Yesterday morning, my colleague Sam Hopkins and I were discussing two words that both of us are sick and tired of hearing. Those words?
Silver Bullet.

At least in the context of "There is no silver bullet when it comes to beating our oil addiction."

We're tired of hearing these words because really they just represent one more excuse. One more way we can belittle the possibilities of transitioning from oil to something much better . . . much cleaner.

Folks, you've read plenty of my rants on America's addiction to oil. I've presented you with all kinds of research and proof that real, competitive technologies do exist, including:

• Amazing Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles that don't need a drop of gas to operate.
• Advances in engineering that enable significant increases in efficiency.
• Open Source Cars, like the one being developed in Dingolfing, Germany.
• Nanotechnology companies that are perfecting safer, longer-lasting batteries for electric cars and buses.

And how did I find out about all this stuff?I did a little digging. Made a few phone calls and visited the companies. Spoke with engineers and met with CEOs at conferences and expos.All the stuff any monkey with half a brain could do.

Now I realize the transition from oil to alternatives will be a slow one. But if I hear another talking head on the local nightly news tell me there's no silver bullet, I'm going to snap.

Because the more I dig and the more I discover, the more I realize that there is a silver bullet.It's called accountability. And every asshole politician in Washington with a gift basket from big oil should be paraded down the streets of Baghdad, Nigeria and Venezuela, wearing a sandwich board reading "U.S. For Sale"!Are we really still debating fuel efficiency?

The way I see it, if you're working on the Hill, you probably have a lot more juice to get the goods on alternatives than a thirty-something analyst from Baltimore who's trying to help investors make a couple of bucks.

So Why Are We Still Debating Fuel Efficiency?

Why do we continue to service Big Oil with billions in tax breaks and subsidies?Why can't I go to the local car dealership and buy a highway-capable PHEV with a 40-mile range?Certainly the market supports the last one. You can look at the share prices of all those high-performance battery companies over the past couple of years to see proof of that.

But, unfortunately, Washington is still struggling to move from lip-service to action.

And someone needs to be held accountable.

Working Hard To Break Our Addiction on Oil

They talk a good game on the campaign trail. But how committed are our elected politicians to ending this addiction to oil?Let's find out.

In the table below you will find a list of the oil and gas industry's top 20 donations during the 2005-2006 election cycle.The following information was released by the Federal Election Commission, and provided by the Center for Responsive Politics. It shows the top 20 recipients of contributions from the oil and gas industries.

Now let me take this opportunity to note that just because the top 20 were all Republicans does not mean the Democrats were innocent. In fact, the Dems were actually able to rack up $3,536,995 from the oil and gas industry as well.

Are any of them really working toward breaking our oil addiction? In total, Republicans and Democrats combined, the oil and gas industry contributed $19,900,379 during the 2005-2006 election cycle.

Who would've thought silver bullets would go for $20 million?!

Until next time . . .

Jeff Siegel

"Energy stocks... The only way a human is going to make any money."

-- Matt Simmons, Peak Oil's first and most vocal proponent,
and founder of the country's last pure play energy investment banking firm.

Follow the money trail. Sign up for Energy and Capital now.

Enter Your E-mail Address Below:

By signing up, you'll also get our latest report, The Truth About Oil.

