National Energy Policy


  • Ask 5 university presidents to name 3 of the best people in energy 
  • Take the list of 15 people and ask 30 non-political respected organizations of all types to vote for the 5 they feel are most qualified or write-in their own suggestion(s) 
  • Appoint a panel of the 5 experts with the largest number of votes from the 30 organizations 
  • The 30 organizations, and the public, can provide input to be considered by the panel. Also, solicit input from leading energy thinkers (Lovins, UCS, NRDC, Freeman, etc) on vision, goals, strategies (see sample below)
  • Get funding for the effort: Belfer, robert pernell/energy commission, calpine, enron, etc.
  • Task the panel with: 
    • Defining the long-term vision of energy in the US; 
    • Specific goals 
    • A strategy to achieve those goals
    • Recommendations for steps we should adopt now 
  • Make their conclusions publicly available for challenge The committee will weigh credible input and either modify their recommendations or explain why the input was rejected 
  • Ask each the 30 organizations to support the final result and to ask 2 organizations each to endorse the results 
  • Give the result to the League of Conservation Voters and others.
  • Result: An energy policy that is created for the best interests of the American public endorsed by 90 of the most prominent groups in America that can be enacted into law
Here are the rules:
  • sponsors get the OPPORTUNITY to provide input. As do any of the experts.
  • All decisions are made by the 10 person core team.
  • This is not a consensus report....the 10 person team can express their points of view.
  • While everyone who "testifies" and "pleads" will be heard, there is no stipulation that their input will be incorporated in the final report.
  • They will only be incorporated if they make sense and that will be at the SOLE discretion of the 10 person core team.



  • Our country is 100% powered from energy sources that are: 
    • Clean/safe for people and environment 
    • Renewable/available 
    • Inexpensive 
    • Reliable 
  • All transportation runs on 100% clean energy. We have eliminated all major sources of air pollution from the burning of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are used only for lubrication.
  • Eliminate dependence on foreign energy sources 
  • Export the technology to other countries to reduce the threat of global warming
  • Our air and water meet state and federal guidelines 100% of the time

Specific goals

  • Efficiency: this is the most cost-effective way to “create” new power. We should adopt specific programs to incentivize this, as well as continue funding research on energy efficiency.
  • Tap wind: Tap into the abundant wind power in ND, SD, Kansas, Texas corridor. Explore tapping into wind using sea, sky-based designs. Wind from these four states alone is sufficient to power the entire country. 
  • Tap Solar: tap into solar on roofs, commercial solar farms, and with solar shingles on housing
  • Hydrogen: Excess solar/wind power beyond that that can be immediately used by the grid (e.g., wind at night) is converted to Hydrogen (H). This hydrogen can be used to fuel cars and trucks, and stored to generate electricity from fuel cells in times of insufficient wind capacity. 
  • Build a cross-country network for: 
    • electrical transmission (so wind generated centrally can be used anywhere)
    • Hydrogen transmission (so excess wind/solar power can be easily transported)


  • Auto feebate: Charge manufacturers a $200 per vehicle pollution charge to any vehicle that is not dual H2/gas powered. Use the proceeds to pay manufacturers a $1,000 per vehicle rebate on dual powered cars. This will make dual powered vehicles cheaper for consumers to buy than gas powered vehicles. This creates an installed based of H2 capable vehicles so that infrastructure can be built without fear of lack of demand. Mandate that at least 25% of new production be dual or H2 powered only within 5 years.
  • Aggressively fund an NIH-like agency for renewable power that funds research and/or invests in startup companies that explore renewable power, e.g., new wind ideas (sea, sky), hydrogen storage (e.g., as a solid as ECD is doing), etc.

Phase in H over 5 years. Auto manufacturers required to produce 100% hydrogen vehicles within 5 years, at first with standard internal combustion engines, and later with fuel cells. Align phase in with availability of H from wind power and H transmission lines. Fund development of new wind technologies (sea, sky) Subsidize solar shingles on new homes so slightly less than the cost of standard shingles


Jeff Skilling, CEO of Enron

Donald Aitken Dr. Aitken began his career as a Stanford nuclear physicist. For ethical reasons he switched to solar architecture and solar technologies. Former senior scientist and solar designer with the Union of Concerned Scientists he is now senior consulting scientist for the UCS, and Adjunct Professor at the Frank Lloyd Wright School of Architecture at the University of Berkeley.

