International Clearinghouse for Hydrogen Based Commerce

THIS COLUMN IS OPTIMIZED FOR THE APPLE iPHONE


	The International Clearinghouse for Hydrogen Commerce www.hydrogencommerce.com CONTACT

ADVANCES	FUTURE	STORAGE	VEHICLES	APOLLO	FUEL CELLS
AIR & SPACE	SECURITY	PEOPLE	POLITICS	OIL	CLIMATE
SHIPS & SUBS	HEALTH	AMAZING H	ZEPPLINS	COAL	VIDEO
PRODUCTION	NUCLEAR	BIOFUELS	PROMOTION	ARCHIVE 1	ARCHIVE 2

Manhattan or Apollo?

Voices Mount in Call for
"MANHATTAN II" Project
to Wean America and the West
Away from Imported Oil

“"We ask that you declare energy independence a national priority, with a deadline on its achievement, and commit strong political leadership and necessary financial resources. This would be a great challenge worthy of a great nation.”

Rod Blagojevich of Illinois     Bill Richardson of New Mexico
Jim Doyle of Wisconsin     Christine Gregoire of Washington
Ted Kulongoski of Oregon     Janet Napolitano of Arizona
Brian Schweitzer of Montana
Seven U.S. Governors Urge President to Back Renewables
ReFocus     July 20, 2005

    DETROIT TIER-1 SUPPLIER CALLS FOR
         NATIONAL HYDROGEN PROJECT
    Larry Burns must not feel so lonely anymore. General Motors Corp.'s research and development chief has been a voice in the wilderness, crying out to the auto industry that it must repent and turn away from its dependence on the gasoline engine.
    The hydrogen fuel cell is the only true path to transportation salvation, Burns has preached to a congregation full of skeptics about the promise of a "hydrogen economy." Some say there are too many technological roadblocks to overcome in a fuel-cell propulsion system. Others say producing hydrogen and setting up a retail fueling system is too costly. And environmentalists accuse GM of promoting futuristic fuel cells when it could be selling more fuel-saving gasoline-electric hybrids like the Toyota Prius now.
    But Burns has picked up a zealous apostle for the hydrogen economy. He's Metaldyne Co. Chairman Tim Leuliette, a plain-speaking, John-the-Baptist sort of guy, who says the whole country is headed for Hades unless we kick our oil habit. Plymouth-based Metaldyne is a major auto industry supplier of chassis, engine, driveline and transmission components, basically metal parts that would still be needed in some form even in a hydrogen-based industry. In a recent speech full of fire and brimstone, Leuliette said our thirst for oil makes us vulnerable to terrorists, unpredictable rulers of oil-producing nations and skyrocketing prices forced by increased demand for fossil fuel in China. more     Hydrogen Fuel-cell Fans Seek Converts
                                 Rick Haglund    Ann Arbor News    January 31, 2005

"Short of all-out war, no single endeavor carried out by this nation will be as important. ...This is a rebirth of our industry, a rebirth of a nation's infrastructure, and the rebirth of Detroit to once again be where the action is."

Tim Leuliette, chairman and CEO of the Plymouth, Michigan-based Tier 1 supplier Metaldyne Corporation, to the Automotive News World Congress

