HotSeat-Obama, LS9 make Biodiesel from Microbug, Toyota Eng. Superiority

Toyota Troubles

It is fairly obvious to most people observing the commentators in the news in the past week that serious financial consequences are likely to befall Toyota in the coming months. Now it might seem like, perhaps, they deserve it for not owning up to the problem with unwanted and uncontrolled acceleration in some of their vehicles. The news media makes the news. That is to say they decide what will "sell" in terms of attracting an audience and rarely does it pay attention to probabilities and statistics (you know how I feel about statistics having nothing to do with the truth because they are so easily manipulated). It is a "major disaster" if a commercial airline falls from the sky killing a hundred people. Indeed that is a tragedy, but is it a "disaster"? I don´t think it fits into the category very well compared to the tens of thousands of deaths in the recent earthquake in Haiti, or the hundreds of thousands who died in the earthquake in China a few years ago.

The state of Florida had 2986 traffic deaths in 2008. Toyota´s safety record on the "stuck accelerator" problem, as it has come to be known (though it appears it is only occasionally a physically stuck accelerator pedal, and may be caused by electronic sensors or faulty programming of controllers that cause the uncontrolled acceleration) is approximately 2000 "accidents" which resulted in just 12 deaths. If you look at all of the vehicle miles that Toyota cars and trucks have been driven over the past couple of years it is likely that there were as many deaths from people chewing bubble gum in their cars. Okay, to be honest I couldn´t find any statistics on "death by bubblegum" but I imagine that detailed accident reports might well list "changing radio stations" as a leading cause of accidents and therefore potentially at least a dozen deaths over a couple of years and billions of vehicle miles.

Ultimately my point here is that while it may be important for the media to inform the public, especially the suggestions to shift your vehicle into "neutral" gear and apply the brakes until stopped as the recommended solution to avoid panic and more accidents, it is neither a crisis nor a "disaster" that a comparatively small number of people have had (or at least reported) similar problems. Toyota has some of the most sophisticated sensors and programming of any car maker, and sometimes unforeseen and unforeseeable errors arise in software. Drivers have some responsibility for being aware of how to handle emergency situations, and the ugly truth is that most people never actually read the owner´s manual. Indeed, my used Toyota did not have a manual when I purchased it, though I have since downloaded an unofficial one and obtained another one (not for the same model year, unfortunately).

Toyota doesn´t deserve to be punished by the public. Their accomplishments are to be admired and emulated by the rest of the industry. Ford and GM are licking their lips like a set of hungry hyenas, hoping to pick up significant market share as Toyota´s fortunes flag. In truth, Ford would do well to study more carefully how the software controls the transmissions in the Prius Hybrid models. Our Mercury Mariner Hybrid doesn´t come anywhere close to the mileage we can get in our Toyota Prius. On a good day the Mercury gets something in the range of 34-36 MPG. I regularly see the Prius Hybrid reporting that it is getting between 48 and 60 MPG (city) and just got back from a trip to Ace Hardware that showed performance of 80.3 MPG for the 4 miles involved.

I continue to be amazed by that kind of efficient performance. I remember too, long, long ago (about 40 years back) when the "cute" little boxes known as "Austin 850 Mini" cars used to get nearly 40 MPG with an 850 cc engine (a lot less in many cases because they were so popular for their own class of racing and rally driving). But today´s Toyota Prius Hybrid, has an engine almost twice that size, 1500 cc´s and the feat of 80 MPG is careful computer management of electric "cruise" mode (much like "overdrive" on some automatic transmission cars) coupled with some "good habits" of frugality on the part of the driver. I promise to be impressed if the full-time electric drive train GM/Chevy Volt manages the 100 MPG they hope to see, but we have Toyota to thank for much of the pioneering work, and for they we should be eternally grateful.

What Ailes Fox News?

Fox News Channel President and Chairman of the Fox Television Stations Group, Roger Ailes apprear on This Weekon ABCnews (currently hosted by Barbara Walters) with a Buddha-like appearance and demeanor, too. Mr. Ailes appeared a fairly mild-mannered gentleman said with some conviction that not only do, "people tend to misinterpret the meaning of elections," referring to Scott Brown´s upset win in Massachusetts (taking "Ted Kennedy´s seat from the Democratic party) but also that "Obama misinterpreted the meaning of his own election." Indeed, as Scott Brown said in an interview, earlier on the same program, that, "now every Republican in the Senate is the forty-first vote." While Roger Ailes parroted his network´s slogans that it is, after all, "fair and balanced" and that "Fox is the most trusted source of news," repeating the slogan doesn´t make it true. Part of President Obama´s problem with health care legislation is that every Democrat in the Senate has been, "the sixtieth vote" in a manner that has been equally destructive for the public perception of the value and importance of health care reform.