Peter Bradford -- former President, National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners; former Chairman, New York PSC and Maine PUC; former Commissioner, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

- Dr Irvin C. Bupp -- former Managing Director, Cambridge Energy Research Associates; former professor, Harvard Business School, where he coauthored Energy Futures.

- Robert H. Campbell, just-retired Chairman, Sunoco; immediate past president, American Association of Refiners; EPA advisor.

Prof Steve de Canio, UCSB economist, formerly on staff of Pres's Committee of Ec'c Advisors, climate and energy economics expert -- one of the very few economists worth having on this issue.

Tyrone Cashman Ty Cashman is President of the Solar Economy Institute. He was instrumental in the founding and rapid development of the wind energy industry in the 1970s and 80s at the New Alchemy Institute in Massachusetts and Canada, in the California Governor¹s Office, and as President of the American Wind Energy Association. Dr. Cashman has lectured and published on hydrogen energy since 1994.

- Ralph Cavanagh -- head of energy programs, Natural Resources Defense Council; leading utility reformer; affiliated with Yale & Stanford Law Schools, Electric Power Research Institute (I think), US National Academy of Engineering, etc.

Christopher Flavin Chris Flavin is President of the Worldwatch Institute, where he is responsible for overall management and fundraising, leads the Institute¹s management team, and represents the Institute before a broad range of audiences around the world. He is an ex officio member of the Institute its Board of Directors and its Executive Committee. Chris lectures frequently to business, university, and policy groups on how to achieve less polluting, more efficient, and more sustainable energy and industrial systems. He has testified before legislative committees in several countries, and had advised governments, international agencies and corporations around the world. Chris has also served as consultant on sustainable energy to the United Nations Development Program, the Government of Japan, and various non-governmental organizations.

S. David Freeman --- David Freeman's served as the General Manager of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. Prior to accepting the top position at the Department, S. David Freeman served as Governor Pete Wilson's appointee to head the California Independent System Operator and the California Power Exchange (ISO/PX) Trusts. Freeman's extensive experience includes top positions at New York Power Authority, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Lower Colorado River Authority and Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD). He previously had been an energy consultant to the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee, head of the energy policy staff in the White House Office of Science and Technology, and executive assistant to the chairman of the Federal Power Commission.

Mark Haller Mark Haller, a wind energy engineer, is Vice President of development and technology for Zilka Renewable Energy. He was head of the wind division at York Research Corporation from 1997 to 2000. From early 1994 until 1997, Mark headed up all North American business development efforts for Enercon, the leading German wind turbine manufacturer. Mark worked with California based SeaWest as one of the first employees in 1983 and stayed with the company for ten years. During that time, Mark helped set up SeaWest¹s operations and maintenance group, served as President of their Altamont service organization, and was responsible for the design and implementation of numerous turbine retrofit programs.

- Jan Hamrin -- noted analyst/advocate of independent power generation.

- Hal Harvey -- President, The Energy Foundation; Stanford engineer.

- Denis Hayes -- President, Bullitt Foundation; former Director, National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

- Dr John P. Holdren -- former energy advisor to President Clinton; Professor, Kennedy School, Harvard U; former head of Energy & Resources Group, U.Ca. / Berkeley; fusion physicist (LLNL); many prominent advisory and international roles linking energy, resources, environment, development, and seucirty.

- Greg Kats -- former financial advisor, DOE; codeveloper of International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol; independent energy efficiency project/finance advisor/developer.

- Dr Henry Kelly -- former #2 in White House Office of Science and Technology Policy; previously head of energy/resources at Congressional Office of Technology Assessment; Harvard physicist; photovoltaics expert; President, Federation of American Scientists.

Donald Kennedy Donald Kennedy is president emeritus of Stanford University(1980 - 1992). He is the Bing Professor of Environmental Science and co-director of the Center for Environmental Science and Policy. He was commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration in the Carter Administration, and on June 1, 2000 will become editor-in-chief of Science, the weekly peer reviewed journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

Jeremy Leggett Jeremy was Professor of Earth Sciences at Imperial College, a leading expert on the geology of ocean floors and consultant to major oil companies. One day, seeing the effect carbon extraction was having on global warming, and the dire consequences for the planet, he left his job and became scientific director of Greenpeace. Jeremy Leggett is now chief executive of Solar Century, a company at the forefront of promoting solar energy, and Charterhouse Fellow in Solar Energy at Oxford University.