January 19, 2005 Detroit, Michigan

    As this meeting comes to an end, I would like us to focus on what I consider the most critical, strategic issue facing this industry. Many of you expect me to once again talk about steel, price recovery, supplier/OEM relationships, etc.
    But, that has already been discussed throughout these sessions. I talked about it two and a half years ago in Traverse City, when the steel/ferrous metal clouds were gathering on the horizon. Our only mistake then was not to address the issue at that time with a constructive industry wide solution.
    That opportunity has passed and we must deal with the situation as it exists today whether we like it or not.
    Sometimes accepting massive shifts in economic reality is difficult for institutions so used to the status quo, but that doesn’t change the facts.
    That is all I will say on that subject because there is actually a more significant challenge for all of us in this industry and in this country. It’s an issue we raise periodically and then put away when concerns fade from the nightly news. It’s an issue we like not to talk about unless we have to. It’s an issue that with one senseless act, one government collapse, one hiccup in a global distribution system, will become our worst nightmare.
    The issue is the drug that our industry, our society, is hooked on…it’s called oil. Currently, this country has economic and foreign policies that are predicated on the availability of an uninterrupted supply of low cost oil for decades to come. We are betting our careers, our businesses, and our family’s financial health on the availability of an uninterrupted supply of low cost oil for decades to come.
    We get up everyday praying that Osama Bin Laden doesn’t figure out that a dirty bomb in a Saudi oil field will do significantly more damage to the U.S and world economies than another attack on U.S. soil of any kind.
    We put together long-term forecasts with the assumption that China’s oil needs will somehow be satisfied by massive new discoveries of oil, because no model balances with their forecasted thirst and the world’s known oil reserves. Any scenario that is contemplated puts more geopolitical power in the hands of the Middle-East Islamic militants.
    The world needs energy as you and I need oxygen to breathe. The United States relies on oil for its very existence, and this industry, the auto industry, consumes 40% of every barrel produced. To deny the essential economic, geopolitical, and national security role oil plays in our society is to deny reality.
    Balancing our energy needs with an environmental friendly solution is paramount, but to think there will not be compromises puts you into the twisted intellect of a Michael Moore.
    In the brief, few moments we are together, I would like first, to convince you that the premise that is the availability of an uninterrupted supply of low cost oil for decades to come is a flawed premise. And then, I would like to propose an alternative path for your consideration.
    Today, we are at a strategic fork in the road with respect to an energy policy.
    This fork in the road has three paths, as there are three schools of thought.
    First, there are those who doubt that we have a problem of any scale. Let’s call them the "complacent crowd.”
    The complacent crowd is secure in the knowledge that, up until now, this crisis has always mitigated before it became unbearable. They admonish those concerned about this periodic “calamity du jour” by pointing out, correctly I may add, that over the last three decades we have found more oil than we have burned. In their planning models, they can tolerate the instability in Iraq and the Iranian theocracy next door as tolerable concerns that will not have an impact on global oil supplies.
    They are comfortable that the House of Saud will overcome any siege by Islamic fundamentalists, as will other Gulf States that face similar issues.
    The “Complacent Crowd” sees the crisis in Nigeria as temporary, and they are not bothered by a Venezuelan president, who appears to relish the role as this hemisphere’s next Castro and whose policies pull maintenance investment from the country’s oil production infrastructure. They are also not troubled by the confiscation of the Yukos operations in Russia.
    Russia, Nigeria and the Middle East; these are the places that we’re counting on for more than half the oil we use in this country.
    Another concern for the complacent crowd should be China. China, which for all of the 20th Century was a net oil exporter, became the world's second largest importer of foreign oil in 2003, surpassing Japan for the first time. China has accounted for 40% of the world's oil demand growth over the past four years.
    China, which is forecast to require 9.4 million barrels per day of imported oil within two decades, could easily do to oil what its demand did for scrap iron and steel over the last two years. And still, the complacent crowd says “don't worry.”
    Then there are those that I call the “incrementalists”. They share the concern about our oil supply, but for reasons of economics and the fear of change, the internal optimistic trait that belies our specie is they wish to buy time and continue working the internal combustion engine.
    They see hybrids as a safe middle ground, and not just a transitional power source. The incrementalists pray that oil is found in large deposits in shale rock in this country, and believe that with conservation, prudence, and luck, we can push this problem out until the next generation…. so our children can solve it…. like they will have to solve Social Security.
    Incrementalists find solace in attempting “good things,” like movie stars driving hybrids and college kids wearing t-shirts promoting solar power. But there is a risk, that the appearance of attempting “good things” will placate us with a false sense of security.
    And lastly there is the third group: those convinced we need a fundamental change in energy policy in this country, and eventually the rest of the world.
    Some of these people, such as those of us at Metaldyne, are from the auto industry. This group has accepted that we must move from a carbon based energy model to a hydrogen-based model.
    Since I am part of the group, and since this is my speech, with the power of the pen, I have labeled this group the “realists." The “realists” accept that we need to move down the periodic table to the element with an atomic number of “1”: harness the most abundant fuel in the universe and move this industry to the most environmentally friendly energy source for as long as we occupy this planet. This path is not without challenges, including determining the best source for hydrogen, as well as perfecting the storage of it in the vehicle. We are at the beginning of a journey, and have many technological issues to overcome, but they can be overcome.
    Those who support this path, do so for three fundamental reasons. First, we must find an alternative energy source for national security reasons. Second, we must find an alternative energy source for environmental reasons. And third, we must find an alternative fuel source for fundamental long-term economic reasons. How you rank these reasons is your own concern, but the answer doesn’t change.
    Assuming you accept the path of the “realists”, where do we go from here? I suggest to you, that this decision is as important to this country as any it has faced in decades.
    Short of all-out war, no single endeavor carried out by this nation will be as important. It will require a business-government partnership that rivals the transcontinental railway project of 1869, the Panama Canal project of 1904, the Manhattan Project of 1942 and putting a man on the moon which this country did in support of a vision laid down by President John F. Kennedy in 1961.
    Each of these projects was a significant economic challenge…each of these projects was fraught with technical risk…but each of these projects helped define us as a nation.
    It is time for a new undertaking…a project of this century…a mission that will define us for generations. It is time for energy independence. It is time for the Hydrogen Project.
    The $1.2 billion Hydrogen Fuel Initiative that President Bush announced in his State of the Union two years ago aims for fuel cell technology to reach the automotive consumer by 2020, and for hydrogen technology to significantly reduce this country’s oil usage by 2040. The current plan outlines a timetable ten times longer than the Manhattan project…and four times longer that putting a man on the moon.
    Ladies and gentlemen, I am absolutely convinced that we don’t have that kind of time.
    We don’t have anywhere near that kind of time. I applaud the President for his Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. It very properly establishes a vision of a hydrogen society sometime in our future, and puts in motion a few steps toward realizing that vision. But $1.2 billion is a token gesture.
    General Motors, who introduced the hydrogen-powered concept car, “Sequel” last week, DaimlerChrysler a long time proponent of hydrogen, Ford, Toyota, Honda, BMW, and others who are leading in the development of these products, outlined a case for more money…a good case…but this administration, this society was not ready to face the challenge. We need to revisit these decisions, and frankly it will take a lot of collective courage, vision and mutual support to get us through the challenge ahead.
    I said that we will need a partnership between the auto industry and government. Let’s say, for a moment, that this industry is ready to support Project Hydrogen and commit our resources. But what how about the government?
    The United States government is run by those we elect. I think we need to be more selective in whom we elect. And we need to hold our elected representatives responsible once they’re in office. They need to know what it will take to keep our support.
    The auto industry is the country’s largest employer. The OEM’s employ around five hundred thousand people. Suppliers add another three million to that number, with workers spread out in practically every state in the union.
    Another twenty million people earn their living from us…by selling us furniture…cleaning our clothes and building us houses.
    This voice needs to be harnessed and focused once again. Management and organized labor need to make politicians earn our vote. We need to collectively demand that our voice, our needs, and our priorities be addressed.
    The conversion of this society to a hydrogen based energy infrastructure is in the best interest of the auto industry and the nation, but it is going to be up to us to be the catalyst for this change. We will need to elect officials in statewide and national offices that reflect this new reality, and support our vision.
    Let’s discuss this political issue a little more deeply. Republicans like me supported George Bush in 2000, but then watched his administration cave in to a well-organized steel lobby and slap unnecessary tariffs on steel imports that exacerbated an existing commodity inflationary spiral in ferrous-based products. The tariffs are gone, but the inflationary spiral created continues to bring undue harm to the industry and to the thousands of autoworkers and their families.
    Bush wasn’t looking out for us. I was in the front lines of the battle to get those tariffs removed, and I made it clear, both publicly and privately, that I expected better from those I supported.
    On the other side of the aisle, every four years the UAW endorses the Democratic presidential nominee as a matter of course, no matter who he is.
    In 2004, it would be pretty hard to find anyone in the U.S. Senate who has voted against the interests of autoworkers as long and as consistently as John Kerry had. Yet he got their endorsement, their money, and their votes.
    In both cases, neither nominee worked for our vote. George Bush expected management’s support and got it. John Kerry expected UAW’s support and got it.
    Yet both candidates had public records that were at best, indifferent to the needs of this industry and its workers, and at worst, against this industry and its workers. The largest industry in this nation deserves better.
    The conversion to hydrogen offers all of us a golden opportunity to assess who is with us, and who is not. The solution will not come from Washington…but enabling legislation and the money will. This is more important than sending a man to Mars, and it’s more important than subsidizing tobacco farmers to grow a product that we are, at the same time, trying to dissuade usage because of its health risks. It is more important than particle beam weapons, and it is more important than the $15 billion Big Dig project in Boston. We are talking about true energy independence. We are talking about eliminating the leverage that radical Islam has over this country. We are talking about disconnecting this nation from the oil thirst the new China will impart upon the world’s producers.
    There will be many places to hide on this issue for politicians. The President barely had the words “Hydrogen Initiative” out of his mouth before his critics started complaining that he only wants to make hydrogen from natural gas and coal instead of renewables in order to protect the energy industry. In truth, we will need to tap both sources before evolving to a complete renewable path in the decades to come, but in the world of bloggers and 24 hour news shows, the critics will be out in mass and politicians will need our unwavering support, as we will need theirs to achieve our goal. Everyone in Washington has an agenda, and suspects everybody else of having one.
    We need a group on both sides of the aisle that cares about our future with the same intensity we do. There will be many tough decisions on this journey to hydrogen.
    Yes, there will be many tough decisions. Just as there was to unite this country with a transcontinental railroad, to dig a canal through the jungle in a foreign land, to harness the atom for a weapon to end a war, and put a man on the moon for the first time.
    Therefore, to begin this journey and prepare for these tough decisions, I propose as part of an omnibus Project Hydrogen:

1. Immediately establish a well funded and powerful industry consortium comprised of OEM’s suppliers and organized labor to provide interface and political singularity for Project Hydrogen.

