Editor’s note: This post is a lead-in story to the Gas 2.0 interview with Mil Ovan, Senior Vice President and Co-founder of Firefly Energy.

Last week John McCain, the presumptive presidential nominee for the 2008 Republican ticket, suggested that a $300 million government-sponsored competition would be a good way to spur development of next generation battery technologies.

His comments generated debate in the blogosphere and around the United States. Meanwhile, Barack Obama, the presumptive presidential nominee for the Democratic ticket, called McCain’s proposal a gimmick suggesting that $300 million was not enough.

Regardless of my feelings about the proposed competition or the candidates themselves, it got me thinking about just who might win it if it were to become a reality. All that thinking led to this post, and, hopefully, to several others that will look at the most promising next generation battery technologies on the horizon.

This week I’ll start with Firefly Energy.

Founded in 2003, Firefly has been working on reinvigorating old-hat lead-acid battery technology in such a way that it would become brand new and cutting edge once again. On the surface, the concept may seem pretty dull, but digging into it we find that it presents a lot of promise.

Firefly’s innovation is that they’ve taken the heavy lead plates you’d find in a classic lead-acid battery and replaced them with a light carbon-graphite microcell foam that’s been impregnated with lead.

Key benefits of their first and second generation technology when compared to traditional lead-acid batteries include:

• up to 70% less lead
• up to 50% reduction in weight and size
• Much faster recharge and discharge capabilities
• Much better cold weather performance
• Increased lifetime and durability

Two of the main problems associated with traditional lead-acid batteries are corrosion and sulfation. Together these are the lead-acid battery’s Achilles’ heel and the typical reasons they fail. Firefly mitigates these problems by creating a balance between the amount of lead in the battery and the acid electrolyte that flows through the microcell foam.

Firefly’s technology could make the lead-acid battery truly competitive with other advanced battery chemistries, such as lithium-ion, but at a much more affordable price and in a safer package. At the same time, the technology would increase the durability and reliability of the lead-acid battery and address many of the environmental concerns associated with the industry.

Another key benefit of reinvigorating the production of lead-acid batteries in the United States is that it would be a domestic endeavor — meaning that the US has lots of lead available (it’s the third largest producer behind China and Australia; PDF), a robust system in place for recycling lead from batteries, and a healthy and capable domestic manufacturing base.

In terms of energy security and recyclability, this beats the pants off of lithium-ion batteries, which depend on resources from the Far East and South America (PDF) and are proving very difficult/costly to recycle.

Firefly is set to release its first commercial product by Q4 of this year with the introduction of the Oasis battery — only available to the trucking industry initially.

While Firefly has no immediate plans to enter the electric vehicle market, they are fully aware of the keen interest their technology has generated among EV enthusiasts and the benefits that their battery technology could provide to the EV market.

I recently had a chance chat with Mil Ovan, Senior Vice President and Co-founder of Firefly, about the company, their take on McCain’s competition, Firefly’s battery technology, environmental worries about lead, the Oasis battery, electric vehicles and the company’s plans for the future.

Rather than try and distill that conversation down to its elements, I thought it was interesting enough to present it in its entirety in a separate post. Click the link below to proceed to that interview.

Interview with Mil Ovan, Senior Vice President and Co-founder of Firefly, June 26th, 2008.

Posts Related to Batteries, Electric Vehicles, and the Politics of Green:

• McCain Proposes $300 Million Prize to Developer of “Super Battery”
• Snapshot of Battery Technology for Plug-in Hybrid Electric Cars
• Volkswagen to Produce Plug-In Hybrid Electric Cars in 2010
• Mercedes, Smart to Sell Electric Cars in 2010
• Th!nk Ox: An Electric Car With Style and Smarts
• Company Turns Familiar Gas Cars Into Electric Vehicles
• An Electric Car You Can Buy Today: The $20K TRIAC EV
• Tesla Roadster Pictures From SF Green [Pics]
• Sorry Bush, Voters Think Investment in Renewable Energy is the Best Option
• Senate Republicans Block Windfall Profits Tax on Big Oil Companies

Image Credits: Firefly Energy

Last week John McCain, the presumptive presidential nominee for the 2008 Republican ticket, generated debate by suggesting that a $300 million government- sponsored competition would be a good way to spur development of next generation battery technologies.

His comments got me thinking about just who might win such a competition it if it were to become reality.

Firefly Energy is one of the companies that made it to my short list. Founded in 2003, they have been working on reinvigorating old-hat lead-acid battery technology in such a way that it would become brand new and cutting edge once again.

