War Footing: new book promotes PHEVs
Dec 8, 2005 (From the CalCars-News archive)

Several members of the Set America Free Coalition are among the authors of
War Footing:
10 Steps America Must Take to Prevail in the War for the Free World
by Frank Gaffney and colleagues, foreword by James Woolsey
published Nov. 24 by Naval Institute Press,

You can buy it at Amazon via the URL that gives credit to the Institute for
the Analysis of Global Security
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1591143012/iags-20/102-0715743-8716907

With the permission of Frank Gaffney and the publisher, here's the section
on PHEVs, from
Part II: Wielding America's Economic and Financial "Weapons"
Step 3: Provide for US Security
Contributors: Dr. Gal Luft and Anne Korin (of IAGS/SetAmericaFree)
pages 51-59 What Needs to Be Done

What Needs to Be Done

Let us be clear: We will always need oil. What we must do is reduce the
strategic importance of oil to the global economy. We must shift oil from
being a strategic commodity-one whose disruption can hold our economy
hostage-to a commodity that is interchangeable with other energy resources.

Because two-thirds of the oil we use is consumed in the transportation
sector (mostly in cars and trucks), long term security and economic
prosperity require diversifying our energy sources in that sector. This can
be done via a technological shift to an economy based on nonpetroleum, next
generation fuels and vehicles designed to use them.

It is worth noting that diversification away from imported oil to domestic
energy sources has already been accomplished in another sector of the
economy-the generation of electricity. In the 1970s, nearly a third of U.S.
electricity was produced by burning oil. Today, this figure is down to just
2 percent.

A number of public policy institutes, trade unions, and other organizations
have joined forces under the banner of the Set America Free Coalition to
advance a blueprint for effecting a similar change in the U.S.
transportation sector. (The Coalition's blueprint can be viewed in full at
Appendix III.) This plan offers ways in which the nation's oil imports can
be cut in half within two decades through the widespread use in our cars
and other vehicles of a variety of currently available technologies.

A Program for Energy Security

The main ingredients of the Set America Free blueprint are as follows.

1. Fuel Choice

One of the highest virtues of the American way of life is freedom of
choice. Think of any consumer good-from a cup of coffee to a carpet-and
consider the range of choices we have. But when it comes to transportation
fuel, Americans have essentially no choice. Driving into a gas station, oil
based products like gasoline and diesel are the only substances with which
we can fill our tanks.

The fact that a single liquid fuels virtually our entire society is a
formula for disaster. If for whatever reason petroleum supplies are
disrupted, we currently do not have a fallback option.

The first step to enabling fuel choice is to ensure that all new cars are
flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs). FFVs look and perform just like "regular"
vehicles, with one difference: instead of running solely on gasoline, they
are designed to burn alcohol based fuels (ethanol and methanol), gasoline,
or any mixture of the two.

This is not a new technology. Henry Ford's 1908 Model T was an FFV. And
some 4 million FFVs have been manufactured in the United States since 1996,
including such popular models as Ford Taurus, Chevy Silverado, and Dodge
Caravan. Because FFVs can also run on gasoline, drivers can refuel even in
places where pumps have not yet been modified to dispense alcohol based fuels.

The only difference between a gasoline only car and an FFV is that the FFV
engine is equipped with a modified control chip and some different fittings
in the fuel line to accommodate the characteristics of alcohol. The
marginal additional cost associated with the production of a flexible fuel
vehicle is currently under $150-less than the cost of a typical CD player.

That cost would be reduced further as the volume of production of such cars
increases. That would be particularly true if flexible fuel designs were to
become the industry standard-as they should, effective immediately.

Ethanol. Also known as grain alcohol, ethanol is a liquid that can be
produced domestically from fermented agricultural products, including (but
not exclusively) from corn. The U.S. industry currently has a capacity of
3.4 billion gallons a year and has increased production by an average of 25
percent per year over the past three years.

The main barrier preventing ethanol from becoming a massively used
transportation fuel in the United States is its cost and the limited supply
of corn. Ethanol benefits from federal subsidies amounting to 51 cents per
gallon.

Fortunately, there are feedstocks other than corn that can be converted to
ethanol without the need for such massive government assistance. For
example, a great deal of effort is being expended to develop processes for
the economic conversion of cellulosic biomass into ethanol. Such processes
will allow production of fuel from switch grass and other dedicated energy
crops.