2. Then establish, through an industry technical society like SAE, a hydrogen powered vehicle design team to set industry practice and design rules.

3. Target that 80% of the vehicles sold in this country and 100% of the vehicles imported to this country be hydrogen powered by 2020.

And as we will need to generate tax revenue to support R&D, help states convert infrastructure and help incentivize the consumer to leave gasoline-powered vehicles in favor of hydrogen-powered ones. I support:

4. A $.10/gallon gas tax beginning in 2008 and increasing by $.10/gallon per year through 2012 to fund R&D, infrastructure and incentive needs.

    Consortiums, gasoline tax, and real targets for hydrogen cars in this country…nobody said it would be easy. Nothing important ever is. This is indeed, a project for a nation. But in the end, it is this industry, it is this group of engineers, it is this group of businessmen…those of us in this room today…that will get this country off of the oil drug. We cannot do it alone. We will need the resources and the commitment of a nation. This industry has contributed more funds, taxes, and more contribution to this society than any other. It is now time to assist this industry in weaning this country from the greatest geopolitical, economic, and national security threat it has: the reliance on oil, the reliance of foreign oil, the reliance on fossil fuels to drive this economy. No other industry has a bigger enlightened self-interest in a hydrogen society than this one. No other industry has as much to gain, or as much to lose.
    But there is a group of individuals who have much more to lose if we remain an oil-based society, or to gain from the successful transition to a hydrogen society. It’s the American people.
    Our self-interest does not mask the righteous and necessary goal that a hydrogen society represents.
    And, Detroit is where this dream should start. Detroit is where the plans should be made.
    Detroit is where the technology will be created. Detroit is where the hydrogen-powered cars will be made. This is a rebirth of our industry, a rebirth of a nation’s infrastructure, and the rebirth of Detroit, to once again be where the action is. There are already hundreds of people working on this inevitable transition to hydrogen, but we will need thousands more.
    The first step is to develop a sense of urgency. New oil discoveries will not solve the problem, and hybrids only buy some time. The government won’t save us, but needs to become our ally. And of course, our critics won’t save us, they will complain all the way along.
    A little over a hundred years ago, the automobile laid the foundation for an oil-based society. Today, the automobile is the best vehicle, pardon the pun, and the best hope to get us to a hydrogen society. But, it’s up to us:

• To form an industry consortium to bring focus.

• To task technical societies to begin the conversion and formalize hydrogen vehicle design rules.

• To launch the product programs needed to support the goal that 80% of new vehicles sold in 2020 will be hydrogen powered.

• And, it is up to us to support the gasoline tax increases that will help pay for our withdrawal from oil.

Yes it’s up to us to take the lead, not to wait for someone else, and not to hope for more time.

Complete Speech

"We must declare a war on oil addiction, and launch an international Manhattan Project to move the world to alternatives such as hydrogen, solar, wind. We could do it for $5 billion in 5 years—or a month’s war expense in Iraq. Then we rob the [Middle East] of its arch-importance."
Edwin Black, New York Times best-selling author
Stuck In A Quagmire?
Jamie Glazov Frontpage Magazine January 6, 2005

"Uh-oh..."	HYDROGEN THE ANTI-DRUG^{^{^TM}}
UNITED STATES FORTUNE MAGAZINE Fortune (Time Inc.) August 11, 2004
Fortune Proposes Plan to Free America from Dependency on Oil Real-World Plan, a Balance of Technology and Policy, Targets Four Key Areas and Wouldn't Derail Economy
FORTUNE's plan consists of four approaches:
1. Improving fuel economy. Hybrids offer the best near-term opportunity to save large amounts of gasoline. Hybrid buyers should be given a tax credit, for which Congress could find the money by eliminating several subsidies for the oil and gas industries, whose profits don't seem to justify government handouts. Congress should also drop the exemption that allows SUVs to be considered light trucks instead of passenger vehicles. 2. More spending on alternative fuels. FORTUNE estimates that a $3.5-billion-a-year investment in two key areas (each with different time lines for success) could lead to a 20% drop in our current oil usage. The majority of the money would be spent on a long-term but crucial goal: developing hydrogen technology for cars and electricity generation. The remainder of the investment would be in developing the biomass fuel called cellulosic ethanol, which can be blended into gasoline with minimal modifications to current engines and gas stations. 3. Redoubled commitment to efficiency. Proponents of efficiency argue that we can enjoy our current lifestyle but use much less power in the process. The key is to focus on efficiency rather than conservation. Even without government rules, companies and individuals can save huge amounts with little cost or effort. 4. Getting serious about solar and wind. Renewable-energy technology is improving by leaps and bounds, more so than alternative fuels. Wind and solar aren't the sole solution to the oil problem, but they're certainly part of it. Many experts believe that wind and solar could eventually shoulder 20% of the electricity burden. FORTUNE believes that 10% is a more realistic target for the next 20 years. Either way, the government will have to show more support.
Some companies are already taking innovative leadership roles in these areas, reports Varchaver, and it would be ideal to rely solely on market mechanisms. But for FORTUNE's plan to work, the government will have to do its part; when it comes to transformation on this scale, Washington needs to jump-start the process. Still, In FORTUNE's plan, government intervention would be modest, and the proposed spending is small compared to the costs for America's oil-based lifestyle that are currently underwritten via tax bills. more Renewable Energy Promotes US Job Growth Better than Investment in Fossil Fuels U. of California, Berkeley April 13, 2004 Choosing America's Path to Future Prosperity or Ruin Richard D. Masters International Clearinghouse for Hydrogen Based Commerce November 6, 2003 Optimized Hydrogen and Electricity Generation from Wind L.J. Fingersh National Renewable Energy Laboratory June 2003

