 Commission report doesn't even mention WTC 7, and NIST said, in their report, that their best hypothesis for collapse--fire--was very unlikely.
What about the over two million dollars from "put options" placed on United and American airlines that still remains unclaimed? Privacy rules protect any reporter from finding out who placed those bets, but Congress could subpeona the information.
Why was the steel from the buildings, in violation of Federal law concerning disturbing a crime scene (which Guiliani, being a former prosecutor, knew damn well was wrong), and which could have helped determine why two buildings that were designed to withstand multiple impacts from jumbo jets (and they weren't that much smaller when the building was designed, and actually had a faster rate of flight, giving them an equal or greater impact potential)collapsed at near free-fall speed directly down into their footprints, hauled all the way to China and melted down? Steel is expensive..why give it to China?
Why and how did Hani Hanjour, the supposed pilot of the plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon, whose pilot instructors said could barely fly a single engine Cessana, make an elaborate and totally unneccesary turn when he could have just flown straight in and hit the Pentagon? And why aim for the very narrow side, instead of diving into the very big target of the top, which would have caused more damage? Instead, he makes several manuevers that professional pilots say would be difficult for even the most seasoned pilot, to fly at 500 MPH just yards above the ground, and hit such a small target with pinpoint accuracy? Do you know the kind of skill that would require, to guide such a huge craft, at that speed, where the building would be approching incredibly rapidly, but manages to not even scrape the lawn?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ATH Posted by: Dboy
ATH
Posted by: ATH on Aug 2, 2008 6:39 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
cont... And then, where are the holes, not of the wings--I can buy that maybe they came apart on impact, but not those two 800 ton titanium steel engines! We're supposed to believe that these engines basically disintegrated, yet the cone of the fuselage, far weaker, was able to penetrate all the way through to the C-ring and leave a perfectly round 16 foot in diameter hole? That makes absolutely zero sense.
And then, professional pilots, after examining the data from the black boxes, have said there's no way that plane, on the trajectory recorded on the black box, severed those light poles...
What caused the pols of molten steel in the basements of all 3 WTC buildings, when everyone aknowledges the fires were not hot enough to melt steel, let alone hot enough to not only melt it, but keep it in that liquified form, for days(at least one day, but I think it was more like 2 or 3) after the event? What about the Israelis who recieved a warning through an email to evacuate the building, and broke their lease to get out? Why were all the warnings ignored, and then when it happened, they told everyone in the other tower to just stay put, instead of evacuating them?
The whole thing stinks to high heaven. It's also been proven that many of the phone calls that were made, did not come from those planes. For instance, United 93 (I think that's the right plane), it turns out, didn't even have plane phones, and all the cell phone calls were made when the plane(s) were well below 30,000 feet. The government possesses voice-morphing technology so sophisticated that I could call you, using this technology, and you would not be able to tell it was me and not your mother, or whomever I wanted to be. Besides, who calls their mother and uses their last name? Like, "Hi, mom, this is John Doe, your son. You believe me, don't you?" was one of the calls that were supposedly made.
I knew the day it happened, when there was no military response in over two hours, that this was somehow allowed or assisted to make happen. The other explanation, that there was massive failure and incompetence on every level of the system..well, it's like a 50 million to one chance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ATH Posted by: Dboy
Ok? But aren't we gonna need a hell of a lot of coal and nuclear to meet the guzzler's demands?
Posted by: maxpayne on Aug 2, 2008 6:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Notice I excluded solar and wind because unless the demands were not that of the guzzler, it's just not gonna fly whereas coal and nuclear despite their finite supply will be able to meet the rising out of control demands. And you can thank the pro-energy-inefficient policies for this mess.