- Amory B. Lovins -- CEO (Research), Rocky Mountain Institute; bio at The Wall Street Journal named Dr. Amory Lovins one of 28 people world wide "most likely to change the course of business in the '90s". Newsweek called him "one of the Western world's most influential energy thinkers". As well as co-authoring Natural Capitalism - the Next Industrial Revolution, he has briefed 10 heads of state, held several visiting academic chairs, authored and co-authored 26 books and hundreds of papers and consulted for scores of industries and governments worldwide. He is Co-CEO of the Rocky Mountain Institute, a non-profit natural resource think tank, and lives in the Rockies on a very unusual banana farm.

Mina Morita Representative Morita is the Chair of the State of Hawaii House Committee on Energy and Environmental Protection (EEP), and a member of the NCSL Advisory Committee on Energy (ACE) for the Energy Project, a committee of the National Conference of State Legislatures, which is tasked with reviewing policy research on energy issues for all state legislatures.

Alan Nogee- Director, Clean Energy Program, Union of Concerned Scientists

Joan M. Ogden Joan Ogden is a plasma physicist and a pioneer Research Scientist at the Center for Energy and Environmental Studies at Princeton University. Dr. Ogden's current research focuses on renewable energy technologies, efficient use of energy, hydrogen energy systems, and fuel cell systems. She has published papers such as: Developing a Refueling Infrastructure for Hydrogen Vehicles: A Southern California Case Study. A Comparison of Hydrogen, Methanol and Gasoline as Fuels for Fuel Cell Vehicles. And, Prospects for Building a Hydrogen Energy Infrastructure.

- Karl R. Rábago -- Managing Director, RMI; former Deputy Asst Sec of Energy for Utility Systems; Chairman, Green-E; former VP, Planergy and CH2M Hill; former Texas PUC Commissioner; former Energy Director, Environmental Defense; former law professor, West Point.

Dan Reicher -  Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U. S. Department of Energy, in the Clinton Administration and one can find his work at

- Dr Joseph Romm -- founder/head of Center for Energy and Climate Solutions, a nonprofit industry coalition (; former Acting Assistant Secretary of Energy for Efficiency and Renewables.

Stephen H. Schneider Stephen H. Schneider received his Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering and Plasma Physics. He joined the Stanford faculty in September 1992, as Professor of Biological Sciences, jointly appointed by the Department of Biological Sciences and the Institute for International Studies. He also is a Senior Scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. Professor Schneider is editor of "Climatic Change," an interdisciplinary journal he founded in 1975. He has initiated new research and policy directions in environmental issues, in part by crossing disciplinary boundaries and combining disciplinary research contributions, and the organization of scientific and public policy meetings and seminars. His current research interests include climatic change, global warming, economic implications of global warming mitigation strategies.

Nejat Veziroglu Dr. Veziroglu is director of the Clean Energy Research Institute (CERI) at the University of Miami and president-director of the International Association for Hydrogen Energy (IAHE). Dr. Veziroglu is the pioneer of the hydrogen-energy economic system, and was nominated for the 2000 Nobel Prize in economics.

- Dr Robert H. Williams -- Professor of Energy and Environmental Studies, Princeton U.; authority on renewables, gasification, and carbon-free fossil-fuel techniques.

Frank Wolak Ph.D., M.S. Harvard University; B.A. Rice University. Research includes empirical studies of regulated and formerly regulated industries (e.g., telecommunications, electricity, water, postal delivery services), empirical studies of U.S. trade policies (anti-dumping and countervailing duty law). "Market Design and Price Behavior in Restructured Electricity Markets: An International Comparison,"


One of Dan Yergin or Chip Bupp or Gary Simons (he might well be the best of CERA) 

One of: Tom Feiler, Joel Swisher Jim Sweeney and/or John Weiant

Also, several people recommended Michael Totten, Conservation International. Knows alternatives well, understands policy process very well and is good at having disparate interests work together productively. Gephardt's counsel mentioned Dan Reicher too, which you have, now at Brookings, I think?. Also Melanie Kinderdine (sp?), was special asst to Secretary Richardson (DOE).

john brown, chair BP

Lynn Draper, CEO, American Electric Power

Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, just-retired Chairman of Royal Dutch/Shell

Dan Riggs at Aspen Institute can give us contact info for Bill McCormick (CEO CMS Energy), Charlie Curtis, Bill Hogan. Thought Ken Lay and John Bryson would be excellent.