NEW YORK NYSERDA ALBANY NANOTECH ENERGETICS

June 9, 2004

"Let us set a national goal, that by the end of the next decade, we will break our dependency on foreign oil and replace it with conservation ... and renewable energy technologies."
	New York Governor George Pataki Calls for New Policies to End Reliance on Foreign Oil Glenn Blain The Journal News (NY) April 25, 2004
Pataki, in an afternoon speech before a Columbia University symposium on the Earth's climate, said its time for a national effort akin to the Manhattan Project or the space program to develop clean sources of energy, such as fuel cells. He called the continued purchase of oil from the Middle East a "terror tax" that threatens the nation's security. more

America needs jobs, and working families are hurting. At the same time, the war in Iraq has heightened awareness of our dependence on foreign oil and the vulnerability of our energy system. The time is right for a national commitment to energy independence on the scale of John Kennedy's Apollo Project, which put a man on the moon. A bold program to advance energy efficiency and promote renewable energy, like wind and solar power, and drive investment into new technology and public infrastructure would create 2 million jobs and offer stimulus to our flagging economy.
-- Bracken Hendricks

An Energy/Jobs Program Apollo Alliance / The Nation June 6, 2003

Formulating a ‘Manhattan Project' that will reduce dependence on Middle Eastern oil is the immediate goal of the August conference that will bring together government officials from around the globe.
"America needs a ‘Manhattan Project' program to achieve energy independence," said J. Morton Davis, Vice-Chairman of the American Jewish Congress Energy Independence Task Force. "Furthermore," Mr. Davis continued, "by producing new batteries, new and more efficient motors, and state of the art fuel cell technologies we can dramatically improve our precious world's environment."

American Jewish Congress Organizes U.S.-Israel Energy Conference American Jewish Congress June 6, 2003

How Hydrogen Can Save America
by Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall Wired April 2003

[Note: This article is one of the most significant recent published works on creating a hydrogen future.]

Click to go to the April 2003 issue of Wired Magazine

The cost of oil dependence has never been so clear. What had long been largely an environmental issue has suddenly become a deadly serious strategic concern. Oil is an indulgence we can no longer afford, not just because it will run out or turn the planet into a sauna, but because it inexorably leads to global conflict. Enough. What we need is a massive, Apollo-scale effort to unlock the potential of hydrogen, a virtually unlimited source of power. The technology is at a tipping point. Terrorism provides political urgency. Consumers are ready for an alternative. From Detroit to Dallas, even the oil establishment is primed for change. We put a man on the moon in a decade; we can achieve energy independence just as fast. Here's how.

    Four decades ago, the United States faced a creeping menace to national security. The Soviet Union had lobbed the first satellite into space in 1957. Then, on April 12, 1961, Russian cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin blasted off in Vostok 1 and became the first human in orbit.
    President Kennedy understood that dominating space could mean the difference between a country able to defend itself and one at the mercy of its rivals. In a May 1961 address to Congress, he unveiled Apollo - a 10-year program of federal subsidies aimed at "landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth." The president announced the goal, Congress appropriated the funds, scientists and engineers put their noses to the launchpad, and - lo and behold - Neil Armstrong stepped on the lunar surface eight years later.
    The country now faces a similarly dire threat: reliance on foreign oil. Just as President Kennedy responded to Soviet space superiority with a bold commitment, President Bush must respond to the clout of foreign oil by making energy independence a national priority. The president acknowledged as much by touting hydrogen fuel cells in January's State of the Union address. But the $1.2 billion he proposed is a pittance compared to what's needed. Only an Apollo-style effort to replace hydrocarbons with hydrogen can liberate the US to act as a world leader rather than a slave to its appetite for petroleum.    more

Is Hydrogen the Fuel of the Future?
Maggie Shiels BBC (UK) March 28, 2003

The turmoil in the Middle East, the growing national security budget, the promise of technology that needs only a financial push, appear to make this the right moment to launch an Apollo-scale commitment to hydrogen power. more

“We need a new, bold initiative -- in the spirit of the Apollo moon-landing project -- this time focused on breaking our country’s dependence on Middle East Oil.” -- Senator Byron Dorgan (ND)

U.S. Senator Byron Dorgan Says U.S. Should Launch Apollo-Like Project to Free U.S. From Foreign Oil
Office of Senator Dorgan January 27, 2003

    U.S. Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) called for a major national effort to help free the United States from its continuing reliance on foreign oil by developing hydrogen fuel cell energy technologies that will allow the nation’s transportation sector to move beyond its reliance on petroleum and especially, on foreign sources of oil.
    Dorgan noted the method of powering automobiles hasn’t changed since the Model T Ford. “We are increasingly dependent on Middle East oil,” Dorgan said. “Fossil fuels will always be an important part of our energy picture, but we need to develop alternatives that don’t leave us so reliant on other countries.”
    He called for an ambitious 10-year, public-private initiative to develop vehicles powered by hydrogen fuel cells. “We need a new, bold initiative -- in the spirit of the Apollo moon-landing project -- this time focused on breaking our country’s dependence on Middle East Oil,” Dorgan said. “We need to make the commitment to do this and then focus the resources to get the job done. Moving to a hydrogen based future for transportation will be good for our economy, our energy future, and our environment.”
    His plan would invest $6.5 billion over 10 years to fund research and development of fuel cell technologies and infrastructure; launch pilot projects; direct the federal government to adopt fuel cell vehicles and stationary fuel cells, and, provide tax incentives for the purchase of fuel cell vehicles, infrastructure, and stationary fuel cells.
    “The dangers to the American economy’s over-reliance on Middle Eastern oil are apparent to everyone,” Dorgan said. “We need to take steps now to increase our energy independence and energy security. We need to find other ways to power our transportation sector, the fastest growing user of energy in this country,” said Dorgan.
    “Converting America’s automobile fleet to fuel cell vehicles isn’t something that is going to happen overnight, but it’s never going happen if we don’t dedicate the necessary resources and make it a priority.”
    Otherwise, Dorgan said, “We’ll be putting gas in our cars in 2030 the same way we have since 1930. I’m proposing we set the goal to make vehicles powered by hydrogen fuel cells the norm in 25 to 50 years, by making a decision to support and develop new technology now. If we make the decision to aggressively pursue fuel cell technologies now, we’ll be able to pole vault over current technology and transform our energy future.”

