Power of the Sun

Exiting Riverhead, NY, Rt. 25 leads tourist into Long Island Wine and Farm country.  On the left is a peculiar building roofed with solar panels and in front of a wind turbine backdrop. This building is home to Go Solar Incorporated, a full service solar energy systems designer and installer.  Go Solar has been assisting Long Islanders with their energy needs since 1974.  In 1993, to showcase the promise of solar power, Gary Minnick, President of Go Solar Inc., disconnected their office building from the LIPA (Long Island Power Authority) power grid.  Since that time they have welcomed schools and businesses to come and tour a fully functional solar powered work environment.  All of the Go Solar associates live their message, employing independent solar electricity and water heating in their own homes.  For many Long Islanders heating and electricity costs have skyrocketed, leaving both summer and winter energy costs at a dangerous level.  With oil trading at near $100 a barrel, this winter is proving to be the worst on record for home heating and electricity costs.  Go Solar Inc, offers an alternative to dependence on fossil fuels.  Photovoltaic Cells convert light into electricity using the photoelectric effect, the process by which electrons are emitted from matter after the absorption of energy.  This technology was first utilized by Charles Fritt in 1883.  Today, Go Solar uses this same technology in solar water heating and solar electricity production.  A solar water heating system can save the average family, of four, $750 a year on oil or gas expenses.  In addition, the home owner, after installation, is entitled to federal and NY state income tax credits up to $4,225.  The solar water heating system consists of roof mounted solar thermal collector and photovoltaic module.  In the home a circulator pump, heat exchanger, solar storage tank, pump controller, and drainback reservoir make up the distribution and control aspects of the system.  After hot water heating, Go Solar can take home owners one step closer to energy independence with a full solar power set up.  Installing a solar PV (photovoltaic) array and Sun Tie inverter opens the door to unlimited possibilities.  Both the federal and NY State governments offer substantial tax credits for solar installations.  The federal government will give up to a $2,000 income tax break; while NY State offers 25% income tax credit (up to $5,000) for a single home.  The power company has even joined in on the rebates.  LIPA currently offers a $3.75 rebate per installed watt of power.  Also while still plugged into the LIPA grid, any unused energy produced on sunny days can be sold back to the power company.  The reality of current solar power is not total energy independence, but augmentation of current energy needs.  While start-up costs remain high for solar energy, Go Solar says, after federal and state rebates, expenses can be recouped in as little as six years.  Go Solar went even further to demonstrate solar’s endless possibilities in 2003, when Gary Minnick built a solar powered boat used to circumnavigate Long Island.  His first design holds the speed record for a solar powered boat, when “Peconic Sun” traveled 6.6 nautical miles in 2 hours 3 minutes and 31 seconds.  His larger design “3rd Wave”, was specifically designed for the around Long Island journey.  The boat, completely solar powered, utilizes a 60 volt DC outboard motor creating 198 lbs of thrust.  The journey took 11 days and came to a exciting conclusion in Flanders Bay, after both bay and ocean travel.  Gary Minnick and Go Solar Inc. have been opening New Yorkers eyes to solar possibilities for over thirty years, and with technology growing, will certainly lead the way into a renewable future.  Though solar energy is still only financially available for some, the work of diligent companies and lawmakers are opening the door to energy independence for all.       