A specific approach

due to long design cycles for cars, and a new technology like H, it's reasonable to allow car makers 5 years or so to start to produce vehicles so equipped.
That means we should start today with legislation that does something like mandating that in 5 years, 10% of new vehicles must be H/gas dual powered, and within 10 years, 80% must be dual powered, and within 20 years, we shall not allow gas powered vehicles to be sold in the US. We may not even need the latter provision since the cost of gas will be so high relative to hydrogen, that the latter could be driven by the market, rather than mandate.
Then we break the chicken/egg problem in transistioning to H which will benefit everyone in the long term: lower prices, plentiful supply, no health impacts, no smog, no global warming, ...
We can generate Hydrogen inexpensively through various ways with wind (land, sky, and sea-based systems are alternatives) being the most sensible.
To take full advantage of Wind, we'd need:
- a national electrical grid
- a national h2 capable pipeline grid (not all existing gas lines can transport hydrogen)
The economics are now reasonable to start the move to a wind/hydrogen-based energy policy now. There is enough wind power in just 4 states to completely power the entire country (source: US Dept of Energy).


We have no long term vision for energy, just a crummy short term plan that ignores the progress we've made in the last 30 years.  I just met with the head of UCS policy in this area and he said there were no funders thinking long term so they've never even looked at this issue.

Long term, i think the vision is to shift to a Hydrogen-based economy as fast as we can, using Wind primarily as well as Solar and other clean, renewable technologies: 

  • - harness wind energy in those states with high winds (ND, SD, texas, etc). Excess power is converted to Hydrogen and transported via pipeline and stored. -
  •  auto manufacturers mandated to produce dual gas/Hydrogen powered hybrid (electric/gas) vehicles. By using a hybrid, we reduce the size of the H2 tank. By using dual power, we allow for the chicken/egg infrastructure problem. This adds very little to the price. Even today, you can retrofit a gas car for H for $2,000. Building it in from scratch is even cheaper. 
  • - big incentives for using solar shingles in new construction 
  • ...etc.

The funny thing is: I don't think any scientist disagrees with this as the long term, but NOBODY is articulating it or thinking about how to best get there.

The sooner we have a vision, the sooner we can all start to figure out how to get there. This blue ribbon panel would be a great start....task them with both long term vision, and then a strategy for how to get there. It will make things so much more clear.

Cheapest ways to generate electricity (in order):

  • Efficiency (i.e., changing to more efficient lights, etc): well under anything else
  • Wind (under 3.5 cents)
  • Coal (7 to 10 cents)
Not sure where these are
  • Geothermal
  • Solar
  • ...where are hydro, ?

Fastest ways to increase supply of energy:

  • Wind (6 month to build)
  • ...what's next?

A study done by the U.S. Department of Energy found that Kansas, North Dakota and Texas theoretically have enough harnessable wind energy to power the entire country. (worldwatch reference capital-journal article)

Of course, you need a mixture of sources for 24 hour availability (the wind may not blow much during hot summer months), but wind has the advantage of:

  • lowest cost (3 cents per kwh)
  • fastest time to market (6 months)
  • 100% renewable
  • abundant supply

So....why aren't we pursuing these clean, inexpensive technologies?

is very wrong, because you're confusing building and running new plants with just running old plants.

A new coal plant will make power at the busbar (the output terminals of its generator) at about 5-8¢/kWh depending on coal composition and pollution controls. Running it once it's built costs about 2¢ (as little as 1¢ for a few of the biggest minemouth plants like Colstrip). Delivering the power from the plant to the customer adds about 2-9¢/kWh, averaging around 3¢.

Modern wind plants in decent sites cost about 3.0-3.2¢/kWh to build and run. Once built, their operating cost is about 0.1-0.3¢/kWh because wind is free and maintenance costs (or land-use royalties) are low. Delivery cost is roughly comparable to coal plants'.