Until such technology becomes economical, however, there is another source
of ethanol that makes economic sense and that does not require a government
subsidy: sugar cane. In Brazil, at least 25 percent of the fuel sold in gas
stations is sugar based ethanol. In addition to Brazil, Latin American and
Caribbean countries like Guatemala, Panama, Trinidad and Tobago, Costa
Rica, El Salvador, and Jamaica are all low cost sugar cane producers. These
nations could become key to U.S. energy security if large numbers of
American vehicles were FFVs-and if imported ethanol could be freed from the
current, heavy U.S. tariffs on sugar.

Expanding U.S. fuel choice to include biofuels imported from our neighbors
in the Western Hemisphere would not only help increase our energy
independence from Islamofascist Middle Eastern suppliers. It would also
have clear geopolitical benefits. By encouraging these countries to
increase their output and become major fuel suppliers, we could greatly
enhance the U.S. posture in the Western Hemisphere. As we shall see in Step
9, such a change is increasingly urgent in light of the oil bankrolled
subversion practiced by Venezuela's Chavez and his mentor, Cuban dictator
Fidel Castro, as well as China's growing activity in the region.

To put it bluntly, we cannot hope to enjoy energy security through
renewable fuels unless we are also willing to open the U.S. ethanol market
to imports. It defies common sense to tax ethanol coming in from our
neighbors when we do not tax oil imported from Saudi Arabia.

Methanol. Another alcohol that can be used in flexible fuel vehicles is
well known to Indianapolis 500 fans: wood alcohol, or methanol. Today, this
liquid fuel is produced mostly from natural gas. Greatly expanded domestic
production can be achieved, however, by producing methanol from coal, a
resource the United States has in abundance. The commercial feasibility of
coal to methanol technology has been demonstrated as part of the Department
of Energy's "clean coal" technology effort. Currently, methanol is being
cleanly produced from coal on a commercial scale for around 50 cents a
gallon. Methanol can also be produced from agricultural waste.

2. Electrify Transportation

As the price of gasoline has mounted, there has been growing consumer
demand for so called hybrid vehicles. Hybrids combine a traditional
internal combustion engine with an electric motor to improve gas mileage.
The motor is powered by a battery, continuously recharged by capturing
braking energy that would otherwise be wasted.

Hybrids get anywhere from 20 percent to more than twice the mileage of
conventional gasoline engines, without compromising performance. However,
their only external fuel source is gasoline. Increasing fuel choice calls
for taking hybrids one step further.

Plug in hybrids. For many years, electricity has been the source of power
for all our home appliances. Why not use electricity to power our cars as
well? Because less than 2 percent of U.S. electricity is generated from
oil, using electricity as a transportation fuel would greatly reduce our
dependence on imported petroleum. Vehicles that meet consumer needs could
tap America's electrical grid to supply energy for transportation, allowing
more efficient use of such domestic sources of electricity as coal, solar,
wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, and nuclear power.

During the 1980s, some auto companies put battery operated electric
vehicles on the road. While these cars were generally clean, quiet, and
highly efficient, they failed to achieve large scale penetration of the
market. Among the stumbling blocks were the limited range (driving
distance) and the reduced performance of electric only vehicles.

Plug in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) offer the benefits of electric
vehicles without the range and performance penalties. PHEVs are souped up
hybrids that can optionally be plugged in. Like first generation hybrids,
plug ins have a liquid fuel tank and internal combustion engine, so they
have the same driving range as a standard car. Although they look and
perform much like regular hybrid cars, they can in addition be plugged into
a 120 volt outlet at home (or in a parking garage) and recharged.

Plug ins can run on their batteries' stored energy for much of a typical
day's driving. Depending on the size of the battery, that might be up to 60
miles per charge-far beyond the daily commute of an average American. And,
when the charge is used up, the PHEV automatically switches over to run on
the engine powered by its fuel tank. Someone who drives a distance shorter
every day than the car's electric range could do so exclusively by
recharging the battery and never having to dip into the fuel tank.