Office of Byron Dorgan April 8, 2003
DORGAN’S HYDROGEN FUEL CELL-POWERED VEHICLE PROPOSAL ADVANCES IN U.S. SENATE
He wants “Apollo-like” push

    (WASHINGTON, D.C.) --- Senator Byron Dorgan’s (D-ND) plan to launch an all-out drive to develop hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicles gained ground in the U.S. Senate Tuesday, as the Senate’s Energy Committee agreed to authorize more than $3 billion over the next five years for hydrogen fuel cell technology research and development, demonstration programs and federal purchase requirements.
    President Bush endorsed the concept in his State of the Union address in January.
    The nation’s transportation sector is “dangerously dependent” on foreign oil, Dorgan noted. It consumes more foreign oil than any other sector of the U.S. economy and, among all sectors, is the fastest growing consumer of energy. Agricultural economies, like North Dakota’s, are also heavy users of imported oil. In 2001, America’s farmers used 1.5 billion gallons of gasoline and 3.4 billion gallons of diesel fuel.
    Dorgan’s proposal seeks to help the transportation sector move to new fuel sources and new technologies in an effort to increase the nation’s energy security.
    He is also working to advance renewable sources of energy, such as ethanol and wind energy, both of which “can make contributions that are very important to our energy future not only for North Dakota, but for the entire country."
    Dorgan described the committee’s decision today to authorize bold action on the hydrogen powered fuel cell front Tuesday as a “major step in the right direction.”
     “We’re making the commitment to launch a major, focused effort to develop this technology and targeting major resources to get the job done. Moving more toward a hydrogen based future for transportation will be good for our economy, our energy future, and our environment.”
    “Fossil fuels will always be an important part of our energy picture,” he added, “but we need to develop alternatives that don’t leave us so reliant on other countries. We need a new, bold initiative -- in the spirit of the Apollo moon-landing project -- this time focused on breaking our country’s dependence on Middle East oil, and that’s the direction the Energy Committee is heading.”

Connecticut Congressman
John B. Larson
New Congressman Visits Torrington Register Citizen January 27, 2003

    "Surely, if we could put a man on the moon, we can develop a program that would make the United States energy-independent. Developing the immense potential of fuel cell technology will require a sizable, sustained commitment on the part of federal, state and local governments in partnership with private industry and academia."
     "We simply cannot afford to push fuel cells to the back burner each time the price of gasoline falls. It is no coincidence that every time alternative energy solutions arise, the price of oil drops."
   "With fuel cells, we have the ability to end this dependence and generate vigorous economic expansion at home. Kicking the foreign-oil addiction mean independence from environmentally destructive energy sources and the opportunity to free ourselves from foreign policy entanglements tied to oil."

    The mighty Columbia River's nighttime flow holds a remarkable secret. This secret can put the Northwest at the center of a global energy revolution, create thousands of new jobs and help end forever our dependence on Middle East oil.
    While you sleep, the power of the Columbia River can create a revolutionary new energy source - lighter than air, completely renewable, and yet with the highest energy content of any fuel. In the Northwest we can produce this new fuel faster, cleaner and cheaper than anywhere in the world. What's its source?
    Water.
    That's right. The power of the Columbia River can unlock hydrogen from water. It can turn the Northwest into the Saudi Arabia of hydrogen - the revolutionary fuel at the center of President Bush's bold, $1.2 billion proposal to build hydrogen-powered cars and a national hydrogen infrastructure.
    For centuries, people have dreamed of a limitless, clean source of energy. For decades, scientists have known that hydrogen - the most common element in the universe - holds the answer to a global energy revolution.           more
[Note: This article is one of the most significant recent published works on creating a hydrogen future.]

Columbia's Power - The River Contains the Secret to Drive a National Energy Revolution Jack Robertson Register-Guard (OR) February 16, 2003

Jack Robertson of Portland worked for the Bonneville Power Administration from 1986 through 1999, serving as acting chief executive officer and deputy CEO. He helped found the Bonneville Environmental Foundation. From 1973 to 1982, he worked on the staff of Oregon Sen. Mark Hatfield in Washington, D.C.

    If it weren't for money that we pay Saddam for his oil, he wouldn't have the money to build weapons of mass destruction. And if it weren't for the oil money that went into Saudi Arabia, the bin Laden family wouldn't have had the money for Al Qaeda to get started. The oil money has been at the foundation of terror in this world; and there are a lot of serious people that think we are going to war in Iraq, in part, to get their oil. And what would happen if we woke up tomorrow morning and found that just as what happened in Iran, that the people in Saudi Arabia had thrown out their government and it was now in the hands of an extreme Muslim government? There would be a worldwide calamity. If we went to war, we'd alienate billions of people forever; if we didn't go to war, we might not be able to get to work. We are in a serious pickle over oil, and we do need a program of Hydrogen Now!! to at least get started toward the era of using hydrogen instead of oil; and I'm talking about not hydrogen from fossil fuels, which just puts you in a vicious circle on the environmental side, but hydrogen from the electrolysis of water using more and more solar, wind, renewable energy to make that electricity.
    Whether you believe in it or not, you need to seriously examine a program of Hydrogen Now!!-and I applaud the Bush administration for recognizing that fuel cells and hydrogen need to be part of our future-but I beg you to make it part of our present. The fact that it may take twenty years to make a transition is all the more reason why we should start today. Imagine how different this world would be if we had a program in place where two or three years from now we will have hundreds of thousands of hydrogen-powered cars being built and more and more as time goes on. The fuel cells would come on faster, not slower, because they would be needed to get the bigger cars with less efficiency having a sufficient range to be commercially viable. This is a program that really is a wartime necessity, not a peacetime luxury.
Lost Opportunities, Slaying Dragons, and Hydrogen Now
David Freeman, Chairman, California Power Authority
Hydrogen & Fuel Cell Letter    January 2003

   With a little imagination and effort, President Bush could make independence from oil a "home-front" cause, like the World War II victory gardens. Americans are prepared to sacrifice individually, provided they can see the collective pay-off. Such an effort would pay even greater dividends here in Hawai'i, which is almost entirely dependent on imported oil. We should be in the vanguard of research on energy alternatives; we'd make the ideal guinea pig for experimental energy systems, including — perhaps especially — those based on hydrogen.
    Fear of change condemns us to the bondage of oil.
Freedom From Oil: Let's Make It a National Cause
Honolulu Advertiser (HI)    January 4, 2003