Firefly’s innovation is that they’ve taken the heavy lead plates you’d find in a classic lead-acid battery and replaced them with a light carbon-graphite microcell foam that’s been impregnated with lead.

I recently had a chance chat with Mil Ovan, Senior Vice President and Co-founder of Firefly, about the company, their take on McCain’s competition, Firefly’s battery technology, environmental worries about lead, the Oasis battery, electric vehicles and the company’s plans for the future.

Interview with Mil Ovan, Senior Vice President and Co-founder of Firefly, June 26th, 2008.

NC: What are the core operating principles of Firefly? What drives the company?

MO: We are developing a battery technology that reinvigorates a battery chemistry that’s been around since 1859 — lead-acid. Although traditional lead-acid batteries have been proven safe and are low cost, they suffer from weight issues as well as lifetime issues because they use fairly heavy lead plates on a metal grid. What we’re doing instead is replacing the lead plates and metal grid with a high surface area, non-corroding, lightweight microcell foam material. Using this technology you can start to realize the true capability of the chemistry and overcome some of those limitations I mentioned by not having to use all that lead in the battery.

NC: I’ve read that Firefly started as a part of the company Caterpillar. Is Firefly still a subsidiary of Caterpillar?

MO: No. The technology was spun off from Caterpillar. Firefly was created as a separate company with separate funding and was founded on May 1st, 2003.

NC: As you know, one of the main reasons we got interested in having this conversation was because of John McCain’s recent proposal to hold a competition to see who could come up with the most advanced next generation battery technology. If McCain’s $300 million battery competition were to become reality, what would give Firefly the edge to win it?

MO: First of all I’d like to say that whatever party is offering solutions that involve expediting development of next generation batteries, we’re all for that. The government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars a year on fuel cell development and we’re still probably as far away from fuel cells as we were ten years ago when they said it would be ten years before we see them widely deployed. We see the shift coming towards the realization that fuel cells are still going to take at least another ten years and that battery technology is of paramount importance.

Right now the world of advanced batteries and research is primarily in the far east, most notably in China. In one sense, while we want to electrify vehicles and reduce our nation’s dependance on foreign oil and the national security risks that represents, we’re in essence kind of trading one energy security risk for another because the majority of the lithium-ion batteries come from China. Firefly’s goal is to reinvigorate the vast base of lead-acid battery manufacturers in the US and enable them and their customers to enjoy greater performance without necessarily getting the resources of the less safe, higher priced, advanced batteries that come from the far east.

NC: I hear where you’re coming from on fuel cells. I remember about 20 years ago I read an article in Popular Science about how hydrogen fuel cells were going to be widely available within the decade. That was 20 years ago. Today they’re still saying that hydrogen fuel cells will be available within the decade. It’s easy to get pessimistic about fuel cells given that environment.

MO: Yeah. The thoughts about lithium-ion technology right now are similar to how fuel cells have evolved over time. People are saying “yeah, it’s expensive” and “yeah, it’s not as safe as it needs to be,” but there’s a lot of money being thrown into it and a lot of smart people. Well, take out the word lithium-ion and replace it with fuel cell and it’s the same phrases that have been uttered about fuel cells for some time now. We think we are unique in that we have a very practical means of gaining better battery performance and getting that right equation of safety, cost, run-time, size, weight, and life that has eluded many in the past. On one end of the extreme you have companies liking lead-acid’s low cost but hating its life and weight issues, and at the other extreme liking lithium-ion and nickel-metal hydride for their small footprint and light weight, but hating its ten-times cost penalty and safety and thermal challenges.

NC: So, McCain thinks his plan is a good idea, Obama says its a gimmick. Obviously both of them are interested in spurring next generation technologies. Do you think something like McCain’s plan is a good idea, or is it a gimmick? If you think it would spur innovation, do you think $300 million is enough?

MO: One has to look at the specifics of the proposal to weigh in and determine whether it’s a practical idea or not. Without knowing the details — I haven’t seen them yet — I’m not going to comment on whether that particular plan is a good one.

In general government support of advanced research on batteries is a good thing because the stock market doesn’t support long term investments in capital in research — they’re more interested in quarterly results — and certainly venture capitalists aren’t patient enough to see multimillion dollar research evolve. A lot of venture capitalist jumped into investing in fuel cells only to see the payback be much longer than they expected.

It is a role of our government to enable basic research because, frankly, our country is being outspent in battery research by China, Japan and Korea.

NC: Shifting gears now… What is the microcell foam made of?

MO: There’s a variety of materials we can choose from including graphite and carbon.

NC: Graphite is a pretty fragile compound. Is there a way you’ve gotten around that limitation in your battery to increase the durability?

