Most of the developments on the alternative energy front are, at most, “possibilities” and not practical realities. Just focusing on automobiles for the moment, many of the promising articles you have read are little more than promotional pieces by people looking for investors:

Electric Cars: You hear a lot about $100,000 roadsters that will get 250 miles on a charge, but the reality is something entirely different. What makes a car useful is the combination of range and speed, a function of the power available. Electric car promoters use a sleight of hand to fool you into thinking that their technology is almost equivalent to the internal combustion engine you know and loath. They create a false impression by citing maximum range and top speed, without telling you the whole story.

There is no electric car that will take you 90 miles at 70 MPH freeway speeds. Sorry folks, it doesn’t exist. You think it does because the websites tell you the car has a range of “up to 250 miles” and a top speed of “85 MPH”. But they don’t tell you what range to expect at that top speed. That “250 miles” could be 10 miles. The basic problem is that today’s batteries, even the new lithium ion batteries that are not in production yet, just don’t have the energy density that gasoline has. And the laws of physics apply.

Electric car manufacturers should produce a chart with “Speed” along the X-axis, and “Distance” along the y-axis, so you could see that your electric neighborhood car has a usable top speed of 18 MPH if you want to go more than 14 miles. But they don’t do that.

Why can’t they just add more batteries? Because there’s a weight penalty, even with the new lightweight alternative batteries. And more weight requires more energy to move. And the weight of the batteries is there for the entire ride, forcing you to experience a real world example of “diminishing returns” ... you get to a point where adding more batteries results in less range. Rod Adams notes at Clean Technica that gasoline stores 20 times the energy per pound than the most efficient batteries.

Biodiesel: Proponents of biodiesel will tell you that you can run used french fry oil in your diesel car, and you can. But you take a great risk in doing so, as any damage the automaker deems might be caused by the fuel would not be covered under warranty. Anyone who has fought with an automaker over a valid warranty claim will recognize this as a major detriment to the biodiesel movement. But what about ASTM certified biodiesel blends? Auto manufacturers have not yet adopted the blends; some, like VW, approve only up to 5% blends. As far as I know, the highest recommended blend is B20, 20% biodiesel, approved by Peugeot and Citroen in Europe (there could be others as well, but no one has approved blends over 20% as far as I’ve been able to tell.)

ASTM D-6751 biodiesel blends are, for the most part, made from food crops like soybeans, adding to the concerns about rising food prices due to the shifting of crops from food production to energy production. What about all those cool projects like biodiesel from algae you’ve heard about? Well, there are a lot of pilot projects and test setups, but no one is actually producing biodiesel from algae yet. Judging from the press releases I’ve been following for over two years, it appears that the test projects are capable of squeezing money from investors, but perhaps not biodiesel from algae.

Hybrids work: Hybrid car technology is here now, and it helps squeeze more mileage out of the energy-dense gasoline we use. Because the on-board batteries are not tasked with supplying the entire energy load, they can be smaller and lighter. And you won’t be stranded because the battery output is affected by cold weather, as you have your gasoline engine to get you home safely.

So what’s an environmentally aware consumer to do? Look at your needs and determine what is best for your family. Trading in a 17 MPG fuel hog for a 28 MPG daily commuter makes sense, but do the math on your actual fuel cost and calculate the payback. That change can be done fairly economically with an econo car. From an environmental standpoint, it might make more sense to keep the old car rather than impacting the environment with the cost of creating a new car.

The jump to higher mileage technologies might not make sense economically, and that generally means it doesn’t make sense environmentally either. The Market builds in the relative efficiencies of these options. Go green, but only if it saves you money in the long run.

While the press wonders what is really going on with Sen. Obama’s tour of Iraq and Afghanistan, it is clear that Obama feels Afghanistan is the real center of terrorist activity. There is an implied assertion that Iraq was a waste of time, and our real focus should have been Afghanistan all along.

But the truth is somewhat murkier than that. Iraq became al-Qaeda’s targeted front after the US failure to secure the post-invasion victory and occupy the country effectively. Leveraging ethnic divisions, al-Qaeda was able to deal some body blows to the west and, except for timing of elections, could have secured a surrender from half the population of America. That’s an important lesson for when the Jihadists start to convert our culture, like they are doing in Europe; half of our people will give up and let them take over, as long as the Daily Show still plays (which it will, for a while anyway).

Obama’s mistake is seeing the two fronts of the same war … Afghanistan and Iraq … as separate and distinct wars. They are the same war, as McCain knows. There’s a grain of truth in the Left’s position: Iraq was not a “central front” on the war on terror prior to our invasion, even with that government’s sponsorship of terrorist activities. But the reality is that it became the central front, and being driven from Iraq, the focus of their activities has shifted to Afghanistan. That “grain” of truth is there because we are winning in Iraq, and the Jihadists are moving back to the hills:

Having been very publicly ousted from the critical Middle East, al-Qaeda and its allies probably hope they can rebuild their political fortunes and retrieve their legend in Southwest Asia. Unlike the period immediately after 9/11, when al-Qaeda was regarded as burgeoning force, the retreat to Afghanistan is fundamentally defensive in character one which preserves the possibility of future victory rather than representing an advance in itself. As long as the Jihad can hold out against the US coalition, even if they cannot regain Kabul, survival in a sufficiently distant place where they can plausibly claim miracles and victories unfalsifiable by direct experience might let them live to rise another day.

