It's clear that we need to change our energy policy in this country. And unfortunately, it's clear that the Republicans, beholden as they are to big oil, will not make the changes needed. We need a "Manhattan Project" for energy, as Obama has suggested, to concentrate efforts on researching and developing sustainable and renewable energy sources. We limit ourselves when we think that every problem has to be solved with current technology.

In this post, I highlight some of the exciting advances in both research and application that have occurred recently, even in the absence of serious research funding directed toward securing a better energy future for America. American scientists and entrepreneurs are resourceful and I'm optimistic that with more direction from the top and some R&D incentives, we can innovate our way out of our current dilemma, produce sustainable long-term solutions, reduce our dependence on expensive foreign oil from unstable parts of the world, and stop giving our resources to authoritarian regimes that sponsor terrorism against us.

Our most pressing need is probably in the transportation area, and high gas prices make this a political winner too. So with what can we power our cars, trucks, trains , planes and buses? Here are two possibilities.

Hydrogen from starch. The problems with hydrogen as an auto fuel require advances in production, storage, distribution, and fuel cells. Honda just released the first production fuel cell vehicle. Advancement in the other three areas may be closer than we think.

Most industrial hydrogen currently comes from natural gas, which has become expensive. Storing and moving the gas, whatever its source, is costly and cumbersome, and even dangerous. And there is little infrastructure for refueling a vehicle.

Researchers at Virginia Tech, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), and the University of Georgia propose using polysaccharides, or sugary carbohydrates, from biomass to directly produce low-cost hydrogen for the new hydrogen economy.

Using a mixture of 13 enzymes not found together in nature, the researchers can produce hydrogen right in a vehicle, at ambient pressure and nearly ambient temperature (30 degrees C.).

The vision is for the ingredients to be mixed in the fuel tank of your car, for instance. A car with an approximately 12-gallon tank could hold 27 kilograms (kg) of starch, which is the equivalent of 4 kg of hydrogen. The range would be more than 300 miles, Zhang estimates. One kg of starch will produce the same energy output as 1.12 kg (0.38 gallons) of gasoline.

There would be no need to transport a flammable fuel and the starch and water slurry that would drive our fuel cell cars can be pumped with a conventional gas pump into a conventional gas tank. (and the starch need not come from corn or any other food crop.)

A similar technology developed at Oxford is now powering a digital watch. All details at the link.

Another new technology uses bioengineered bacteria to produce petroleum oil in tanks.

Much closer to application, microalgae are set to produce 4.4 million gallons a year of biodiesel at a facility on the gulf coast of Texas. A full analysis of its potential is available in a paper at the U of NH. You can see the facility on the website of the company Petrosun. Actually, you can see it on Google maps too.

We could replace all vehicle fuel at current levels on 9.5 million acres of desert land ! For comparison, we use 450 million acres of prime agricultural land to produce food (most of it food for livestock) and another 500 million acres for grazing livestock. Since the algae can grow anywhere, we’re not talking about diverting a single plot of prime farmland to fuel production.

Another advantage of this technology is that such algae production facilities could be placed at the mouths of big polluted rivers like the Mississippi, and could convert nutrients from agricultural runoff into fuel. Currently these nutrients create an enormous “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico (and smaller ones at the mouths of other rivers). Furthermore, the algae can be used to consume CO2 from power plants. Cleans up the river, sequesters carbon from polluting industries and turns it all into fuel. Oh, and the exhausted algae can be used as fertilizer after extracting the oil.

We have shortchanged research budgets into alternatives and still, our tenacious scientists come up with new leads all the time. Meanwhile, the GOP and some of their supporters wail that the sky will fall if we don’t start drilling in Alaska today. That’s not the solution. Let’s turn the page on that old thinking and get serious about innovating our way out of this mess.

DCCC Chairman and Congressman Chris Van Hollen showed this Sunday how futile is the GOP talking point that equates drilling for oil in Alaska with gasoline price reduction. The transcript is HERE, and I'm impressed with how nimble Van Hollen was in deflecting Wolf Blitzer's apparent determination to get Van Hollen with GOP talking points.

BLITZER: Why not start drilling? There are enormous amounts of oil right here in the United States on the coast, on the East Coast, the West Coast and Alaska. That could dramatically increase supply and as a result reduce the price per barrel and the price at the pump. What is wrong with that?
VAN HOLLEN: Well, we are drilling. We have lots of oil companies in the United States that are drilling. ... And in fact, there are 60 million acres of federal land that are currently leased to the oil and gas companies that are sitting idle. They're not drilling. They like the status quo. They like the way things are going. We're going to have legislation that is going to be considered shortly that is "use it or lose it". If you are going to hold up these 68 million of federal lands, you've got to start drilling for oil or else somebody else should have an opportunity to do it.

Blitzer tries again to make a point, playing a video clip of REP. ROY BLUNT, R-MO.:

"Who's to blame are policies that wouldn't allow us to use our own resources. Every other country in the world looks at their natural resources and sees them as an economic asset. Democrats in Washington look at our natural resources and see them as an environmental hazard. That's a mistake."
BLITZER: All right. What do you say?

VAN HOLLEN: Facts are stubborn things. Sixty-eight million acres of federal lands, currently leased to the oil and gas industry, sitting idle. We're going to say to them, "Use it or lose it. Get pumping."

The issue isn't whether or not we should use our natural resources. The issue is exactly where. And what you're saying is, when you've got 68 million acres of federal lands already leased, you should use that before you start looking elsewhere.

BLITZER: They say they can drill in Alaska in an environmental safe way. You just heard Congressman Boehner say that.

VAN HOLLEN: As John McCain said, there are already areas where they can drill. We shouldn't be drilling there.

And let me point out that the Department of Energy, our own department of Energy, has said, if you drill in Alaska, first of all, you won't see any results at the pump for 10 years. And after 20 years, you might see a reduction of two cents per gallon.

Game, set and match to Van Hollen. Well done, and these are key talking points we should always have at hand when addressing this issue. Oil companies have been granted the right to drill in huge tracts of public land. Oil is at record prices. If they still can't turn a profit developing their existing leases, they should lose them. Giving them more leases makes no sense. They are already essentially in default regarding their agreement to develop American oil resources.

The "20 years until we see 2 cents a gallon benefit" is a great line too.