The Blame Game

Talk from the White House and from Congress this week illustrated the true problems in the American government …”the blame game”.  Starting on Tuesday, the accusations were shot across party lines.  The President attacked the Democratic-lead Congress for “not getting its work done”, while Democratic leaders blamed President Bush and the GOP for low approval ratings and lack of progress.  But what is the truth?  Who is to blame for the sorry state of our elected government?  And even more important, who really cares?  The American public should be more concerned with the fact that their elected officials have failed to pass even one major bill; than who is responsible for that failure.  The finger-pointing exhibited by both the President and by leaders in Congress is more reminiscent of a high school clique than a functioning government.  President Bush started the imputations, during a press conference Tuesday morning.  Surrounded by House Republican leaders, Bush began his speech stating that he had just finished a constructive meeting with House Republicans, and he concluded “the leadership that’s on the Hill now cannot get the job done.”  Bush continued to draw focus on the appropriations bills that have not been passed by Congress.  These bills, funding the different sections of the government, were due in the middle of August.  Congress’ failure to pass any of the required funding caused Bush to refer to Congress as having “the worst record…in 20 years.”  House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, obviously not in attendance at the Presidents press conference, fired back voicing that most of Congress’ measures were “blocked far too often by a do-nothing president and his Republican accomplices.”  Hoyer also charged the President with having the “most fiscally irresponsible policies in American history.”  So what does all this talk mean for the American public?  Not much!  Congress and the President have failed to come to terms on any of the important issues facing our country today, and with the comments being slung last week America will be hard-pressed to see any changes.  Congress’ approval rating as a whole sits a meek 22%, while approval for Congressional Democrats is at 43%.  Democratic members were quick to point out this difference, but the problem is Democrats alone do not make up Congress.  For the American government to function, Congress has to compromise across party lines.  As far as Americans are concerned Congress’ approval stands at 22%, no matter what people think of the Democrats or Republicans.  As for the President, the last USA Today/Gallup poll showed him with a 32% approval rating, not much better than his counterparts in Congress.  Bush continues to attack Congress for failing to pass the appropriations bills, but the track record for the previous years of his presidency do not show a difference.  During Bush’s first six years, while the Republicans were in control of Congress, 36 of 74 appropriations bills failed to pass.  In those same six years Bush signed only seven bills before the start of the fiscal year.  In 2006, as well as 2004, the Republican Congress failed to pass a budget.  President Bush has also attacked Congress for allocating more than he has requested for each bill, even though for the past five years the President has signed legislation that exceeded his requests.  In 2006 alone, Bush signed legislation that exceeded his request by $53 billion, and never attacked his Republican leadership.  Finally, during the six years of Republican congressional control Bush did not veto a single spending bill, even though the federal debt was increased by about $3 trillion.  The reality is that both the President and Congress have failed the American people.  As they continue to bicker, Americans are left to shoulder the burden. Rising energy costs, extended tours for military members, lack of immigration reform, soaring health care costs, massive trade deficits, tainted imports, a slumping housing market, an economy on the brink of recession, and the collapse of the American dollar are constant reminders that changed is needed.  With major elections a year away the time is now to force elected officials to work with the citizens best interests in mind, instead of trying to use the opposing political party as a scapegoat.             