Being one of those half brained monkeys (your term,not mine)who would have been taken off the payroll when he travelled to interview companies about other forms of energy, in addition to having to buy his own travel tickets and pay other expenses, I wasn't really impressed by your article. Many people are high on ethanol in spite of its lower efficiency (it is already partially oxidized). Its affinity for water multiplies corrosion problems and its high polarity increases its ability to leach additives and plasticing agents from many rubbers and thermoplastics, requiring redevelopment of many of the materials and techniques used in fuel handling and transport.
The ethanol from Brazil comes from sugar, which they have in large surplus. Move away from our Gulf Coast and Florida and there are few areas in our country with the warmth, growing season and rainfall (55+ in./yr.) to produce sugar cane. Since corn can be grown in most states and converted into ethanol, it is politically popular. But by the time we take into account the lower efficiency, higher costs (including increase in food costs), government subsidies and higher energy costs for production, it probably costs more than $5(current U.S. dollars) per gallon to produce and distribute. If we insist on using ethanol then someone needs to develop a nice big green non-woody plant which grows like hell even in cold weather, is hard freeze resistant, replaces itself when it is mechanically topped for harvest, and can be chopped and pulverized into a slurry to which we add a catalyst, cook for a while, and then fractionally distill into various alkanes, alcohols, acetic acid derivatives and whatever, with the leftovers being suitable for use as a fuel to cook the incoming slurry.
Yes, electricity can help. But unless you have unlimited hydroelectric plants (including tidal ones) and wind generators, remember that electricity is mostly produced by converting energy from one form to another and our cheapest and most plentiful source of energy is coal.
Solar energy offers lots of promise. Improved automobile efficiency (heaven forbid that we make the cars much lighter and more fragile) offers promise. And there are other things out there.
There are problems with companies who are in business to make money wanting to continue doing that, just are there are problems with people who are paid to go around looking for alternate energy opportunities but not wanting to tell folks about it unless they pony up $100, $1000 or ?.
If this sounds too simplistic for you then go back and read your article and figure out how to stop insulting people.

Hi Jeff; Your articles are extremely well writen,and extremely
good reading. You arer absolutely right.The Oil industry really have their heads where the sun dont shine.If NASA are the developers of the technology lets hope the US government keep their hands off the
technology.
Read all your articles I think as you do.I tried to get the local transit people interested in battery electric buses from China.
Talk about dead between the ears.
I just walked away shaking my head in disblief. I belief they are shipping to the United States now.
Keep up the good work. Really enjoy your work. Have a good Day.
Best regards, Don Herd,Burnaby,BC

The scum of the earth not all but most all, self serving, lieing, cheating, un-American, treacherous, traitors and we elected them !!!!!

Re do my rating to 5 star we need to show the big oil link some more. The oil companies are making big payola to make the oil bucks now since they know inexpensive easy to get crude is running out fast.

Rockeffeller Forbes and many others became rich because they siezed the opportunity at hand. Right now I am making money. 15% 20% 40% and even 50% return on my investments. Begining January 2007 my portfolio was 184,000.00 Today October 5 the value of my portfolio is 330,000.00. I have no magic wand nor do I have a PHD in economics. I am just a small town boy who at ten years old went from house to house and collected newspapers and cardboard with my red flyer wagon to sell to the junk dealer. I did not have an allowance and if I wanted something I had to work for it. I am heavily invested in this country because it is good for the country. We have many individuals who are corporators whose only interest is to make money by ripping off investors. This is not good for the country. Many others share their good fortune which is exactly what I plan on doing. My goal is to become a millionaire before I die. But most importantly is to teach my grand kids the importance of a good education hard work, wise investment principles,and leading a good honest christian life. I am a firm believer in becoming independent of Arab oil. But you know the Arabs own a good chunk of the Nyse so we need them and they need us. I am a staunch supporter of Nuclear generation because it is the most environmentally friendly form of energy we have to produce electricity economically. If the green communist allow the permitting process to proceed in a democratic way without artificially insemenating delay tactics.then and only then can the plant have a chance to get constructed. this was their strategy back in the 70's and it worked. Design a prototype vessel and stay away from the automakers concept of bigger is better the problem is resolved. Reprocess the spent fuel and the stratergy becomes even more attractive. Disposal is not a problem and was never a problem.We already have the technology. Many will use three mile island and chernobyl to create histeria. Nobody died at three mile Island and very little radioactive material escaped the plant, not even enough to affect a photographic plate. My defense on chernobyl is designed by russians who don't value life and operated by idiots. It was a disaster just waiting to happen. Let's face it some countries should not be allowed to utilize nuclear power.As a taxpayer and end user I believe that the best avenue is to utilize a technology which we presently use to save lives power our submarines and aircraft carriers. My father died of cancer of the throat because he smoke and he knew that his habit was harmful to his health,my best friend crossed under the polar ice cap in a nuclear powered submarine and was assigned for most of his four year stint managing the power plant. My friend is by far much healthier than I am, My niece is is a staunch opponent of nuclear power but in the summer she spends countless hours exposing her hard body to harmful solar radiation and thinks that their is nothing harmful in doing what she does. Photovltaics are fascinating but not practical or economical to provide the large energy demands in a typical american home.30% of a 1000 kwhr of use is 300 kwhrs and at 12cents /kwhr thats $36.00x12mths = $432.00 annually. The initial system cost to generate the projected savings is $7000.00 We are looking at a 16year pay back not including maintenance cost. The biggest problem is reliability and the fact that most home owners do not live in a home more than ten years and that makes the picture even less attractive. If anyone chooses that strategy to reduce global warming they have my blessings.Many of my friends are campers and every evening 10 to 15 of us gather by the open pit and discuss environmental issues while burning close to 100 pounds of wood in an open fire pit.Tell me about global warming contributors.