    Before we can win the war on terror, we need to identify our enemy. It is not just a matter of finding the terrorists. There are more in the pipeline. This is a war of ideas.
    The fundamental problem with the Islamic world stems from their widely held view that the state and religion should mix. Never having experienced anything similar to the Reformation, they prefer theocracy to democracy.
    We could live with that, but there is a curious fact that the Wahhabi sect in southern Saudi Arabia exercises enormous power over the Saudi family. As a college student in the late 60's, I first learned that the Saudis rule only via an accommodation reached with the Wahhabis.
    So long as the state is run on strict fundamentalist principles, as determined by Wahhabi mullahs, the Wahhabis won't attempt to bring down the government. An aspect of this special relationship is that the sect got rich.
    The Wahhabis aggressively spread their extreme Islamic views. The net effect is analogous to giving the Ku Klux Klan billions of dollars to disseminate their racist values throughout the Christian world. The result has been a sharp rise in Islamic radical fundamentalism coinciding with the sharp rise in the flow of oil money. The Wahhabis fund the madrasses and al Qaeda.
    To win the war on terrorism, at a minimum we must cut off the money flow to the Wahhabis. There are two ways to do that.
    The easy thing to do is to invest heavily in hydrogen technology in order to speed up the development of fuel cells which would give us the potential to eliminate the world's dependence on oil (and at the same time clean up our environment.) I would much rather see us spend $20 billion on research and development of hydrogen technology than another $20 billion on defense. But that's not enough.
    Besides, it only helps in the long-term. In the short run we must take off the velvet gloves and let the Saudis know in uncertain terms that they must rein in the Wahhabis. They need to be given the same choice as was facing Musharref in September -- you're either with us or against us. In short, the time has come to aim at the heart of the beast.
    One might counter that we cannot expose ourselves to the risk that the Saudis will cut off the flow of oil. But that is not as great a threat as it may at first appear.
    The GDP per person in Saudi Arabia has fallen dramatically from about $24,000 in the 70's to about $8,000 now. The domestic pressure from further fiscal cutting could start a civil war, and that is precisely what we need. Throughout the Muslim world, good Muslims must stifle the radicals or we'll be forced to do it ourselves.
    One might also counter that the effect could be to make things worse. I'd rather run the risk that radicals would take over a country than stand by while a "moderate" regime permits the radicals to freely operate. (The same goes for Palestine.)
    Besides, I fail to see how they could get much worse. Our enemies are irrational. They actively support the intentional killing of innocents as a religious act. They teach children to aspire to murder. They systemically reduce women to chattel. They fund terrorists whose primary goal is killing Americans. They preach and chant for our collective deaths -- not to achieve some rational goal, but because they believe we are the devil incarnate.
    It's known that 15 of the 19 Twin Tower terrorists were from southern Saudi Arabia, ancestral home of the Wahhabi sect. They are seeking weapons of mass destruction.
    President Bush says the right things and does the easy parts well, but he's appeasing the Saudis and negotiating with terrorists. I've lost faith in his leadership.
    Radical steps are needed. We cannot win the war on terror without marginalizing the Wahhabis. I believe in reason and peace, but first and foremost I believe in reality. It's us or them.

Eliminating the Saudi Factor
by Steven M. Chamberlain Gainesville Sun May 9, 2002

    In response to a column some weeks ago in the"Economist", I proposed that in view of the fact that we are so dependent on foreign sources of petroleum and the likelihood of these supplies again being subjected to potential interruption, that we should initiate a new "Manhattan Project".
    Without energy supplies, our nation grinds to a halt.and everything we stand for as well as our way of life is in jeopardy. It is imperative that we accelerate our activities to develop massive supplies of other types of energy such as hydrogen for use in fuel cells. Hydrogen is the most common element on earth as well as in the universe and represents an inexhaustible supply of energy. While the US Department of Energy is moving ahead in this area expeditiously, the sense of urgency needs to be accelerated in view of the current war situation.
    All methods of hydrogen generation need to be explored: natural gas reformers, electrolysis systems, and so on. Dollar expenditures need to be increased as well as accelerated to provide positive assurance that we can achieve the energy independence status as soon as possible.
    The world is not running out of energy---at least not yet. There are still vast quantities buried in the earth. But the cost of obtaining that energy is increasing. And the rate of consumption of petroleum products is rapidly increasing worldwide. We are in the midst of a growing energy emergency and we need a "Manhattan Project" to provide us with the unlimited sources of energy to operate all facets of this nation. In view of the fact we in California are currently fifth in terms of gross domestic product in the world, perhaps we should consider our own "Manhattan Project" in consideration of all the positive benefits that would accrue to the State.

Henry Wedaa, President, California Hydrogen Business Council
Henry Wedaa is Chairman Emeritus of the South Coast Air Quality Management District/SCAQMD and Scenario Chairman of the Department of Energy's Hydrogen Technical Advisory Panel/HTAP

    Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, appearing at a Detroit auto show, announced a joint research project yesterday with Ford, General Motors and DaimlerChrysler to develop petroleum-free vehicles.
    Though world oil prices have subsided since Bush's call in May to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, the advantage of doing so was reinforced by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. One of the main gripes that Islamic terrorists have with the West is that U.S. troops are stationed in Saudi Arabia.
    "We've got a presence in Saudi Arabia because of oil, and Osama bin Laden doesn't like that presence," said Robert Ebel, director of the energy program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington, D.C., research center. "So there's the link. If it were pineapples, we wouldn't be there."
    Since last fall, economist David Orr has been advocating a national effort to develop an alternative to the gasoline engine, much as the top scientific minds created a nuclear bomb during World War II in the so-called Manhattan Project.
    "The Manhattan Project of this war should be spending whatever it takes to develop the fuel cell or other alternatives to Mideast oil," said Orr, who is chief economist at Wachovia Securities in Charlotte, N.C.

Reducing Foreign-Oil Dependence with Fuel Cells is Still Years Away
by Ken Moritsugu - Seattle Times/Knight Ridder January 10, 2002

    The permanent solution is two-pronged: greater efficiency and renewable energy technologies based here at home. Through efficiency, we can extract more work out of each barrel of oil, reducing dependence on imports while fuel cells and other technologies are expanding their beach head in the energy market. Greater efficiency will lay an economic and technological foundation for the energy technologies we will use in the post-petroleum era.
    ...In the New Manhattan Project, we can develop decentralized energy technologies less reliant on vulnerable choke points. Solar and fuel cells, for example, produce power at the point of use. Dispersed energy sources will complicate terrorist target planning. Renewable technologies will produce energy from sources on American soil. Hydrogen to power fuel cells in buildings and cars could be produced from water or natural gas. Heat beneath Southwestern deserts, California’s sunshine, and the Great Plains winds can be harnessed to generate electricity.
    ...Fuel cells are likely to end the century-long reign of the internal combustion engine, says Bill Ford, chairman of the automaker founded by his great- grandfather. Every major automaker in the world is pouring significant R&D into fuel cells, and showroom models will begin rolling off assembly lines in the next five years. DaimlerChrysler, for example, plans to invest $1 billion to develop affordable fuel cell cars and transit buses.
    Fuel cells work on a simple principle discovered in 1839—interestingly, the same year that the photovoltaic principle behind solar cells was first described. Fuel cells combine hydrogen and oxygen to produce electricity, pure water, and nothing else. No sooty particles. No toxic emissions. No dependence on a fuel subject to foreign manipulation.