Geothermal and hydro costs are extremely site-specific and vary widely. Solar photovoltaics are about 8-30¢/kWh delivered, depending on assumptions.

Efficient end-use of electricity is under 2¢/kWh delivered -- generally under 1¢ for commercial/industrial savings.

Net of thermal credit, onsite cogeneration and trigeration with microturbines or engines is usually about 2-5¢/kWh delivered, while industrial cogeneration is more like 0.5-2¢/kWh delivered.

Thus you've left out the cheapest and fastest options (efficiency and cogen/trigen) and have shown a running cost for old coal but a full cost for new wind.

What you say about the intermittency of wind is also incorrect. Spreading it over a mesoscale of a few hundred km makes it quite reliable. So, even more, does integrating it with either photovoltaics or hydro, since the weather conditions that are bad for one are good for another. And if you really want a firm dispatchable resource, underground compressed-air storage adds only about 1.5¢/kWh.

And if you really want a firm dispatchable resource, underground compressed-air storage adds only about 1.5¢/kWh


so you take the excess wind electricity and convert it to compressed air? so that way you can operate the whole country just on wind?

In principle, yes, though you wouldn't actually do it that way.

is it possible to generate all the electricity in texas and n/s dakota and transmit it to all the states? or are the tranmission lines not up to it (i'd guess the latter)?

Not currently sufficient; indeed, Texas has its own grid with only modest interconnections to everyone else, and the E and W grids have only one intertie last I heard (a HVDC line in NE). Fortunately, much of the country has wind. -- ABL


Here's the scoop on PV panels: 7 to 10 year payoff from a friend of mine:

I purchased my system based E-NET residential PG&E rates. I then assumed something like $0.15/kWh for the next decade or so. Given that, the system would pay for itself in 7-10 years including the added resale value of the house to the next owner. Better return on investment than a Lincoln Navigator or even some mutual funds. I liked the economics enough that I enlarged the system to cover the EV1 electricity consumption using an extra $6k from the kid's college fund because it will be repaid probably 3 times over by the time Natasha, 4, is starting college. Not counting the benefit of cleaner air to breathe!

The system was $30,000 including the CEC $3/watt buydown, excluding the battery backup and second Trace SW5548 so I can run 240V loads during blackouts including the EV1 charger. That was an additional $7,000 that's unnecessary if you just want to drive your electric bill to zero.

But... Now that E-NET is available with any other rate schedule, you combine with an E-7, E-7A or E-9 Time Of Use rate. Then the economics and payback period get very short and very interesting. Frequent use of Air conditioning wouldn't work too well with the TOU rates but everything else will.




Why is our energy policy only increasing the country's supply of oil and natural gas and using more coal and nuclear power?

[Q&A from DOE website wind FAQ]

What are the economic obstacles to greater wind power usage?
Even though the cost of wind power has decreased dramatically in the past 10 years, the technology requires a higher initial investment than fossil-fueled generators. Roughly 80% of the cost is the machinery, with the balance being the site preparation and installation. If wind generating systems are compared with fossil-fueled systems on a "life-cycle" cost basis (counting fuel and operating expenses for the life of the generator), however, wind costs are much more competitive with other generating technologies because there is no fuel to purchase and minimal operating expenses.

Are there other drawbacks to the use of wind energy?
The major challenge to using wind as a source of power is that it is intermittent and it does not always blow when electricity is needed. Wind cannot be stored (unless batteries are used); and not all winds can be harnessed to meet the timing of electricity demands. Further, good wind sites are often located in remote locations far from areas of electric power demand (such as cities). Finally, wind resource development may compete with other uses for the land and those alternative uses may be more highly valued than electricity generation. However, wind turbines can be located on land that is also used for grazing or even farming.

Is wind energy good for the economy?
Wind energy avoids the external or societal costs associated with conventional resources, namely, the trade deficit from importing foreign oil and other fuels, the health and environmental costs of pollution, and the cost of depleted resources. Wind energy is a domestic, reliable resource that provides more jobs per dollar invested than any other energy technology--more than five times that from coal or nuclear power. In 1994, wind turbine and component manufacturers contributed directly to the economies of 44 states, creating thousands of jobs for Americans.