MO: The way in which we reinforce the underlying foam is part of the intellectual property of Firefly, and part of those reinforcement methods are patented and some are trade secrets.

NC: Okay, we’ll leave it at that I guess. Inside the battery, is the lead bonded to the foam?

MO: Yeah. In a regular lead-acid battery, for lack of a better term, you plop the chemistry on top of the lead metal grid and then you press onto that the plate and that’s a two-dimensional grid structure. In contrast, in the Firefly foam approach the chemistry is washed into the pores of the foam so that now you have a three-dimensional surface area that you can take advantage of and the electrolyte then is in much tighter proximity within the pores of the foam to the chemistry that is in the walls of that foam. Now your ability to recharge and discharge the battery is greatly increased and particularly in cold weather it becomes an advantage.

NC: How long would you expect the Firefly battery to last versus a traditional lead-acid battery or versus a lithium-ion?

MO: The answer on all of these things is ‘it depends.’ I’ve been in the battery industry 5 years now and I’ve come to learn the phrase “there are liars, damn liars and battery companies.” As a policy, in the public forum, we don’t make claims that ‘hey our battery can achieve this level of watt hours per kilogram and watt hours per liter’ because it really is dependent on solving a complex set of calculations in terms of cost, safety, runtime, weight, volume, and temperature concerns. So these types of things really depends on the application.

Take an uninterruptible power supply (UPS) example. Envision a room full of lead-acid batteries providing power backup for a data center of a major corporation. Under a fast discharge of five minutes — say power goes out at the facility and before the generator kicks in — the batteries are invoked and over the course of a five minute discharge, that battery is drained. The problem with a classic lead-acid battery, is that under very fast discharges it can supply the power you need, but it requires a room’s full of batteries to do it. In contrast, the high surface area of Firefly microcell foam batteries can accomplish that same five minute discharge in half a room’s worth of batteries. So what does this mean practically? It’s at least half the weight and half the volume of classic lead-acid battery technology. So the implications beyond that would include that there’s less shipping, less installation, less cabling required, less floor space taken up, and less air conditioning. The benefits really multiply in just that one example alone.

Another example is the Army. We’re working on a prototype battery for military tank applications. The Army says “we’re not interested in size reduction because this Bradley tank has a battery tray and cables already wired with set specifications.” It’s a 40-ton vehicle so weight reduction is nice to have, but it’s not critical. The idea is to just stuff as much runtime as you can into this thing. So in that example we’re not delivering any size savings, but were greatly improving upon watt-hours per liter of the current lead-acid batteries. So, all that is a long-winded way of telling you that it’s a complicated answer.

NC: What kinds of reductions do you find in the amount of lead used in the Firefly batteries when compared to classic lead-acid batteries?

MO: I believe on our website there’s a trucking industry white paper (PDF), and in there we go into a description of how much lead per battery is in a Firefly battery versus a standard battery. The other factor to consider is that a battery is going to last several times longer than a regular lead-acid battery, so the amount of lead used in the mission, in this case powering a truck over several years instead of over one year, means that the effective lead reduction is several fold. That’s how we like to portray the lead reduction.

Now we have two technologies. The first one we call 3D, which involves the replacement of the negative lead metal grids in a classic lead-acid battery with a microcell foam. The positive lead metal grids as well as the overall interconnecting strap that connects the cells within that battery are still lead. The second generation of our technology that we’re also working on is called 3D2, and that replaces all of the lead metal in the battery with the foam material. The amount of lead savings can range from 50% to 70% depending on which technology were talking about. The true effective reduction in lead depends on the application.

We’re about to commercialize a battery for the world of highway trucks called Oasis. The reason why we named it Oasis is because, when you think about it, what does a sleeper cab represent to trucker that’s just finished a ten hour hour drive and he’s pulling into a truck stop in the middle of August and it’s 95 degrees out? Well that sleeper cab is a sanctuary or refuge or, as we like to call it, an oasis. With the anti-idling legislation that is starting to sweep the country requiring that, for example in California you need to shut off your truck engine for a portion of every hour, how are they going to run all of their hotel loads — microwave ovens, TVs and the like? It’s going to put a tremendous strain on current lead-acid batteries which are primarily used for starting the truck, not for runtime support.

Besides requirements due to anti-idling legislation, since January prices for diesel have gone from $3 to over $5 per gallon. If you’re idling your engine 8 hours a night times $5 per gallon — because that’s about how much is consumed per hour when you’re idling the main engine — times 5 days per week times 52 weeks per year, you can see how incredibly expensive idling your truck becomes. In response, Firefly has developed this long runtime battery in the classic group 31 battery footprint and we think it is going to enable fuel savings as well as pollution reduction as a result — and give the trucker the kind of performance he needs in order to drive effectively.