Extending a Deceptive Hand to Cuba

Wednesday, President Bush gathered reporters in the State Department Building.  Behind him were wives and children of Cubans being held by the communist government.  The President made his case for the necessity of regime change, in the sovereign state of Cuba. Bush explained that Fidel Castro and the communist government “denied their citizens basic rights that the free world takes for granted.”  He continued to list the troubles of Cuban people and attempted to tout how America has played a positive role in liberating the small island nation.  “I also urge our congress to show our support and solidarity for fundamental change in Cuba by maintaining our embargo on the dictatorship until it changes,” Bush stated after discussing a bill approved by Congress to allocate funds to support Cuban democracy efforts.  The speech came on the heels of a week long push to show how nothing short of regime change would empower the Cuban people.  President Bush acknowledged Fidel Castro’s failing health and stated a power shift to his younger brother, Raul, would continue totalitarian rule.  But did President Bush offer any real suggestions on how to foster democracy so close to the Untied States’ shores?  Bush announced his initiative, the Freedom Fund.  The fund would be a multi-billion dollar account, donated by the international community, to rebuild Cuba’s economy and “make the transition to democracy”.  This money would be awarded as soon as the Cuban government implements what bush calls “fundamental freedoms”.  The money would then be turned over to Cubans, especially entrepreneurs.  The major problem is the fund is still left in the hands of American politicians loyal to the Bush administration.  As Cubans attempt to change their political landscape, what will stop the leaders of the Fund from changing the criteria or dissolving the fund all together?  Outside of the fund, Bush offered no real assistance to regime change, a note that he must have learned from the first President Bush when he told the Iraqi people to revolt against Saddam Hussein.  With the Cuban military loyal to the Castro family any type of revolutionary force would be met with utter annihilation.  President Bush did not stop there; he also offered other types of support.  “Here’s an interesting idea to help the Cuban people…provide computers and Internet access to the Cuban people,” Bush explained.  Internet access? Cuban citizens lack some of the most basic necessities, and President Bush seriously offered them computers.  Reaction from Cubans illustrated frustration.  A Cuban man, asked about Bush’s support of the Cuban embargo, was quoted in the NY Times saying, “The embargo has only proven damaging to the Cuban people.  Because of it we lack medicine, clothes, and food.  It is unfair.”  Though Bush supports the embargo, He allowed the export of 500 million dollars worth of goods to Cuba last year.  The UN general Assembly has called for the end of the embargo for 15 consecutive years.  Many people in America and abroad are angered by the isolation of one communist state and the acceptance of another.  While Cuba has been held under an iron fist, China has been left to flourish.  China, a country guilty of every human rights and government violation that Bush has aimed at Cuba, enjoys the positive side of a nearly $200 billion American trade deficit.  Amnesty International lists both China and Cuba as basically equal in their treatment of citizens.  Both countries are guilty of economic control of workers, arbitrary detention, unfair trials, religious control, freedom of speech limitations, and the restriction of newspapers and Internet access.  All this information and the Bush administration has never talked of regime change in China.  In fact, President Bush has failed to act as tainted goods pour into the US.  So why then is there this difference in treatment?  The answer is power, China has it Cuba does not.  This fact allows Bush to pick Cuba as his next country to bully.  Bush’s quest to spread democracy is reminiscent of the Cold War, although less successful.  His record stands for itself; in Lebanon free elections allowed Hezbollah to gain seats in the government, in Palestine democracy chose Hamas to run the country, in Iraq democracy has created a safe haven for terrorist activity, and Cuba is next.  Once again American foreign policy pushes democracy on countries that are not suited to accept the responsibilities of freedom.  The Cuban government is guilty of numerous human rights violations, many the result of Americas policy towards the neighboring country.  Instead of creating well named funds, America should foster friendship and attempt to actually help the Cuban people.           

On the Border of War

Today, Iraq was invaded…again!  Turkish war planes and attack helicopters bombed Kurdistan Workers’ Party, PKK, targets inside the Kurdish region of Iraq.  US supplied F-16s and Cobra helicopters were reported attacking the northern Iraqi village of Derishkit, approximately four miles inside Iraq.  Were these attacks condemned by the international community?  No, actually the only talk of the attacks was by Maj. Gen. Richard Sherlock, who stated, “I don’t know of any Turkish air-strikes in that area today.”  Tensions along the Turkey-Iraq border have been high since attacks left 12 Turkish soldiers dead, one week ago.  The PKK have launched numerous attacks into Turkey over the last few months, intensifying Turkey’s response.  Turkey has called upon the US and the US backed Iraqi government to extinguish the PKK.  Listed as a terrorist organization by the United States and the European Union, the PKK operates in the mountainous region along the northern Iraqi border.  The al-Maliki government has been unable, and frankly unwilling before recent Turkish threats, to stop the PKK from using Iraqi Kurdistan as a launching pad for attacks into Turkey.  The US, stretched thin securing the more populated and dis-functional regions of Iraq, have had a long standing relationship with the Kurds.  The Kurds generally welcome the US occupation and aided the 173rd Airborne at the start of the Iraq War.  On the other side of the border, Turkey has become a crucial logistic point in the supply route for the American military.  Due to America’s reliance on Turkey, the Bush administration has called on the Kurdish regional government to deal with the PKK.  But as seen today, Turkey’s patience is running thin.  Just to the east, on Iraq’s northern border another organization, the Party for Free Life in Kurdistan or PJAK, is launching their own attacks.  The PJAK originated in southern Iran, and was based on the idea of civil disobedience.  As Iran cracked down on the Kurdish group, they found sanctuary in the mountains controlled by the PKK.  While living under the umbrella of the PKK, the PJAK adopted some of the military based ideology of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party.  It is currently thought that both organizations are run by the same man, Abdullah Ocalan.  Though these two groups share the same general ideas, the PJAK do not appear on the list of terrorist organizations.  The reason for their absence hinges on their enemy.  While the PKK fight Turkey, an American ally, the PJAK fight the Islamic Revolutionary Guards and the Iranian Government.  Though it is unconfirmed, it is well accepted that the PJAK operate with the support of the United States.  Leaders of the PJAK were allowed to travel to Washington, in 2007, to garner support from American politicians.  So why is one group attacking a sovereign nation considered terrorists and the same group attacking another sovereign nation called allies?  The answer is hypocrisy.  The Bush administration continues to drive international negotiations into a downward spiral, because of double standards and political bias.  Now, using our own weapons, Turkey is attacking “terrorists”.  Can the United States stop them?  Well that is not an easy question.  George Bush can not get on the phone and tell the Turkish government it is wrong to attack another country, considering he has done that twice since 9-11.  As long as the PKK is labeled as a terrorist organization, Turkey can use the same excuses as America to invade northern Iraq.  Then what?  Will the Kurdish leadership launch a counterattack on Turkey?  Will America continue to support Turkey, to maintain its all important hub?  And when will it become taboo for one nation to invade another? 