Is the cost of wind power competitive with conventional power plants?
New, utility-scale, wind projects are being built all around the United States today with energy costs ranging from 3.9 cents per kilowatt-hour (at very windy sites in Texas) to 5 cents or more (in the Pacific Northwest). These costs are competitive with the direct operating costs of many conventional forms of electricity generation now--and prices are expected to drop even further over the next 10 years. Since wind is an intermittent electricity generator and does not provide power on an "as needed" basis, it has to compare favorably with the costs saved on fuel from fossil generators.

From Amory Lovins:

If wind energy is so cheap, how come there are idle wind farms in the US?  politics? or because used older technology? or ...
A few are old machines with bad engineering; most of these have been or are being fixed. A few are stranded by e.g. SoCalEd which failed to build promised transmission from them. Some utilities (PG&E got sued over this, and I don't know the outcome) simply dispatched their own nukes in preference to others' windpower which those utiliteis didn't want to pay for, so they simply broke their contracts and left the wind machines idle. This is now fairly rare but sometimes still happens. Not many wind machines are idle, and all the modern ones work very reliably.

Are there any countries that derive a significant part of their energy from wind? denmark? at what cost per kwh?
Denmark was 16% wind-powered as of last fall; heading for 50% by 2030 and ahead of schedule. See for recent data from various countries. The leaders include Germany, Spain, India, China. Parts of northern Germany and northern Spain are more than 100% windpowered on windy days. Total world wind capacity is at least 17 GW; another ~5 GW is being added this year. (For comparison, in the 90s, nukes added an average of 3.1 GW/y worldwide.). Wind is the world's fastest growing energy source.

W E B   L I N K S
U.S. DOE Wind Energy Program

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

National Wind Technology Center

From: Ty Cashman

The only necessary emission from the combustion of H2 in an internal combustion engine is water vapor. However, H2 burns at a hotter heat than gasoline, and hot burning can affect the oxygen and nitrogen that's in air to produce nitrogen oxides (NOX). The way to reduce NOX to nearly nothing is to open the air intake completely. When there is a maximum amount of air available to the combustion, NOX production doesn't happen significantly.

The advantages of fuel cells: (1) They are twice as efficient as an ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) running on gasoline. An ICE running on H2 is also more efficient than on gasoline, but only by 25% to 50% percent.

(2) A fuel cell car with a superlight body (Hypercar) does not require an engine, a transmission, a starter motor, or a differential. This makes the whole car far lighter than any ICE car can be.

(3) Although there are no major technological hurdles left, the H2 storage tanks are still not a completely resolved issue. (a) Compressed H2 needs a big fuel tank to drive a heavy car 300 miles. (b) A metal hydride tank can hold more H2 in less space, but it is heavy itself. (c) Liquid H2 requires energy equal to about 40% of its energy content to cool it to the liquid state. A Hypercar (superlight because built with extremely strong composite materials; electric motor driven; and very crash-worthy) can use a small (cheaper)fuel cell and a smaller compressed H2 tank.

However, fuel cell cars, and fuel cell hypercars won't be ready for two or three years anyway. (1) We could convert ICE cars right away with a major program. (2) AND, even when the fuel cell cars are commercially available at reasonable prices, there will still be the 200 million ICE cars on the road in America that will continue pumping carbon into the air and pushing global warming over the edge for many years. These should be converted to H2.

BMW builds luxury ICE cars that run on liquid hydrogen. The company has robotic liquid-H2 filling stations that fill a small fleet of cars that carry visitors from the Munich Airport to BMW headquarters.

One of the interesting things about conversion of used cars to H2 is that they can be dual-fuel, i.e., gasoline and H2, or even triple-fuel. In a dual-fuel car you can drive on gasoline and H2 at the same time, or separately. Mixing H2 into the gasoline mix makes the burn both cleaner and more powerful. The dual-fuel option makes ICE vehicle conversion both possible and convenient while the H2 filling station infrastructure is slowly being put into place.

Unfortunately, there is no public pressure for the conversion of ICE cars right now. We would like see such a movement. The missing piece is that the public doesn't know anything about the hydrogen economy. I am writing a book and lecturing on The Hydrogen Economy these days. Public awareness and support is the only missing strategic piece to bringing the Hydrogen Economy into being, I am convinced.