P.S.: What about the winter? I'm not so sure electric cars can handle the colder days. Anyone from the upper north want to fill me in on this one?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yes, let's save the cars Posted by: Cherenkovrad
Leave automobility behind
Posted by: wjfaust on Aug 2, 2008 7:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
GHGs are not the only problem with our auto-centric transportation system. The highway system itself has large negative impacts on ecosystems. Our suburban sprawl, largely promoted by the automobile, is a socially destructive force and suggests a different path. Then there are the environmental impacts of manufacturing of all those new electric vehicles. Then there are the obesity and health issues of our auto-centric culture. Do you think maybe its time to get out of our cars.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Leave automobility behind Posted by: sheena2u
» RE: Leave automobility behind Posted by: tommy_slothrop
Semi Trucks, Pick up's, Farm vehicles, Dump Trucks, Plow Trucks
Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals on Aug 2, 2008 7:23 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Last I recall, those run on good ole gasoline and diesel. I know most of you will never have to drive a 20 ton dump truck for a living but when your boss has to cut back on help because diesel is sky hi from poor energy policy, you might wanna think twice. Plus I'm not too keen on a lawnmower as a car.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» PickUps Posted by: gellero1
» RE:I cut my own grass... Posted by: ShrubtheWarcriminal
ATH
Posted by: ATH on Aug 2, 2008 7:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Those are good questions, but I guarantee you, if they put the kind of money and research into this problem that they do with devising killing machines, all these problems can be overcome. If a lone mechanic can make a Mustang get a 100 miles to a gallon, imagine what a team of researchers could accomplish? Even if we started with hybrids, but had that 100 miles to a gallon capacity, it would be a great improvement.
I did see "Who killed the Electric Car" and those cars were fast, quiet, and could be plugged into a regular socket, with an adaptor, if I remember correctly.People loved them. Yeah, at the time, they could only go 60 miles on a single charge, but that would meet most people's everyday driving needs; and then, if you needed it, the gas could kick it, but at a 100 M.T.A.G. you could go very far on very little.
Yet these cars, bright and shiny, were taken and destroyed, except for one or two that went to museums. Why do you suppose that was?
They can solve all these problems, and all the arguments against doing it are bull--the oil companies just don't want to give up their record profits. Exxon Mobile made the largest profit ever made in history in its last fiscal quater. It just takes Congress to demand that they use a large amount of that money to design a vehicle that meets all the standards we need them to. It can be done, the people want it done, but as long as the oil companies continue to weild so much influence, it's not going to happen. It's not an engineering problem, it's a political problem. And now, a time problem, and a money problem. We could have all kinds of things, like Universal Healthcare, if it wasn't for the oil companies driving foreign policy to cause us to wage illegal wars fought with the blood of our brave soldiers for reasons they've been lied to about. It's always been about oil, and 9/11 is the excuse for perpetual war, which is why it's so important to expose that lie.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yes, lets save the cars Posted by: Cherenkovrad
Hey G.M. where's the EV II? G.M. sells EV technology to Big Bad Oil!
Posted by: williameon on Aug 2, 2008 7:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
Way to go Americo.
KICK the Habit!
Kick the Oil Pushers out of Government.

Conservation,
Raise MPG standards
Increase Efficiency
Invest in GREEN energy solutions,
Across the board.
Trillions for War and nothing for U.S.
Sounds fishy to me!
Cut out the Corpirate Middle Man.
End the Fossil Fuel Age now.

Nationalize all energy reserves and resources
for National Security Reasons.
Do you believe that Big Oil has your best interests at heart?
GREED is the bottom lie, it's their motivating factor.
GREED is a negative human trait.
It works great for the RICH and very badly for U.S.
We are the victims!
We pay for it.

While they get hundreds of billions in Corporate welfare, billion dollar bailouts and 500 million dollar Golden parachutes.
We get the shaft!

You pay,
Every time you pump.
WAR TAX!
Stop the war and gas will drop by 50%!
The same Corpirates that overthrew our Government,
Control the Media and
Censor the News,
Spy, Lie, Torture and Terrorize us.
Who is getting Fu-ked? and Why?
What are we going to do about it?
How long can you sit and take it?
After Loosing our jobs, homes, savings and Social Security?
What's left?
While Dead Eye Laughs and the Monkey dances?
75% of The Government and Military have been privatized.
Including the clandestine services.
Just check the list of who they were Spying on in 2004 in New York.
Ben who?
No!
Me and you.
They're is no separation of power,
When the same Corpirate Mercenaries run all branches of Government, Media and Industry there is no freedom.
It is Anarchy.
Monolithic Corporate Totalitarianism.
Beware
The Military, Media, Banking,
Industrial Complex!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We'll never get that independence
Posted by: popsicle67 on Aug 2, 2008 7:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That is, We'll never be allowed that independence
until all of the people who get rich from oil figure out how to make the same money from electricity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: We'll never get that independence Posted by: KeithRichardRadfordJr
The Problem with Solar Power And Electric Vehicles
Posted by: opmoc on Aug 2, 2008 8:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Electric Vehicles are highly desirable, but as the article below describes - they simply aren't feasible with solar power. The limitations of solar power come down to the fact that the sun delivers only 100 watts per square foot - and that's in perfect conditions. After conversion, transmission and storage losses only a tiny percentage of that energy is usable.