Why is it that the top 20 politicians receiving oil money are all Republicans? That seems fishy to me....

This is a killer good article and I really get it! Anyone that wants or needs help with manufacturing engineering of alternative energy related machine parts please contact me. I'm Jim Bircher

Go Jeff!
Finally...the best wisdom I have heard on the subject thus far. Thank you for your concern, passion, and straight forwardness...I could not have said it better myself! Bravo!
Warmest Regards,
Ardell :)

Thanks Jeff for telling it like it is about political accountability. Political change better be coming!
Reminds me of Dylan's "Blowin in the Wind" - how many times can a man turn his head, Pretending he just doesn't see? The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind."

Jeff,
As Jerry Mcquire said in the movie, "Show me the money!"
Thanks for the facts on who is getting the money. I enjoy your writing and completely agree that personal accountability would go a long ways to improving things.
Keep up your excellent work. Your site is an oasis-thanks so much!
Kevin Geery

Great Stuff! Our Politicians are worthless to "We the People." They just don't get much of anything. Their approval ratings are all in the 'Dumpster', but that doesn't bother the +80% of them who provide us with absolutely no benefit/representation.

Keep up the good work, you are 'spot-on'.

It is no doubt that alternative to oil would take a slow drive, but I belive they are gradaully gain ground; ethanol I think is the next best alternative; i would suggest a collective use of green power will serve us well.
thanks

There is a silver bullet it is called the free market. When the cost of energy climbs, then we will see the innovation and "new" replacement products hit the market. As a example recall the the Germans had a process to make synthetic fuels during the war, buy the cost was several times the cost of natural products. Back to economis, how about the 100 mpg car, did big oil buy up all of the information? It is in th epatent office anyone can study them a build them for thier own use, goes back to cost and performance.
It will take the consumer to stop buying th ecurrent products and only buy the more efficent product, the consumer will in th eend spend the Dollar where it will do the most good and washington will in the end follow along regardless what energy guidelines they issue.
Free market will in the end beat cental planning all of the time, remember Russia? and many others

Once again I am disappointed in your commentary. You speak of a silver bullet of accountability. First of all,there is no alternative energy currently developed to compete on its own, without large handouts. If there were, money would be poured in by the fistfuls.To expect the good old US of A to foot the bill alone is asinine.If it is so profitable to sell a hybrid car, or any of a myriad of ideas being floated,then I challenge you and your ilk to cash out of your current investments and put your money where your mouth has been.Talk may get a lot of resources involved, but capitalism is based on profit/loss.That's the REAL reason alternative energy hasn't caught on at the corporate level.
The water is warm---maybe there really is someone who will quit talking, avoid government handouts, and profit in the alt/energy sector. I just don't believe the time is here.
Other than the twisted logic, I love your investment ideas. Until next time...