To: Steve Kirsch From: Bret Logue

H2 ICE vehicles:

From Ford Motor Company: "An internal combustion engine that runs on hydrogen? It seems a natural - hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, packs more energy per pound than gasoline and delivers extremely clean combustion. Numerous fuel handling challenges do remain, and yes, there is that lack of commercial hydrogen infrastructure, but Ford is not unfamiliar with development challenges with formidable odds. Ford scientists are working to equip a research vehicle with a hydrogen-powered internal combustion engine by the end of this year, aiming to develop a cost-effective alternative to power future vehicles with extremely clean hydrogen fuel. A vehicle powered by a hydrogen-fueled engine would operate at about 25 percent increased fuel efficiency compared to today's gasoline vehicle, while producing no hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide emissions. Nitrogen oxide emissions (NOx) would meet proposed future federal standards of .05 grams per mile."

The 25% increased fuel efficiency is less than claimed by Roy McAlister, President of the American Hydrogen Association. The AHA said that they would expect a 50% increase in fuel efficiency. This may be mostly due to the introduction of the Smart Plug, Roy McAlister's own invention.

Estimated range of ICE: 190 miles with 5,000 psi IMPCO tank 380 miles with 10,000 psi IMPCO tank

Hydrogen-fueled hybrid electric vehicles would increase the range to almost 250-275 miles and a fuel cell would bring it to approximately 400 miles of range for a 5000 psi tank. All this according to figures from IMPCO and assuming a 27 mpg for a gasoline equivalent vehicle.

The cost of Hydrogen is expected to be approximately $3.00/kg retail (1 kg ~ 1 U.S. gallon of gasoline equivalent).

Wind in California: 1,676.6 MW installed capacity 4,418 billion kWhr annual electricity production 1.3% of yearly electricity consumption

Potential exists to increase the total capacity of California's wind farms through repowering.

According to AWEA (American Wind Energy Association) the wind potential of California is 6,770 MW or 56 billion kWhr which would constitute approximately 30% of California's total energy demand.

For a complete rundown of Wind Power in the U.S. checkout:



----- >From: Steve Kirsch <> >To: "'Ty Cashman'" <> >Subject: RE: radical energy moves >Date: Tue, May 22, 2001, 12:27 AM >

> do you know what kind of pollution we get from a H powered car? > > if we can use this today, why go to fuel cells? > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ty Cashman [] >> Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 8:42 PM >> To: >> Subject: radical energy moves >> >> >> >> Dear Steven Kirsch, >> >> Because I didn't have a card to give you this >> afternoon, let me >> give you my info here: >> >> Tyrone Cashman, Ph.D. >> SOLAR ECONOMY INSTITUTE >> 5 Kent Way >> Mill Valley, CA 94941 >> (415) 388-5539 (phone) >> 388-2914 (fax) >> >> >> Several of your questions deserve better answers >> than Bret and I >> could offer spontaneously on the porch. We'll send you some >> numbers as soon >> as we can confirm them together. >> >> One of the most frustrating things for me, during >> the years when >> we were building the renewable energy industry, was the >> assumption of most >> people that somehow we all have to wait until some technology >> is ready or >> wait until the prices come down. Time isn't what makes these >> things happen. >> Action is what makes these things happen. >> >> It was very enjoyable talking with you. >> >> yours, >> >> Ty Cashman >>

Thanks for taking the time at the end of last Sunday's event to talk at length about Hydrogen and especially for challenging UCS to promote Hydrogen as the long term solution to these periodic energy crises.

Along with working with Ty Cashman on policy initiatives concerning solar, wind and hydrogen, I have also been working with a group on new technologies to drive down the cost of accessing offshore wind resources. Offshore wind has greater energy content and more consistent production potential than land-based wind and can be used to produce hydrogen directly for use in stationary and transportation applications.

I thought that considering your interest in both wind and hydrogen, you might be interested in this project. I sent some information to the address on you business card, but if there is a more appropriate address to mail a brochure, let me know.

Thanks again,

Bret Logue


larry page knows someone doing wind that taps power of the jetstream at 10,000 elevation...basically a flying machine with a long extension cord (supposed to be more cost effective than land-based windmills). see and