To convert from petroleum to electric vehicles would require at least a doubling of the current electricity supply. That means twice as many powerstations and greatly beefed up distribution network.

Whilst this is possible, the idea that all this extra energy can come from solar is physically impossible due to the limitations of the sun's energy.

There are also major environmental and efficiency problems with batteries. Batteries can only be charged about 500 times and require enormous amounts of energy to produce and are made from exceedingly toxic heavy metals.

Electric vehicles can work well though - particularly in towns and cities where they are driven via a directly connected current, that doesn't require batteries.

It would be far more sensible if these vehicles were publicly owned and shared - like buses and trains - but with far greater availability and desirability - such that travelling in them was a significantly better experience than being in a private car.

There is a great deal of mis-information about all kinds of alternative transport due to the massive research funding involved. The better the story the more funds that are likely to be forthcoming

Without massively increased electricity power generation which can probably only come from nuclear on a long term basis, the replacement of millions of petrol vehicles with electric ones simply cannot work.

Why there won't be a solar powered car

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Electric cars +
Posted by: Tim Chadron on Aug 2, 2008 8:14 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not only do we need electric cars, we need electric cars which are as close to 100% recyclable as possible, and we need mass transit, in the form of high speed trains which are powered through electricity as well. Then we need to provide the technology developed in the pursuit of all this with every nation on earth. EVERY nation. So they can move in the same renewable, sustainable, and clean direction.

Politicians are always talking about how they will create jobs. Well, seems to me that if they jumped all over this alternative energy gig, they would actually be able to truthfully say that in supporting such initiatives, they would actually be creating 1000's of jobs. Good jobs. High paying jobs. Jobs that created something useful for all of society. Indeed, for all of the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yes, let's save the cars Posted by: Cherenkovrad
» RE: Yes, let's save the cars Posted by: Tim Chadron
Faulty logic
Posted by: ujerdr on Aug 2, 2008 8:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please do not publish sloppy logic.

Logic in following paragraph is faulty.

"Oil generates only 3 percent of our electricity. Therefore a 100 percent renewable electricity system does little to reduce our oil dependency..."

Logically, even if oil generates only 3 percent of our electricity, that could take all of our oil.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Electric cars can power the present but it is ideas that power history
Posted by: practical idealist on Aug 2, 2008 8:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The End of History
The End Point And The End Game


Prologue:
With the rise of communist China, the advent of peak oil, and an unresolved economic crisis in the United States, it’s not hard to see that history is at turning point. Peak oil and a foundering economy are threatening challenges. But how should we perceive China? First of all we need to get rid of the communist label. Communism is the end state of historical materialism. The inexorable push of economic determinism that ultimately leads to the collapse of capitalism and then finally to communism—a worker’s utopia.
So better said, China is a nation ruled by Marxists whose mission, towards this end, is to overthrow the existing order by beating capitalism at our own game.
Still, for us, history is determined by our free will as we put forward the ideas to meet the challenges that a changing world presents. Yet up to this point we seem to be at loss. And neither Obama nor McCain, as they seek the White House, has presented a clear strategy either for economic recovery or ideological victory. And while we embrace democracy and free markets, ideas that Marxists see as a meaningless reflection of capitalism—brave words in the face of their ultimate demise, they too need an update.
So, given the gravity of these issues it’s best that we consider the worst-case Marxist scenario and then consider the practical idealism that can resolve these challenges.
For full text go to: http://theendpoint.blogspot.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Two EV car companies
Posted by: PaulK on Aug 2, 2008 8:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The first EV company is Tesla Motors. They must have, what, 10 of their cars on the road by now. They promise to ramp up, but they have a backlog of 1080 cars ordered the last I checked. They go for the expensive green hot rod market. So cool, but you need the cash!

The second EV company is Nissan. They are preparing to flood the Los Angeles market with semi-affordable electrics in 2010.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2<