We’re also pursuing a strategic marketing relationship with a company called Bergstrom, which makes a battery powered supplemental air conditioning system, so that indeed you can turn off the engine and the driver can turn on this supplemental battery powered air conditioning system in the sleeper cab and the driver can have a comfortable night’s rest running on battery power.

NC: My brother is a trucker, so I’m familiar with those laws. There’s another strategy in the preliminary stages I’m sure you’re aware of in truck stops where they are putting in these supplemental power units and air conditioning attachments, but you have to have your truck specially outfitted to take advantage of that…

MO: Well, yeah, and you have to also find a place that has that special equipment and, you know, it’s not ubiquitous of course, so it’s not a solution that’s going to make a big dent in the trucking problems we’re facing today.

NC: And I’d say that most truckers don’t actually spend every night at truck stops, they spend the night on the side of the road…

MO: …Right, along the highway on an exit.

NC: In terms of the Oasis, and maybe any other future products, obviously there’s going to be a premium charged for the technology. What’s the premium you expect to charge for the Oasis over a traditional lead-acid battery?

MO: Well, if you look at the spectrum of choices available to a trucker for group 31 lead-acid batteries, they could buy an inexpensive flooded lead-acid battery for anywhere from 80 to 100 bucks, and if you went to the next tier of quality lead-acid batteries it would be a valve-regulated lead-acid battery, or VRLA battery, and that would be around $280 for one battery. We haven’t announced prices yet, but we’ll probably be somewhere around $400 per battery. From a cycles per dollar perspective, that being how many times can you run it before you have to replace it given that it’s a heavy cycling application, we think that on a cycles per dollar basis it’s cheaper than both of the traditional battery choices I mentioned. Certainly, in the view of battery powered air conditioning systems and the like and being able to turn your engine off and not use fuel idling, the payback would be less than a year.

NC: So you’ve got the Oasis, there’s some buzz going about that — but future products? Obviously, from our readership there’s going to be a huge interest about electric vehicles. So the next questions are going to be about just that. I don’t know how much you’ll be able to answer about it because you haven’t even gone there yet, but I’m sure you’ve talked with some companies or interested parties that are out there. In general, when you’re talking about electric vehicles, what sorts of benefits does your technology hold over lithium-ion?

MO: Well, I think that before I answer that question I would say that if you look to the GM EV1, it was deployed in California and Arizona. Why? Because it had a 60 mile range due to the limitations of the traditional lead-acid batteries that it had. But, were you to drive it in the depths of winter in Detroit, you would have an 8 mile range. That’s because in a classic lead-acid battery it’s capacity falls as the temperature falls. So at minus 20 degrees centigrade you would only have 10-15% of what you would have at 30 degrees centigrade — which would be 100% of your battery capacity. In contrast, with the microcell foam Firefly technology you would have about 60% of your maximum battery capacity at minus 20 degrees centigrade.

So what does that mean? First of all it means lead-acid electric vehicles can become more practical across the nation not just specific to a modest temperature or a modest climate like in California. So that’s one advantage. Secondly, lithium-ion and nickel metal hydride batteries have certain issues in terms of capabilities in both cold and hot temperature extremes that are limitations. Third, in particular, if you look at nickel metal hydride batteries they have a very high self discharge rate and so if you left your electric vehicle standing without charging it for a week you’d see a fairly significant drop off in capacity.

The Firefly battery has an incredibly low self discharge rate even compared to a traditional lead-acid battery which is already the best among the various chemistries in terms of slow self discharge rates. Even the first generation of our technology, 3D, probably would be the best lead-acid battery out there in terms of fitting with an EV for those few reasons I mentioned. But we think that the real promise, in terms of the world of EVs will come from our second generation technology, 3D2, where we’ll be able to make pretty significant inroads in terms of weight and size reduction and making it competitive to lithium-ion. Because in today’s world of lead-acid EVs, as you know, you’re spending a fair amount of energy just pushing the lead down the road.

NC: Not to mention that it’s lead and people are always going to have environmental concerns about the process of making lead and the chances for it to contaminate the environment. But after reading through your website, Firefly seems to have a good argument for why lead is actually a better choice than lithium-ion when it comes to the environment because there’s a vast recycling program already available in the United States…

MO: Yeah, people don’t talk about that with these other chemistries. It is very expensive to reclaim the metal in a lithium-ion or nickel metal hydride battery and lead-acid has a far better recycling rate than aluminum bottles — over 90% of lead-acid batteries are recycled — and there’s no change required in the recycling infrastructure to reclaim the Firefly batteries.