Don’t Poke Me!

America has discovered a new slogan for their foreign policy, a slogan that is echoed across party lines.  We don’t poke sticks in the eyes of other countries!  Doesn’t make much sense, but yesterday two separate officials chose these words to describe two separate and tense issues.  “Turkey obviously feels they are getting poked in the eye over something that happened a century ago and maybe this isn’t a good time to be doing that,”  responded Representative Allen Boyd (D-Florida) when asked why he is no longer sponsoring a non-binding resolution naming the killings of over one million Armenians as genocide.  At almost the same time, a White House spokesperson was coining the same phrase, when confronted with Chinese anger over awarding the Dalai Lama with a Congressional medal.  “We in no way want to stir the pot and make China feel that we are poking a stick in their eye for a country that we have a lot of relationship with on a variety of issues,” stated White House Press Secretary Dana Perino.  Now most people would see the use of the same phrase as merely coincidental, but the reality is that this phrase has become symbolic of America’s standing in the international community.  The headlines have been splashed with talks of genocide resolutions and Turkey’s response.  Was the killing of 1.5 million Armenians by the Ottoman Empire, beginning in 1915, genocide?  Webster’s Medical Dictionary defines genocide as the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.  Sounds like genocide…but does that matter?  Is the truth worth the consequences of pointing the finger?  Considering that 70% of all air cargo moving into Iraq flows through Turkey, and the fact that Turkey has stated the resolution would cause a rethink of US-Turkey relations, most military analysts would say no.  This quagmire illustrates America’s difficult world position.  The war in Iraq has stretched America’s international strength to the limit.  Armenian-Americans have fought for this resolution for years, but Turkey’s importance to success in Iraq, greatly outweighs doing “the right thing”.  Sad but true.  Possibly even sadder, is the fact that here in Washington there are former Congressional leaders lobbying for Turkish interests.  Former Representative Robert Livingston, now of the Livingston Group, as been employed by Turkey, since the turn of the century.  In that time his company has received an estimated $12 million to lobby on behalf of Turkey’s interests.  The Livingston group contributed $200,000 in campaign money during the last election cycle.  Scared yet?  Livingston has recently met with Dick Cheney and Carl Rove (while he was still the top White House political advisor) to stop the appearance of an Armenian Genocide resolution.  This conflict of interest is not only legal but is the norm inside the Capitol Beltway.  Instead of America acting towards the moral high ground, she is being bought by the wills of other countries.  Representative Brad Sherman (D-California) said it best when he was asked why so many have dropped their support of the resolution, “This is what happens when you are up against a very sophisticated multi-million-dollar campaign.”  So remember we should not poke Turkey in the eye, and put this resolution to bed (even if it is genocide).  The other example of America’s new foreign policy is China’s anger over the Dalai Lama meeting with President Bush to receive a congressional award.  “US Leaders meeting the Dalai seriously violates the basic principles of international relations,” said Chinese Foreign Minister Spokesman Liu Jianchao.  The Chinese Foreign Minister, Yang Jiechi, went as far as to demand that the meeting never take place, “We solemnly demand that the US cancel the extremely wrong arrangements.”  Thisis the reaction, all for Congress honoring the recipient of the 1989 Nobel Prize for Peace.  China’s reaction has strained already shaky US-Chinese relations.  Tony Fratto, White House spokesman, responded quickly saying “this is a meeting with a spiritual leader…not a head of state.”  China was able to make American officials revert immediately to defense, even though China has failed to answer many of their own indiscretions; including toy and food imports, relations with the Sudanese government, and lack of cooperation in diffusing nuclear conflict with North Korea and Iran.  All of these items seem much more important than a meeting with a Buddhist leader living in exile since 1951.  But, unfortunatley in this tense world atmosphere America is forced to play down its actions.  China’s relationship is too fragile to damage, especially considering they control enough of America’s economy to cripple our nation.  President Bush went through with the ceremony, and is now left waiting for China’s backlash.  The final question is whether or not our elected officials are willing to change the US’s position, and return this country to the status of world leader?  Will the upcoming presidential election force a change in America’s failing foreign policy?   