PHEVs can reach fuel economy levels of a hundred miles per gallon of
gasoline consumed. Because 50 percent of cars on the road in the United
States are driven twenty miles a day or less, a plug in with a
twenty-mile-range battery would reduce gasoline consumption by, on average,
85 percent.

Five hundred miles per gallon of gasoline performance. If, moreover, a
plug-in vehicle were designed as an FFV, fueled with 80 percent alcohol and
20 percent gasoline, fuel economy could reach five hundred miles per gallon
of gasoline. Notice we say "per gallon of gasoline" and not "per gallon."
The object of expanding fuel choice is not to reduce the energy consumption
of a vehicle. Rather, it is to shift the balance in the transportation
sector away from oil to more secure energy resources, by stretching each
gallon of gasoline further by substituting alcohol fuels and electricity.

Ideally, plug in hybrid vehicles would be charged in home or apartment
garages at night, when electric utilities have significant excess capacity.
The Electric Power Research Institute estimates that up to 30 percent of
the U.S. vehicle market could shift to PHEVs with a twenty mile electric
range, without any additional electricity generating capacity.

At present, the estimated retail price of a plug in hybrid would be higher
than that of corresponding conventional vehicles, because of the cost of
extra batteries to extend the range in electric mode. The exact difference
in price depends on the size of the battery, but, roughly speaking, every
additional 10 miles of vehicle range adds about $1,000 to the cost.

This price difference is partly offset, however, by the lower operating
costs of plug ins. At current gas prices, it costs well over 10 cents per
mile to refuel a conventional car with gasoline, whereas refueling a plug
in with electricity is only 3 cents per mile. That means that the lifetime
overall cost of mass produced plug in hybrid vehicles would be equivalent
to that of gasoline only vehicles.

In light of the national and energy security benefits of achieving such a
dramatic reduction in demand for gasoline, the president and other
officials should be doing everything possible to encourage the widest and
fastest possible penetration of plug in hybrid vehicles into the market.
One way of doing that would be for the difference in the up front price of
PHEVs to be covered by federal and state tax credits and by rebates
designed to reward consumers for reducing consumption of petroleum based
fuels and emissions. This strategy is proving very effective in getting
hybrid electric vehicles past the early adopter hump and into the mainstream.

3. Stretch a Gallon Still Further

The Bush administration describes conservation as one of the important
elements of a sound energy policy. It notes that in the past three decades,
the American economy has grown nearly five times faster than energy
use-proof positive that conservation can go hand in hand with increases in
productivity.

Indeed, the last time the United States made a concerted effort to improve
energy efficiency-between 1979 and 1985, in response to OPEC's oil
embargo-its oil consumption decreased by 15 percent. Conservation does not
necessarily entail compromising our lifestyles, or settling for smaller,
slower, or less comfortable cars. And, given the benefits for our energy
security, encouraging conservation must be a central ingredient in our War
Footing strategy.

Individual initiatives. The most immediate measures to improve the
efficiency of America's automobile fleet are in the hands of individual
motorists:

" properly inflating tires
" tuning the engine
" maintaining air filters
" removing excess weight from the trunk
" driving at a steady pace
" consolidating trips
" choosing to take the "broadband highway" to work, using the
Internet to telecommute from a home office.

Better materials. At least two-thirds of fuel use by a typical consumer
vehicle is caused by its weight. Reducing the weight and drag of a vehicle
need not require reducing its size or safety, but it can greatly increase
gas mileage. Today, we can achieve this objective thanks to advances in
both metals and plastics. Cars made from advanced composites and next
generation steels can be affordably manufactured with current technologies.
They can roughly halve fuel consumption without compromising size, safety,
performance, or cost-effectiveness.

In fact, crash tests and race car experience have shown that these vehicles
are actually safer. As a report commissioned by the Pentagon notes, "Ultra
strong carbon fiber composite auto bodies can save oil and lives at the
same time, and by greatly simplifying manufacturing, can give automakers a
decisive competitive advantage."21

Modern diesels. Significant progress toward better efficiency can also be
reached in the realm of diesel engines. Modern diesel vehicles are becoming
increasingly popular in Europe, which is one major reason why average fleet
mileage there is so much higher than in the United States. Hybrid diesel
engines can combine the benefits of both technologies to reach even higher
efficiency gains.