NC: So, there are going to be a lot of people who will ask “when can I get a hold of a Firefly battery to put it in my electric car?” What would you say to that?

MO: We get that all the time…. all the time. I mean, there is no one more passionate about seeking better battery solutions than the EV aficionado. That’s for sure. They’ve been continuously eager to get a hold of our battery. As a start up, however, I hope your readers can appreciate that there’s only so much time we have on our investment capital, so we have to get to market with some major customers first and so we’re working with some major companies and we’re also working with the US Army.

Out of that work I would hope that there could come variants that would allow Firefly to offer a lead-acid battery for the EV crowd that represents a new standard for performance capabilities for those that are looking to put lead-acid batteries in their converted vehicles. But there are also other types of EVs ranging from scooters to three wheel and four wheel vehicles and neighborhood electric vehicles and the like.

So it’s a question of finding what’s best and making it all fit. What’s the ideal distribution structure that would allow us to get those batteries out to that audience? What would be your advice if I were to sort of turn the tables on you? What vehicle do you think this would be best for in terms of type of electric vehicle? Or do you just offer it up for sale and let the EV world grab it and adapt it as they would for their application?

NC: Well, that’s a good question. I think that once you start digging into it, there are a huge amount of home EV tinkerers, especially in the west. There are organizations like the Seattle Electric Vehicle Association. It might be that you could establish connections with those groups. You know, even the Oasis battery that you are selling to truckers, they might want to tinker with that. That might be a place to start and establish a relationship.

But, I don’t know, I see what your problem is. It’s an issue of chicken and egg. Nonetheless, I think from all the research I’ve been doing and the comments I’ve seen — and I’m probably biased because I’m in the thick of it — I think that in the next 2 to 3 years I would imagine there would be a big enough market of electric vehicles for you to start considering actually developing batteries specifically for that market. Anyway, if you were to develop a battery for EVs, this 3D2 technology, how far off is that really?

MO: I think that probably in 24-36 months we could have a commercial version of our 3D2 technology. Now, I’m not saying that it would be ready for an EV at that stage because we do have funding from the US Army to develop something for them, but we’re aiming to commercialize our technology in the next 24-36 months.

NC: Compared to a lithium-ion battery — these are the last questions by the way, and then I’ll let you get going because I’m sure you have better things to do than talk with me — how far might you expect an electric vehicle vehicle powered by your next generation battery to go on one charge and at what kind of speed? Ball park if you can. If you can’t that’s fine, but these are going to be the kinds of questions that I get and the better I can answer them, even if they are not set in stone, the better it would be.

MO: The problem with lithium is that everybody likes to quote what the innate performance of the single cell is… you know in terms of watt hours. The problem is that when you put it into a multi-cell task now you’ve got all these thermal management issues and you’ve got these safety issues that require controls and all of this safety and thermal management stuff that all adds to the volume and weight of the box which then drags down the performance in terms of range and so on. The fact is that you’ve got to keep lithium from over-discharging. Therefore you’re really not using the innate power capability of that single cell as a result.

We get very specific with major customers who say “here’s my application, here’s the performance envelope of that application, and here’s my favorite battery in this application, how would you compare?” All I’m saying is that I don’t like to throw out a number there because there are so many factors that have to be considered for each application and, in any case, are you talking about a particular climate, are you talking about combined city/highway driving, are you talking about hills involved, you know, what specifics? So I’m going to have to beg off on answering that question for those reasons.

NC: Okay, thanks… and with that I guess I’ll let you go.

MO: Thanks Nick. It was good talking with you. I enjoyed your questions.

NC: Well, thanks very much for taking the time to answer them in such a thorough way.

Posts Related to Batteries, Electric Vehicles, and the Politics of Green:

• McCain Proposes $300 Million Prize to Developer of “Super Battery”
• Snapshot of Battery Technology for Plug-in Hybrid Electric Cars
• Volkswagen to Produce Plug-In Hybrid Electric Cars in 2010
• Mercedes, Smart to Sell Electric Cars in 2010
• Th!nk Ox: An Electric Car With Style and Smarts
• Company Turns Familiar Gas Cars Into Electric Vehicles
• An Electric Car You Can Buy Today: The $20K TRIAC EV
• Tesla Roadster Pictures From SF Green [Pics]
• Sorry Bush, Voters Think Investment in Renewable Energy is the Best Option
• Senate Republicans Block Windfall Profits Tax on Big Oil Companies

Image Credits: Firefly Energy

Last week, Red Green and Blue assessed the green credentials of John McCain’s potential presidential running mate, Charlie Crist. As the Florida Governor signs a landmark multi-billion dollar deal to preserve the Everglades, we ask again, is it possible to love big oil and be green at the same time?