The Green Machine

Everyday Americans fill their vehicles with gasoline and diesel, and everyday we move further from energy independence.  In the past few years the government has tried to sway the opinions of voters; by mandating the use of gasoline mixed with 10% ethanol.  The idea is good, but the implementation to this point has not reaped the benefits once hoped.  The price of the E10 gasoline was speculated to be lower than that of regular gasoline, but in fact prices of gasoline have increased since E10 was introduced (there have been many contributing factors to the increase in gas prices, but ethanol has failed to alleviate any of them).  One of the main problems is the source of the ethanol, corn.  Though corn is abundent across America, much of it is used for food and for livestock feed; that coupled with long growing times have driven the price of ethanol even higher.  Perhaps the answer to a new source is sitting on a coffee table in a college dorm somewhere…Marijuana.  More important than the drug defined by the hippie counterculture and known for inducing the munchies, is the hemp that can be harvested from the cannabis sativa plant.  In actuality, hemp is not marijuana.  Hemp merely comes from the same plant genus, as do broccoli and cauliflower.  Industrialized hemp contains only trace amounts of the intoxicating substance THC.  Knowing that, the US Government still fails to look past the plants stereotypes and into its unending potential.  Hemp’s high levels of cellulose make it an ideal source for ethanol.  Hemp biomass can be transformed into ethanol using a procedure called Prolysis, the process of applying high heat to organic matter in the absence of air.  Through this process hemp biomass can produce ten times the methanol produced by the same amount of corn (the ethanol yield is also greater than that of corn).  Hemp is the number one producer of biomass on the planet; ten tons per acre can be produced in only 4 months.  Hemp is 77% cellulose, so the yield of every ton is higher than most sources today.  Besides making ethanol, the oil from the hemp seed can be used to make biodiesel.  In 2001 a hemp biodiesel car traveled over 10, 000 miles.  The Hempcar project demonstrated the reality of using hemp as a power source.  Hemp biodiesel is a logical choice considering the long growing season and the high yields of each plant.  Hemp biomass can also be used to create coal and when burned in coal power plants, greatly reduces greenhouse gases and other pollutants.  Since hemp can be grown all over America, due to its ability to cope with dry weather and cold climates, it is possible that hemp based fuels can make a dent in alleviating America’s dependency on petroleum based fuels.  Farming 6% of the continental US acreage with hemp biomass crops would provide all of America’s energy needs.  This renewable source of fuel can answer the longtime cries for a new power source, and the hemp plant can also be used for countless industrial applications.  It is time to tell Washington to subsidize the farming of industrial hemp, write your Senator or Representative to find out where they stand on this important issue. 