Jeff,
I agree with the title of your article. It is time to hold our elected elite accountable. However, you are missing the target in whom to blame and equating size of donations to culpability. For one thing, the amounts shown are a small percentage of the total amount that is donated and spent getting politicians (Democrat or Republican) elected. Certainly, the ones you have identified got a larger percentage of their donations from the oil industry. That is because they actually listen to what oil finders and producers have to say. The real reason that we are addicted to foreign oil and locked into a hydrocarbon based energy system is that we have not had an energy policy....ever! Every time that a meaningful energy policy is brought up, the Greenies, Againers, and a host of others take center stage and try to lard the whole thing up with pie in the sky schemes that are not economically viable and at the same time impose punitive measures against the present energy suppliers. Legislating a manditory technological breakthrough did put a man on the moon (at a profound cost). However, it will not change the economics of a shift in the source of our energy supply. The few efforts (on The Hill) that have been made toward a realistic US energy policy have been defeated by the left.

I think that you and I both wish to see the same goal accomplished: Transition to non-hydrocarbon based energy at a price that the US electorate can afford. Nobody wants $10/gallon gasoline or a $2,000/month heating bill. That is what we are going to have if we do not make a methodical and cost effective shift toward non-hydrocarbon based energy. The following items are critical to acheiving that goal:
1. Increasing DOMESTIC production of oil and gas as an INTERIM MEASURE to reduce the export of dollars and our dependence upon oil exporting nations and their lunatic leaders. Although the infrastructure costs are extreme, we can bring oil shale on production faster and at a lower cost than we can convert to the same BTU level using solar, bio-based generation, and other non-hydrocarbon energy sources. The infrastructure costs for large scale conversion are even greater and the time required to refine and implement the new techonologies is long and unpredictable.
2. Increase incentives to families and businesses for implementation of solar and similar technologies. The current credit crisis has dramatically slowed the installation of domestic solar because most homeowners finance their systems with a second mortgage. At every level, conversion to non-hydrocarbon energy supplies requires substantial capital.
3. Be realistic about bio-based replacements for oil. The macro-economic displacements caused by a corn based generation system are not justified by the very poor return on invested BTU. Additionally, corn is a part of our food chain; we eat it and much of our meat supply eats it. Waste based biogeneration makes more economic sense and nobody wants to eat that stuff. (You might compare the political contributions made by ADM and other "Big Ag" companies to those made by "Big Oil").
4. Be realistic about hybrid/battery based transportation. The electrical energy that comes out of your wall socket has a significant cost. Every unit of energy has a cost. Technology can improve mileage (save money) but the incremental cost of the technology (and its maintenance)must be borne by the consumer. Most will base their purchase decision upon the total cost, not the mileage cost.
5. Provide more incentives for development of large scale wind, tidal, wave, bathy-thermal gradient and other such technologies. It is one thing to do it in a laboratory or on a pilot basis, but scaling up to commercial grade facilities and transmission infrastructure is profoundly capital intensive.

Most of us want to reduce energy costs, decrease carbon emissions, preserve forests, and so forth. However, there is a big difference between a "do it now" rant and the macro-economic realities of making "it" happen. The "it" of course, is the profound shift in energy sourcing. "It" won't happen without a meaningful and realistic energy policy. We don't have one and it is the fault of BOTH parties. If you want to hang the guilty, hang them with the same rope and hang them all.

It's great to see a list of who is representing the oil companies. These people have donated your tax dolars and the lives and limbs of the troops to the oil companies. Marching these war criminals down the streets of Bagdad certainly wouldn't be too good for them.

Well said. I tried to rate this article 5 stars but the interface switched it to 3.

Dear Sir,
I am addicted to your articles about the energy problem.
Would be pleased to colaborate with you on the Brazilian experience on ethanol if invited to.
My point is that USA and Brazil have nothing to fear. The ethanol both countries can produce will be more than enough to match the American Countries' energy requirements.
And together, both countries will keep feeding the rest of the world.
Respectfully,
Jairo Furtado - Brazil

you must be one of those mamby pamby sheltered soccor mon/daddy that expects the government to take care of them. we didn,t get our current energy situation through the government direction and were not going to get out of it through the government. it's going top be us the american people as individuals and collectively through capitalism( making a buck) all we need from the govt. is to confirm peak oil situation. and some tax incentives.by the way we still need oil unless you want to daway with roads , medicines, paint, plastics exct.