Earlier this month, Florida Governor Charlie Crist won a lot of friends in the oil industry by suggesting that he could live with oil-wells off the coast of Florida. In the same week he also gained support from environmentalists for brokering an agreement that will reclaim 300 square miles of the Everglades from sugar farming.

So why should we care? Well it just so happens that Crist is the Governor of a crucial swing-state in the upcoming presidential election, as well as being a contender for the Republican Vice-Presidential slot.

Since taking office last year he has installed solar panels on the roof of the Governor’s mansion, and gained quite a reputation for his environmentally friendly policies, which include pushing state regulators to prioritise renewable energy and conservation projects over the approval of new coal-fired power stations.

Then came the announcement, this Tuesday, of his move to restore the Everglades wetlands by signing a $1.75 billion deal to purchase 300 square miles of land currently being used for sugar production by U.S. Sugar. The agreement effectively shuts down America’s largest sugar producer, while preserving one of the state’s most fragile ecosystems.

Just when he was almost in danger of changing the image of the Republican’s as the party of big business, Crist has made positive noises about the prospect of drilling for oil off the Florida coast. Environmental campaigners say the move could drastically alter the politics of oil exploration by putting a 27 year-old congressional moratorium on drilling in federal waters in “grave danger.”

Responding to critics pointing out that such a deal would accelerate climate change, Crist said, “We’re in an energy crisis now. You have to look at trying to help the American family, and try to get more domestic production in a responsible, safe, clean way, but at the same time realize that the long-term goal is alternative fuels, renewables.”

Is there a really a ‘middle way’ between oil exploration and alternative energy, one that enables politicians to walk the tightrope between economic and environmental concerns? Or is it time that our leaders got off the fence and sent out a stronger unequivocal message in favour of oil or renewable energy?

Related Posts About Energy Politics and Setting the Environmental Agenda:

• Potential McCain Running Mate Florida Governor Charlie Crist Has Green Cred-Is It Deserved?
• On Day One: Distributed Generation and the Power Grid
• Transmission Politics Hold Up Utility Scale Solar
• Offshore Drilling Ban Opens Discussion for Other Domestic Oil Options
• Want to Help Set the Agenda for the Next President?
• Meet Joe Green #15: McCain’s Vision for Renewable Energy

Image credit - Bill Ingram/Palm Beach Post Via The Associated Press

McCain is also focusing on alternative fuels, suggesting a $5,000 tax credit for every person who buys a zero-emission vehicle.  He says that should level “the playing field for all alcohol fuels that break the monopoly of gasoline”.

It seems like McCain is jumping from one side of the fence to the other in his campagin.  Last week he sided with President Bush, calling for resumption of off shore drilling, now he’s beating the drum for alternative fuels.

And let’s not forget McCain’s call for 45 more nuclear reactors by 2030.

I’m confused.  Could he be appealing to those who hear only what they want to hear?  That might cover both bases and get a few more votes.

Meantime, Senator Barak Obama opposes the idea of offshore drilling, saying it won’t answer the immediate problem facing motorists around the world.  He blames, in part, the speculation of energy traders for the upswing in oil prices.

Source Material:  ABC

Related Stories

McCain Wants 45 New Nuclear Reactors and Clean Coal

Offshore Drilling Ban Opens Discussion for Other Domestic Oil Options

McCain Calls for More Offshore Drilling: What Else Would He Say in Houston?

Image:  www.scoop.co.nz

Speculation began immediately thereafter that Crist might make a great running mate for McCain, given his popularity in Florida, and his potential ability to swing the crucial electoral state toward McCain during the general election.

One reason why Crist is popular is because there is a public perception that he really cares about environmental issues, much more so than the typical governor or politician (Republican or Democrat). As Crist might become McCain’s running mate, it seems worthy of investigation as to whether or not the Governor’s green credibility is rightly deserved– especially after Crist’s reversal Tuesday on his position as to lifting the U.S. ban on drilling offshore for oil. Now he says we should do it.

Here are some of the environmental highlights from Charlie Crist’s first 2 years as governor of Florida:

• In July of last year, Crist hosted a Climate Change conference in Miami. The conference served as a national platform for Crist to sign executive orders pledging the state of Florida to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050, among many other initiatives to combat global warming. It places Florida among the most “green” southern states, at least in government philosophy and legislation. The conference included notable guests such as California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Robert Kennedy, Jr., and Theodore Roosevelt IV (a relative of the famous conservation-minded president).