As cited at the Belmont Club post linked above, The Australian notes:

‘We do think that there is some assessment ongoing as to the continued viability of al-Qa’ida’s fight in Iraq,’ General Petraeus said.” Conflicts have a way of changing their character in response to enemy responses. The Korean war changed course with the Chinese intervention; post-Saddam Iraq took a new turn when Iran and al-Qaeda entered the fray; so it is only reasonable to expect conditions in Southwest Asia to change as the enemy concentrates his forces there.

“We do know the foreign fighter flow into Iraq has been reduced very substantially,” General Petraeus said. “They’re not going to abandon Iraq. They’re not going to write it off. None of that. But what they certainly may do is start to provide some of those resources that would have come to Iraq to Pakistan, possibly Afghanistan.”

Senator Obama should listen to General Petraeus. He certainly would not listen to his opponent, Sen. John McCain, but he should listen to Patraeus, because McCain and Patraeus were the ones who were right on what to do in Iraq. And they are still right.

Ignoring Iraq to “focus on Afghanistan” is playing the “whack a mole” game the Left has identified so strongly with the current administration. Like a water balloon, pushing down on one part and ignoring the others merely deforms the whole. We need a unified and consistent anti-terror strategy much like our anti-communist foreign policy of the 1950s and 1960s.

When the walls come tumblin’ down;
When the walls come crumblin’, crumblin’;
When the walls come tumblin’, tumblin’ down.
– John Mellencamp, “Crumblin’ Down”.

Now comes Lanny Davis, former Special Counsel to President Clinton, with a new view of the Iraq War after considering the events of the last few weeks. As he writes in the Washington Times:

The surge did, in fact, lead to a reduction of violence, confirmed by media on the ground as well as our military leaders.
...
This willingness by the Shi’ite-dominated al-Maliki government to move against the Sadr Shi’ite extremists won crucial credibility for the government among many Sunni leaders and Sunnis on the streets, who joined together with Shi’ites to turn against the al Qaeda in Iraq and other Taliban-like extremists.

These are facts, not arguments.

I think there are a lot of antiwar Democrats who, like me, are impressed by these facts and who now see a moral obligation, after all the carnage and destruction wrought by our military intervention, not just to pick up and leave without looking over our shoulders.

President Bush may well be singing that Mellencamp song right about now …

Well, some people ain’t no damn good.
You can trust ‘em, you can’t love ‘em. No good deed goes unpunished.
And I don’t mind being their whippin’ boy.
I’ve had that pleasure for years and years
No, no, I never was a sinner. Tell me, what else can I do?
Second best is what you get ‘til you learn to bend the rules
And time respects no person and what you lift up must fall
There waitin’ outside to claim my crumblin’ walls.

While giving no quarter that the war was ill-conceived and unnecessary, Davis admits that the situation has improved enough that there is a humanitarian concern we have to consider.

Surely we owe the al-Maliki government and the Shi’ite and Sunni soldiers who put their lives on the line against Shi’ite and Sunni extremists and terrorists at our behest some continuing presence and support and patience as they strive to find peace, political reconciliation – and maybe even the beginnings of a stable democracy.

When the walls come tumblin’ down;
When the walls come crumblin’, crumblin’;
When the walls come tumblin’, tumblin’ down.

I just know I can’t get out of my mind that lady with the purple finger held up, smiling into the camera. If getting in was a mistake, then getting out – how and when – is not so simple as long as there is hope that she can someday live in a democratic Iraq that can help America in the war against terrorism.

Indeed.

The debate between using electricity to extend gas mileage, or blending in bio-fuels, seems to be coming up as a win for hybrid technology. Newsweek notes:

Federal forecasters predict hybrid sales could approach 2 million vehicles by 2013, accounting for 11 percent of the total U.S. auto market, up from 2.5 percent today. By then, we’ll have 89 hybrid models from which to choose (including the hot little Honda pictured), up from 16 today.

JD Powers recent survey, cited in the Wired’s article, says consumer acceptance of hybrid technology surged to 62%, up 50% in the last year. At the same time, consumer acceptance of flex fuels using bio-fuels dropped from 47% to 43%.

With a H/T to Richard Fernandez at Belmont Club, we find a world of difference between McCain’s view of the struggle against terrorism and Obama’s “let’s withdraw from Iraq and surge in Afghanistan” strategy. McCain noted in his article at Real Clear Politics:

Senator Obama will tell you we can’t win in Afghanistan without losing in Iraq. In fact, he has it exactly backwards. It is precisely the success of the surge in Iraq that shows us the way to succeed in Afghanistan. It is by applying the tried and true principles of counter-insurgency used in the surge—which Senator Obama opposed—that we will win in Afghanistan. With the right strategy and the right forces, we can succeed in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I know how to win wars. And if I’m elected President, I will turn around the war in Afghanistan, just as we have turned around the war in Iraq, with a comprehensive strategy for victory.

Fernandez provides some compelling analysis of McCain’s article, noting that he is now in a position to communicate the truth of the surge, how effective it has been, and why … with a bit more effort … it has a chance to continue winning:

McCain proceeds to demonstrate a grasp of the Surge which has eluded much of the MSM: that it’s key principle came from mobilizing the population against terrorists. Getting Iraqis to fight terrorists informed every aspect of Petraeus’ strategy from the redeployment of US forces to smaller outposts, the change in emphasis from pure Force Protection to the protection of the population, and even the generation of tribal and regular forces to augment US forces. McCain proceeds to show how he will apply the same principles globally.