Diesel fuels currently account for almost 20 percent of U.S. oil
consumption. New technologies are available to use nonfossil sources for
its production. For example, diesel fuel can be made from waste, such as
garbage, tires, and animal by-products. In fact, it is currently being
commercially produced from turkey carcasses and other offal.

An innovative biodiesel fuel can be commercially produced from soybeans and
other vegetable oils. Such fuels are compatible with the current
distribution infrastructure, and blends of up to 20 percent can be used in
existing vehicles.

Needed: A New National Initiative

There is no shortage of other longer-term technological solutions to our
energy problem. Although many of them hold great promise, it is not clear
that they will be available by the time we need them.

After all, the average lifetime of a vehicle in the United States is more
than sixteen years. Thus, the technological transformation of the
transportation sector will take roughly fifteen to twenty years, as new
vehicles replace old ones.

That is why it is imperative to begin the process without delay. Every day
we wait is one more day that America will struggle under the yoke of a
dangerous and ruinously expensive oil dependence, with all its national
security implications.

We have no time to wait for commercialization of promising but immature
technologies, such as hydrogen fuel cells, which still face significant
technological barriers. Nor do we have time to wait for expensive and time
consuming infrastructure change. The focus should be on using alternative
approaches-like fuel choice and plug in hybrids-that can be implemented
relatively quickly and that permit the maximum possible use of existing
refueling facilities and automotive assembly lines.

In 1942, President Roosevelt mobilized the nation's scientific and
financial resources to launch the Manhattan Project-a top priority effort
to build an atomic weapon in response to threats to America's survival. The
outcome was an end to the war with Japan, followed by the development of a
wide new array of nuclear based technologies in energy, medical treatment,
and other fields.

In 1962, President Kennedy launched the Apollo Man to the Moon Project,
driven in part by mounting threats to U.S. and international security posed
by Soviet space dominance. The outcome was an extraordinary strategic and
technological success for the United States. It engendered a wide array of
spin offs that improved virtually every aspect of modern life.

In 1983, President Reagan responded to the danger of Soviet ballistic
missiles by unveiling the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), a major
program to develop the means to destroy such missiles in flight. We now
know that SDI played an important part in the success of Mr. Reagan's
strategy for destroying the Soviet Union. It compounded the Kremlin's
already acute economic problems and contributed to the breakup of the USSR,
creating unprecedented potential for a more peaceful and prosperous world.

In all three of these historic cases, a U.S. president called upon
America's ingenuity and the power of technology to address a global threat.
In each case, that threat came from an enemy determined to change the
existing world order and to extinguish the Western values and way of life
we cherish. Today, the security of the United States and, indeed, that of
the world, is no less threatened. This time, the threat comes from another
totalitarian ideology, Islamofascism, fueled by petrodollars. Fortunately,
we do not need an expensive new Manhattan Project to conduct groundbreaking
research into new and exotic technologies and fuels that will, over many
years, enhance energy efficiency and cut our dependence on foreign oil from
the Islamists and their friends.

The truth is that the technologies that will allow us to make the leap into
the post oil era are already with us. All that is needed now is leadership
and the support of the American people for a national commitment to energy
security. Putting the nation on a War Footing is the opportunity to bring
these assets to bear and to begin weaning our country from its oil
dependency and the associated vulnerabilities.

Today, the United States imports 11 million barrels per day (mbd), and it
is projected to import almost 20 mbd by 2025. According to the Set America
Free blueprint, if all cars on the road by 2025 are hybrids and half are
plug in hybrid vehicles, U.S. oil imports would drop by 8 mbd. If all of
these cars were also flexible fuel vehicles, U.S. oil imports would drop by
as much as 12 mbd.

Such a leap toward energy security is a big idea-but the American people
have never shied away from big ideas. During World War II, Winston
Churchill observed that "Americans' national psychology is such that the
bigger the idea, the more wholeheartedly and obstinately do they throw
themselves into making it a success. It is an admirable characteristic,
provided the idea is good."22

Breaking the hold of Middle East autocracies over the global economy is a
good idea whose time has come. For more than two centuries, the United
States has been the harbinger of freedom and democracy in the world, to the
benefit of millions of people. Now it is time for America to lead the Free
World in an effort to liberate us all from our current dependence on those
that would do us harm.