Chrysler and the Fryer

This week Chrysler LLC continued its commitment to the empowerment of biodiesel.  The Chrysler Group began this commitment by shipping three of its primary 2007 diesel vehicles – the Jeep Liberty CRD, the Dodge Ram Diesel Pickup, and the Jeep Grand Cherokee CRD – running on B5 biofuel from the factory.  B5 is a mixture of 5% biodiesel and 95% petroleum based diesel.  On the 24th of September, Chrysler announced a special discount for National Biodiesel Board (NBB)  members buying a Chrysler, Jeep, or Dodge diesel product.  “When our diesel products are run on clean, renewable biodiesel, the environmental benefits are even greater — at the same time we are reducing our dependence on petroleum and supporting America’s farm economy,” responded Deborah Morrissett, Vice President of Regulatory Affairs for Chrysler, when asked how biodiesel improves their diesel models.  “We are very pleased to see the level of commitment that Chrysler has put into supporting the use of biodiesel, ” said Joe Jobe, NBB CEO.  “Chrysler’s incentive program is an attractive benefit for our NBB members, and a great opportunity to buy a new vehicle from a company that is working hard to provide consumers with more ‘green vehicle’ options running on renewable fuel.”  Chrysler and NBB also announced a continuing push for a new national fuel standard for B20, a fuel compiled of 80% petroleum diesel and 20% biodiesel, something they hope to accomplish in the coming months.  “A B20 standard will enable us to support the use of B20 in all diesel vehicles – from passenger cars to the largest city buses and semi-tractor-trailers — further encouraging the use of this clean, renewable, American made fuel,” Morrissett said.  Chrysler has already approved the use of B20 by its fleet customers, including the government and military, who follow specifications for fuel quality.  The use of B20 fuel in Chrysler vehicles would decrease the amount of petroleum used over the life of the vehicle by 40%, compared to its gasoline equivalent.  A fleet running on B20 shows an average reduction in NOx emissions by 15%, a 19% reduction inCO2, a 15% reduction in CO, and a 25% reduction in hydrocarbon emissions.  The Chrysler representative pointed out the importance of increased use of renewable fuel to ensure America’s energy security, and to decrease our dependence on oil and our impact on the environment.  The partnership between Chrysler and NBB is a major step towards the increased usage of biodiesel, but without the support of the US government there will be major obstacles ahead.  Take the time to write your Senator or Representative, and tell them to mandate the creation of a B20 fuel standard and to support renewable energy.     

HMO SCHIP PPO WTF?

Last night in Washington members of the House of Representatives passed a bill expanding the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).  The new legislation would cover an additional 4 million children, over the 6.6 million currently enrolled.  A majority of these children are classified belonging to low income families, so what is the problem?  President Bush sees the expansion of this program as “an incremental step towards the goal of government-run health care for every American.”  Bush also voiced his concern that the program would now cover the children of a four member family making $80,000, a number four times the poverty level.  The SCHIP debate is in actuality a springboard to the real problem, health care as a whole in America.  Unfortunately, the bill that brought health care back to the frontlines of political discussion involves the well being of children.  President Bush is correct; states will be able to cover children living in families with incomes up to 400% of the poverty level.  What Bush failed to leave out of his campaign, over the past two weeks, is the fact that states could only raise the income level to $80,000 with approval of the Secretary of Health and Human Services.  New York is the only state that has asked for such permission, a request the Bush Administration denied on September the seventh.  This type of income increase makes sense where the cost of living is drastically higher.  For example, in an area like Manhattan an income of $70,000 is comparable to a $30,000 income in some Midwest towns.  Should the children of these homes be denied coverage because of geography?  Last nights debate focused less on the topic at hand than issues surrounding health insurance.  Republicans focused on a movement towards “socialized medicine”, and the possibility that illegal immigrants may try to abuse the program.  The constant referral to illegal immigration is a prime example of the political turmoil existing in America today.  If politicians are so worried about illegal immigrants accessing health coverage through government sponsored programs, why have they failed to effectively address immigration as a whole?  The real problem is the state of health insurance in United States.  Millions of Americans are without insurance, and those that are covered suffer from inadequate service and mounting medical costs.  Sometimes the illusion of medical insurance only masks the problems below the surface.  Many uninsured Americans cannot obtain insurance due to pre-existing conditions; such as diabetes, heart disease, and cancer.  One out of six working age Americans carry medical debt, 70% of those citizens had insurance when they incurred said debt.  Politicians turn a blind eye to the fact that 51% of insured Americans spend 10% of their annual income on medical expenses.  Bush complains that the new SCHIP bill raises the maximum family income that qualifies children for coverage, disregarding the fact that 50% of Americans with medical debt have private insurance and make over $40,000.  The numbers only continue to baffle the mind; 50% of US bankruptcies are due to medical debt, 68% of those who filed bankruptcy for medical reasons had insurance, and 700,000 children live in families filing for bankruptcy due to medical debt.  Dr. Himmelstein, a Harvard Medical Professor, stated that “nobody is safe in our country…if you are sick enough long enough, you’re likely to be financially ruined.”  He added, “We are all one serious illness away from bankruptcy.”  These daunting ideas should press Washington to deal with the state of health care in America, but instead they squabble over insuring children.  Who cares if insuring more kids moves us closer to government run health care!  Would you like to tell a mother or father their child is going to die because we don’t want government run health care in America?  Granted there is still much needed debate to effectively deal with this growing problem, but if Defense Secretary Gates can ask for over $100 billion more for the war in Iraq and Bush doesn’t even question the request, I think it only fair we spend a fraction of that to expand child health insurance.        