Time to make the shift

    While the prospects for new energy technologies are high, national security demands an orderly but accelerated shift toward domestically-based renewable energy. Many technical issues must be solved before fuel cells and solar can break out in the marketplace. A host of economic and institutional barriers must be cleared away. Strong federal leadership is needed to catalyze a swift transition.
    The New Manhattan Project can be a national effort that will make every American proud. The New Manhattan Project will strengthen our security and our economy by creating new and lasting American industries, while also protecting our environment for the next generation.
    Let us pursue the New Manhattan Project with all the grit, determination, and spirit of Manhattan and its brave people.

America, it's time for a New Manhattan Project!
by Jim DiPeso, in collaboration with Jim Scarantino
Fall 2001 REP Newsletter Republicans for Environmental Protection

    The tragic terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, and the subsequent military response, have raised thorny questions about U.S. energy policy. How does oil import dependence factor into the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia-a major grievance of radical Islamic fundamentalists? How might continued heavy reliance on imported Middle Eastern petroleum complicate American efforts to eradicate terrorism from the region? Are nuclear power plants potential targets of future terrorist attacks?
    While there are no easy answers to questions such as these, it is clear that the existing energy and power infrastructure in the United States exhibits several vulnerabilities. These include the risk of disruption of oil supply from politically volatile regions, the danger of electricity outages if power plants are targeted, and the risk of exposure to nuclear plant accidents.
    The good news is that two long-term trends underway in the world's electricity and energy systems-toward micropower and hydrogen-can help to lessen these vulnerabilities.
    Micropower, or distributed generation, limits the risk of disrupted power supplies. Terrorists would have great difficulty targeting hundreds of dispersed fuel cells or solar panels in office basements and backyards and on rooftops. Hydrogen, the lightest and most abundant element in the universe, is increasingly viewed by industry as the ultimate energy carrier.
    The enabling technology for hydrogen is the fuel cell, which combines hydrogen with oxygen to produce electricity and water. Fuel cells are now being vigorously developed as successors to batteries, power plants, and the internal combustion engine. Derived first from natural gas and later from renewable energy, hydrogen promises a clean, domestic source of energy that can lessen oil dependence.
    Although the trend toward micropower and hydrogen was underway prior to September 11, these events-and the difficulties encountered in responding to them-illustrate the consequences of not engaging in a more concerted public policy effort to accelerate the introduction of these promising energy solutions. Indeed, they strengthen the case for an Apollo-scale effort to develop an infrastructure for producing, delivering, and using hydrogen. While there are costs in building a hydrogen economy, they must be weighed against the risk of continuing to rely on oil imports from the Middle East-which holds more than 65 percent of the world's proven petroleum reserves.
    In addition to improving energy security, a micropower-hydrogen energy system could bring energy services to the 1.8 billion poor people around the world who lack access to modern energy-a common source of social unrest in many parts. It could also alleviate urban air pollution problems and lay the groundwork for a low-carbon, climate-benign energy economy. And a micropower-hydrogen energy system presents enormous economic opportunities for forward-looking companies and countries that see the strategic advantage of switching to new energy sources-as did Winston Churchill, when he switched the British navy from coal to oil during the First World War.

Seth Dunn, Research Associate Worldwatch Institute     October 18, 2001
    Seth Dunn is the author of
     Worldwatch Paper 157: Hydrogen Futures - Toward A Sustainable Energy System
     Worldwatch Paper 151: Micropower - The Next Electrical Era

	"Let us set as our national goal, in the spirit of Apollo, with the determination of the Manhattan Project, that by the end of this decade we will have developed the potential to meet our own energy needs without depending on any foreign energy source."
Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States on November 7, 1973

It is my view that it is now within the state of the art to provide energy from other proven sources in significant amounts to wean us from oil almost completely. I refer of course to fuel cells, hydrogen and so forth.

With that in mind, I wonder why we don't bring together a new "Manhattan-type" project to address ways to exploit what we already know, set up an infrastructure to manage these new forms of energy and thus rid ourselves of dependence on foreign oil. In the interim, we have enough proven reserves to carry us through the time required to bring such a plan to fruition.

Letter to the Los Angeles Times November 4, 2001

    First, we must quickly strive for oil independence by almost any means.
    Second, we must accelerate the coming hydrogen age -- which I prefer to call the "hydricity" age because it will employ the two energy currencies, hydrogen and electricity. Both hydrogen and electricity are carbon free and so, when manufactured by non-fossil sources, send zero carbon dioxide into the environment.
    How will it work?
    Both hydrogen and electricity are energy currencies, not energy sources. Both can be harvested from any energy source, fossil or non-fossil. Both are renewable: Hydrogen, for example, returns to water after it is used. The two currencies are mutually interchangeable -- fuel cells convert hydrogen to electricity; electrolysis converts electricity to hydrogen. (The same cannot be said about our oil economy -- oil may be converted to electricity but electricity cannot be converted to oil.)
    Electricity will continue to power information technologies and some fixed-route transportation, like subways. Because hydrogen is storable, it will become the staple fuel of free-range transportation vehicles like cars, trucks, buses, trains and ships that employ fuel-cell engines. It will also power liquid-hydrogen aircraft that will fly farther (because hydrogen weighs about a third of what conventional fuels weigh) and fly cleaner (because the exhaust is water vapour.)
    The synergies inherent in hydricity systems will permit extraordinary technical, industrial and regulatory flexibility, thereby improving efficiencies, reducing costs, adding security and bringing environmental gentility.
    There's another benefit: Had a liquid-hydrogen-fuelled jumbo hit the World Trade Center, enormous damage would have occurred but the towers would not have come down. The towers collapsed because tons of burning jet fuel softened the buildings' steel backbone, allowing top floors to sledgehammer lower floors. Liquid hydrogen can't burn until it vaporizes and then, being so much lighter than air, it's up and away. Structural damage, fire and death would have been confined to the floors the aircraft struck.
    While the twin hydricity currencies can be manufactured from any source, to avoid climatic disruption we must rapidly move to non-carbon sources. We can harvest wind, tides, sunlight and the internal heat of the Earth to produce hydrogen that, in turn, can power airplanes, buses and our family cars. Whenever practical, those are the sources we should use.
    These, however, will not be enough. To satisfy all our needs we must have the courage to re-examine one of our favourite hates: nuclear power. Ironically, nuclear power is probably the cleanest and safest of all non-fossil sources and the only one with any prospect of delivering the energy services we need.