• Right after the conference, Crist returned to Florida’s capital city of Tallahassee and showed off some improvements that he made to the Governor’s Mansion. A $70,000 hydrogen fuel cell now powers the house, and solar panels help heat the pool and circulate water. The Governor’s staff estimates that the eventual reduction in carbon emissions will be approximately 20%. The hydrogen cell, however, won’t pay for itself in cost savings until sometime around 2031. The solar panels have already paid back their cost financially in energy savings (they only cost $3500).

• Crist said several weeks ago that he would veto a bill that would allow developers to destroy sea grass, a crucial keystone species in Florida’s ocean waters, under the condition that developers would replant elsewhere. Environmental groups cheered this decision.

• Crist came out early in his term and said that he supports restoration of Florida’s famous and important Everglades Ecosystem. Just last week, he and John McCain toured a part of the Everglades. McCain’s blogging daughter discouragingly confused the Everglades Safari Park for being Everglades National Park (in fairness, the Everglades is a huge area, and the distinction might be lost among most Americans as to which part is in the national park. Full disclosure: I used to work for Everglades National Park). The tour group traveled via airboats. They are rarely used in Everglades National Park because they, among other reasons, are thought by some to destroy sea grass. McCain also took some heat from reporters and also Barack Obama for having voted against a bill last year in the U.S. Senate to fund Everglades restoration. He claimed that he would have supported a bill for restoration if it had not included spending elements unrelated to the Everglades. Crist supported the bill, which eventually passed in Congress with a 2/3 majority. This majority was necessary to override a veto from President Bush. Nonetheless, when asked, Crist said that he believed McCain’s word when McCain said that he really did want to protect the Everglades. McCain also said that he does not support a federal catastrophe relief fund, angering Floridians who know well about the damage that hurricanes can create.

• Finally, John McCain recently has stirred up controversy and negative press by releasing an energy plan that would allow for the moratorium on drilling offshore for oil to be lifted (today President Bush said something like, “Great idea! Let’s start now!”) McCain and Bush’s reasoning is that this will allow Americans some relief at the gas pump, and less reliance on foreign oil. McCain at the time of his 2000 campaign for President had a different opinion and supported a ban. Governor Crist, trying to help defend his future potential running mate, has also reversed his own opinion on the matter. He used to oppose drilling offshore. Some people believe that drilling offshore might pollute Florida’s beaches, which are extremely important to the state’s tourism industry and economy.

So, what do these things tell us about Governor Crist’s level of credibility as a green advocate? My personal assessment is that so far he has shown himself through words and actions to be a true friend to the environment. However, the reversal of his position toward offshore drilling combined with his shrugging off of McCain’s negative vote toward the restoration of the Everglades reak of political opportunism. Such compromising of principle for political gain is disconcerting. Plus, drilling offshore for oil is an idea that I believe is a very bad one, and also utterly lacking in creativity as a method for lessening the burden of the energy crisis.

My guess is that ultimately McCain will chose Crist as his running mate. Florida’s Governor has proven himself a loyal soldier, and the McCain campaign will probably find Crist’s advantages as a wingman too hard to resist. Given Crist’s environmental record so far, this choice might be something to cheer. If McCain and Crist are to win the White House, perhaps they can outfit it with some new solar panels. I’d support my taxpayer dollars going to that. I’m not sure about heating the pool though– that seems a little bit extravagant (and who needs to heat a pool in Florida anyway?)

Read More about McCain’s Plan to Drill for Oil Offshore:

• McCain Calls for More Offshore Drilling: What Else Would He Say in Houston?
• Oil: Our National Dog and Pony Show

Photo Credit: fredthompson on Flickr under a Creative Commons license

Step Right Up And Be Amazed

It struck me today that our fearless leaders, would-be’s, and corporate giants seem to think we’re all a bunch of rubes gathered outside a carnival sideshow, leaning on the barker’s every word.

Urging Congress to lift its ban on offshore oil and gas drilling, our fearless leader, you know, President Bush, told lawmakers, “There is no excuse for delay“.

It got worse, “Families across the country are looking to Washington for a response.”  Gimme a break.

In response, House Democrats, in a news conference, propose nationalization of refineries, a way to better control the flow of oil supply. Stay tuned, this will be one hot potato.

One of our presidential wanna-be’s, Sen John McCain (R-AZ), has jumped on the bandwagon, even though he’s on record supporting the moratorium on drilling.  Flip-flop, what do we believe?

The Senator also proposed a gas tax holiday.  Woop.  Arizona made it clear the other day that it won’t happen here, and I doubt the idea will ever get off the ground.

Not only has McCain changed his tune, he’s asking for 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030, and pledged $2 billion a year in federal funds to “make clean coal a reality.”