European Cars are Riding a Hydrogen High

You drive your new car down the road, suddenly the “low fuel” light blinks on your dashboard.  You steer the car into the next service station, when you get out the pump in front of you has the symbol H2 across the front.  The station is clean and there is no smell of gas in the air.  Where are you, is this all a dream?  You could be in Montava, Italy where a five year project has entered the demonstration phase.  Zero Regio is a project, based in Montava and Frankfurt, Germany, to develop and demonstrate zero emission road transport systems in normal daily use.  The results of this project will contribute to the European Commission’s goal of replacing 5% of motor fuel in road transport by the year 2020.  The vehicles for the Montava location, three Nuvera Fuel Cell-powered Panda cars, were provided by Centro Ricerche Fiat (CHF).  Paolo Delzanno, of CHF, proudly affirmed “The Pandas are the most progressive hydrogen cars CHF has manufactured to date – featuring Nuvera’s superior Andromeda fuel cell stack and the latest developments in fuel/automobile integration.”  Nuvera Fuel Cells is a global leader in multi-fuel processing and the advancement of fuel cell technology.  Zero Regio is another example of the drive exhibited by Europe’s industrial giants to press the use of hydrogen in everyday life.  Fiat and Nuvera are not the only European companies with a commitment to a clean and safe environment, Bayerische Motoren Werke, or BMW, has emerged not only in the production of hydrogen powered vehicles, but the advancement of an overall shift towards a hydrogen economy.  Just last week BMW enlisted the star power of Jay Leno to expand their agenda here in America.  Jay Leno has been a celebrity voice behind “green technology”; last year he worked with GM to design the biodiesel fueled turbine powered EcoJet.  Leno has even transformed his massive auto garage to be powered by 19th century steam and natural gas engines.  BMW has tasked Leno with driving their Hydrogen 7 vehicle on American roads, to spread awareness of the growing technology.  BMW has been working with hydrogen power for over thirty years and is one of the front runners in the field.  The new 745h is powered by a 4.4L V8 engine that can run on either hydrogen or gasoline (petrol).  This blending of technologies gives the vehicle a 600 mile range between fill-ups.  The 745h also employs a auxiliary power unit to run power consuming features; such as air conditioning.  The auxiliary power unit is run by a polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) fuel cell, with direct hydrogen feed from the trunk mounted tank.  This system saves a gallon of gas for every 235 city miles, when the vehicle is operating on gasoline.  Skeptics of BMW’s advancements say the new hydrogen vehicle is not as “green” as you may think, turning to the way in which hydrogen is created.  Most of today’s hydrogen, 50 million tons enough to fuel 250 million of the 600 million vehicles on plant Earth, is produced using electricity generated from fossil fuels.  This information allows opponents of hydrogen power to point out the pollution created during the production of the fuel.  BMW has partnered with Solar Millennium AG to create parabolic-trough and solar chimney installations; which transform the suns heat into electricity to create hydrogen through electrolysis.  BMW has proven alkalic electrolysis is the most environmentally friendly and cost effective source for the creation of hydrogen, but this production is only a long term solution if the electricity for the electrolysis comes from renewable sources.  The scientist at BMW have turned to solar power and biomass for their hydrogen needs.  Other research laboratories have made amazing strides in producing economically viable hydrogen, their research coupled with BMW’s continued pledge to hydrogen; show a shining glimpse into the future.  Engineers at Washington University have developed a photocatalytic cell that splits water to produce hydrogen and oxygen using sunlight and the power of a nanostructural catalyst.  Their discoveries provide a new low cost and efficient option for hydrogen production.  It is possible that this technology can be used in BMW’s future hydrogen endeavours; including the powering of production plants and ultimately replacing fossil fuels as the main source of power in the world.  The work done by CHF, BMW, Nuvera, and Washington University is a testament to mans continued quest for a clean renewable world.  Through international commitment the dreams of a hydrogen economy can be realized.                