Open Letter from David Sanborn Scott October 13, 2001
David Sanborn Scott is the founding director of the University of Victoria's Institute for Integrated Energy Systems and vice-president of the International Association for Hydrogen Energy.

    One way to respond to the recent terrorist attacks is for the United States to begin another Manhattan Project, with the objective of finding alternative fuels.
    If American scientists were to develop other ways to fuel our automobiles and heat our homes — whether hydrogen, solar, electric or fusion — we would no longer be dependent on foreign sources of energy.
    Our dependence on oil from the Middle East now ties our hands both diplomatically and economically. Islamic militants, who assert that the United States exploits the Middle East oil resources, would no longer have another reason to despise the West, our trade deficit would vanish and pollution would decrease.
    For a few billion invested in the right area, we would all win.

Letter to the New York Times October 3, 2001

    America's unchecked consumption of oil has become a national Achilles heel. It constrains our military options in the face of terror. It leaves our economy dangerously vulnerable to price shocks. It invites environmental degradation, ecological disasters, and potentially catastrophic climate change.
    Don't be surprised in the days ahead to hear some in Washington call for a massive increase in domestic oil drilling in order to achieve national security. They ignore one crucial fact: our nation simply doesn't have enough oil reserves to drill our way to self-sufficiency or to affect oil prices, which are set on the world market. We control only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves -- a mere drop in the bucket -- but we consume a staggering 25 percent of the world's oil supply.
    Even if we developed every potential oil deposit in America -- including the Arctic Wildlife Refuge -- we'd still be importing oil, still be paying worldwide prices for domestic oil, and still be leaving ourselves vulnerable to supply disruptions.
    Is there an alternative? Yes. We can reduce our out-of-control appetite for fossil fuels. We can rely on smarter and cleaner ways to power our economy.

John Adams, President, NRDC September 19, 2001

Letter to the CHBC Webmaster October 1, 2001

   I think now is the perfect time to begin a massive and relatively speedy move toward a hydrogen economy. The reasons for this are amply documented on your site and the Sept 11 events make this very clear.
    We should embark on a Manhattan-style national science and technology project to convert to a hydrogen economy with the target date of 2010 or thereabouts. In fact, in honor of those who perished in Manhattan on September 11, the Project Should be Named "Manhattan Two" (Manhattan II). John Kennedy, in 1961, set a national goal of landing a man on the moon by the end of the decade. National resources were focused on this goal, and the goal was achieved.
    The original Manhattan Project to build the bomb was to defend against a possible NAZI development of the bomb.
    Manhattan II's goal will be to free us from dependence on Middle Eastern oil and all the nasty complications that led to the WTC terror. We can set the goal, focus on it, and achieve it within a decade. We must.
    I think Manhattan Two would have strong support of the American people if the political leaders would unite around this cause. I do worry about Bush's and Cheney's oil connections. Can we get them to rise above their own personal interests? I hope so. I think we must try to get them to do this. Maybe it will work like the Nixon in China phenomenon. The veteran anti-communist Nixon was able to open up to China, whereas liberals could never get away with it. Maybe if these two oilmen, if they love their country enough, can rise above personal interest and lead us better than big-oil critics could lead us. They have the credentials to talk to the oil companies about conversion to hydrogen.
    Some oil companies have already begun research in alternative energy. So I am hopeful, in the light of the natonal crisis we are in, these companies might be able to think way outside the box and see that their interest really does lie in conversion.
    But we must get this idea out now. We must get opinion-makers talking and writing about this. I am going to spread this as much as I can by writing everyone I know and as many political leaders as I can think of.

...It seems clear to me that the reason we now find ourselves embroiled in this new kind of war has to do, in some large measure, with our national addiction to oil, much of it imported from these troubled parts of the world. ...An America that doesn't need Middle Eastern oil is a safer, more secure America, in my view. It also places America in a stronger strategic position to deal with those who would use oil as an economic weapon against us.

-- Bill Moore, Editor, EV World September 23, 2001
Let's Declare Our Energy Independence!

The long-term future of the oil market depends on a single factor: Which state helped the terrorists? If the world's operating hypothesis -- that an oil-producing Middle Eastern state was involved -- holds true, then the United States must seek to reduce its dependence on energy supplies from that region. Since that region holds two-thirds of all known oil reserves, that all but translates into not just weaning the world's largest energy consumer off of Middle Eastern oil, but off of oil period.

U.S. Response Will Impact Oil Market
STRATFOR - Intelligence for Individuals

    Replacing oil as the mainstay of our energy policy should be central to a practical and strategic approach to winning the long-term struggle against terrorism, and would dramatically improving Western policy options in the Middle East.
    ...But there are three major obstacles which must be overcome before we can take oil off the list of key objectives for our military and foreign policy. These obstacles are the the difficulty of changing official thinking, the vested interests of the oil companies, and the need for a transition strategy.
    ...A transition strategy to renewable energy should focus attention on the leading industrialised nations of the G-7 and in particular on the EU and the US. Key officials from Washington and Brussels will next meet at December's EU-US summit. This meeting should seek to take key strategic decisions. One strategy to move to hydrogen power cars was mapped out, in a fairly slow way, by Gore - a central plank of this was that governments should announce a date for the transition of their fleets of official vehicles.
     The EU set a target last month of creating 22% of electricity supply from renewable sources by 2010. This target should be dramatically increased and accelerated by both the EU and the US. In American the policy should fall under the strategy of improving homeland defence through increasing America's self-reliance. Congressional districts, states and counties should develop programs with Federal support.
    These objectives are far reaching. But they constitute a policy shift the world's strategic environment that we as a public can bring about. Once free of the oil imperative many objectives for reducing the tax burden of defense spending and enabling a stronger world development policy will be easier.
Ending Oil Dependency
Dan Plesch     Observer (UK)    October 7, 2001

The US crude oil and petroleum product inventories were already low prior to the World Trade Center attack in New York. The dependence on Middle Eastern oil will add to the uncertainty in the markets and the already distressed economy.
The whole energy picture has changed after the tragedy. The US will have to rethink its policy considering the security costs of both supply and price. The fast-paced fuel cell technology developments should arrive at the most opportune time. Fuel cell technology can be the answer to oil dependency over the next 15 to 20 years. Fuel cells will allow nations to begin using alternatively powered vehicles from 2008 to 2010, and penetration will rise above 10% in the second decade.
Fuel Cells Should Help the US Decrease Its Long-Term Dependence on Imported Oil
Atakan Ozbek, Vice President of Energy Research, Allied Business Intelligence
October 14, 2001