You can bet that’ll get my vote; for Obama.

Florida’s Governor, Charlie Crist has gone on record, changing his position on offshore drilling.  Gas prices too high, we must do something now.

Drill Now?  How Long Will It Take To Get Some Relief?

Think about it for a minute.  There are approximatley 68 million acres of offshore waters under lease by oil companies at this moment, but none are under development.

Let’s say the oil companies decide to get busy and help us poor folks get out of the gas crunch.  By the time they set up new platforms, drill, recover and ship crude to refineries, my great-grandchildren will be voting.

How about that for a quick fix?

See my point?  It truly is a dog and pony show, smoke and mirrors, whatever, but let’s look further.

Big Oil’s Take On The Problem

In this case, “BIG OIL” is Chevron Corp, whose CEO David O’Reilly told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that big oil isn’t to blame for high gas prices.

It’s a matter of supply and demand, that’s what we’ve been hearing all along, and it makes as much sense as anything.

Domestic production of crude, according to O’Reilly, has declined over the years, putting America further in debt to foreign oil producers.

Meanwhile, Chevron claims to be reinvesting it’s $18.7 billion profit from last year in new supplies.  He didn’t say what constituted “supplies.”

Saudi’s To Increase Production

The world’s leading producer of oil, Saudi Arabia, plans to increase production by 200,000 barrels a day through July.  That would bring production up to 9.7 million barrels a day.

The U.S. alone consumes an estimated 20 million barrels a day, roughly half of that amount is imported.  I doubt the 200,000 barrel increase in Saudi production will make a huge impact on the world’s thirst for oil, or bring relief to high prices in America.

The rest of the OPEC nations have decided not to make a committment until their meeting on Sept 9th.  History has shown they usually follow Saudi Arabia’s lead, but given the instability and tensions in that area, they may just take the money and enjoy.

Environmentalists Are Weakening

I read with great amusement this article in the LA Times, inferring that the environmental movement is now on the defensive.

It’s worth a read, still more of the same as listed above.

What I find most interesting, in this time of environmental awareness, is the call for more oil out of one side of the mouth, while the other side speaks boldly of developing alternative energy sources.

So there it is folks, step right up and get your ticket now, the only cost:  A gallon of gas for the greatest show on earth.

Welcome to the circus, are you having any fun, aren’t you glad you came?

CNN’S “Fueling America” site..interesting.

Image Credit:  http://www.jamestilley.com/

Despite the fact that he supported a moratorium on offshore drilling during his previous run for the White House and he has opposed drilling in Florida, North Carolina, Oregon and elsewhere, McCain will call for the elimination of that moratorium today in Houston.

McCain’s prepared remarks will be be well-received in Houston, arguably the oil capital of America. My point is this: When McCain is in Portland, Oregon he speaks at a Vestas Wind Energy facility and touts the benefits of renewable energy (but offers little policy support to back it up); when McCain is in Houston he calls for a gas tax holiday and lifting the moratorium on offshore drilling.

In short, the part of me that hears Sen. McCain speak about addressing climate change and developing “alternate energy sources” doesn’t jive with the part of me that reads his voting record on this stuff. And apparently, I’m not the only one.

“The easiest point to make about John McCain’s current support for offshore drilling is that it is a flip-flop. When McCain ran for president in 1999, he supported the current moratorium on offshore drilling, slated to last until 2012.” (Mother Jones)

“McCain’s reversal on off-shore drilling is a blatant pitch for donations at today’s Houston fundraising events.” (David Donnely of Campaign Money Watch)

“Although McCain says that he supports renewable energy, he has set so specific targets. John McCain’s website makes no mention of solar, wind, renewable energy, or even public transportation under the section on climate change and has no section on energy.” (Sarah Lozanova of Red, Green, & Blue)

Considering the mission of this blog, I would be remiss to not include a snippet from a conservative pundit and backer of the McCain plan (especially considering how much time I spent trying to find one!):

“In fact, the economic slowdown, including the spike in gasoline prices, gives Republicans chance to attack Democrats as elitists, as “let-them-drive-bicycles”-type snobs; as polar-bear loving Greens who would rather worry about glaciers on the North Pole than about jobs for Middle Americans in North Carolina or North Dakota.” (James Pinkerton of The Fox Forum)

Related Posts:

“Help Set the Environmental Agenda for the 44th President”

“Obama Ad Rejects Gas-Tax Break”

“McCain and Obama Differ on Energy”

“McCain’s Plan to Combat Climate Change”

Photos:

1. cmakin via flickr under a Creative Commons license

2. John McCain for President Website