War Behind the Words

Thursday, President Bush addressed the nation for his eighth prime time television appearance since the start of the Iraq War.  The media exposure prior to the President’s long awaited statement left little to the imagination.  The mainstream media talked at length about the announcement of troop level reductions, something Democrats have called for since before the start of the troop surge.  Bush’s speech was a mirror image of the addresses given in January, to justify an increase in military presence in Iraq.  The difficult problem facing Americans is whether or not to buy into the President’s overall strategy, a sustained US presence in Iraq well after the completion of his presidency.  “Their success will require US political, economic, and security engagement that extends beyond my presidency,” was the statement that stuck in many Americans minds after the Bush speech.  Repeatedly, President Bush has told the American public that it is time for the Iraq government to “lead its people.”  The major problem is that the Iraqi government has no real identity.  Similarly, the so called “Multinational Force In Iraq” has lost its identity, and many of its members.  When on Thursday President Bush thanked “…36 nations who have troops on the ground in Iraq,” he perpetuated the idea the United States military was not alone in their fight.  Unfortunately, like many of Bush’s observation, this statement is quite misleading.  Besides the US, there are 19 other countries performing military combat operations in Iraq.  Bush inflated these numbers by counting United Nations Assistance Mission In Iraq (UNAMI) members and countries participating in the NATO Sponsored Training of Iraq Police Force (NTM-1), neither of which perform combat duties.  President Bush also failed to tell the American people how many troops each of these coalition countries have committed to Iraq.  Americans represent 92% of the force in Iraq, currently with 168,000 troops assigned; Britain is the second largest military presence with an astounding 5,500, down from 45,000 at the start of the war.  The numbers drop off considerable after that, with 16 of the 19 countries deploying less than 1,000 troops (8 of those countries assign less than 100 military members).  If this information was not startling enough, private military contractors have over 9 times the personnel in Iraq than the countries in the multi-national force.  Since the invasion of Iraq 21 countries have withdrawn their troops and that number is climbing.  Many of the countries willing to stay in Iraq were bought by the Bush Administration.  Turkey received $8.5 billion in loans for sending troops to Iraq.  Eleven nations have been given membership, or are awaiting membership, in NATO.  Singapore and Australia received fast-tracked free-trade agreements with the US.  It is also argued that Georgia sent troops to Iraq in repayment of training, given to their troops by America to quell civil unrest in two of its outlying regions.  With all this information, George Bush still attempts to paint a picture of a true coalition, an idea that died in World War II.  These types of statements serve only in dishonoring the US military, by sharing their accomplishments with nations barely participating in this War. The United States remains the only nation whose troop level is higher now than it was at the start of the war.  President Bush has made it clear he wishes to stay in Iraq, if so maybe he should volunteer to relieve a troop who has already served his/her country, thus bringing the US one troop closer to the numbers posted by the multi-national force.