As Nobel Prize winning economist on the panel, Paul Krugman pointed out, like Secretary of the Treasury, Tim Geithner, President Obama´s proclivity it to "tinker around the edges" hoping to bring about change, when more fundamental action is needed. Krugman pronounced health care reform "nearly dead", though he personally seems to favor pushing it through a reconciliation process to just get it done. Despite President Obama´s exhortation during his "State of the Union" address to Congress to not abandon health care reform, Krugman worries that the "tinker around the edges" tendency will spell doom for all the hard work that has been done. Scott Brown says, scrap it all, and "start over" despite having voted for and supported Mitt Romney´s Massachusetts State Health Care plan. Krugman pointed out that, in his opinion at least, that the Federal legislation IS Romney´s health care plan on a national scale, and Republicans objecting to it (and voting Brown in, as well) is hypocritical obstructionism.

As White House Senior Advisor, Valerie Jarrett pointed out a few weeks ago on This Weekon ABCnews (back when George was still there), President Obama has gone out of his way at every turn to seek out Republican input in an effort to be bipartisan, and has indeed incorporated many Republican ideas into legislation which the Republicans then turn around and vote against anyway.

State of the Union Address

With seventy minutes of State of the Union Address to cover, I don´t intend to try to mention every detail or nitpick every point either.

The President took a long time to get around to speaking about health care, about a half hour or more before the first mention of it. Here, from the transcript posted by the New York Times, is some of what he said:

"This year, we will step up refinancing so that homeowners can move into more affordable mortgages. (Applause.) And it is precisely to relieve the burden on middle-class families that we still need health insurance reform. (Applause.) Yes, we do. (Applause.)

Now, let's clear a few things up. (Laughter.) I didn't choose to tackle this issue to get some legislative victory under my belt. And by now it should be fairly obvious that I didn't take on health care because it was good politics. (Laughter.) I took on health care because of the stories I've heard from Americans with preexisting conditions whose lives depend on getting coverage; patients who've been denied coverage; families –- even those with insurance -– who are just one illness away from financial ruin.

After nearly a century of trying -- Democratic administrations, Republican administrations -- we are closer than ever to bringing more security to the lives of so many Americans. The approach we've taken would protect every American from the worst practices of the insurance industry. It would give small businesses and uninsured Americans a chance to choose an affordable health care plan in a competitive market. It would require every insurance plan to cover preventive care.

And by the way, I want to acknowledge our First Lady, Michelle Obama, who this year is creating a national movement to tackle the epidemic of childhood obesity and make kids healthier. (Applause.) Thank you. She gets embarrassed. (Laughter.)

Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan. It would reduce costs and premiums for millions of families and businesses. And according to the Congressional Budget Office -– the independent organization that both parties have cited as the official scorekeeper for Congress –- our approach would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades. (Applause.)

Still, this is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people. And I know that with all the lobbying and horse-trading, the process left most Americans wondering, "What's in it for me?"

But I also know this problem is not going away. By the time I'm finished speaking tonight, more Americans will have lost their health insurance. Millions will lose it this year. Our deficit will grow. Premiums will go up. Patients will be denied the care they need. Small business owners will continue to drop coverage altogether. I will not walk away from these Americans, and neither should the people in this chamber. (Applause.)

So, as temperatures cool, I want everyone to take another look at the plan we've proposed. There's a reason why many doctors, nurses, and health care experts who know our system best consider this approach a vast improvement over the status quo. But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know. (Applause.) Let me know. Let me know. (Applause.) I'm eager to see it.

Here's what I ask Congress, though: Don't walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people. (Applause.) Let's get it done. Let's get it done. (Applause.)"

Clearly President Obama is NOT done with Health care, despite so many journalists and pundits pronouncing it dead. As I said last week, and as even Roger Ailes cautioned this week: Don´t misinterpret the results of the election of a Republican as Senator from Massachusetts.

Nuclear Power Gets Obama Nod in State of the Union Address

I was surprised to hear President Obama announce that he was pushing for nuclear power, but he was by no means neglecting clean energy and renewable resources. He said that we will double our nation´s supply of renewable energy in the next three years. There will be "thousands of miles of power lines" (domestic jobs, obviously) and considerable investment in energy efficiency for homes and other buildings (we knew that). "But to truly transform our economy, protect our security, and save our planet from the ravages of climate change, we need to ultimately make clean, renewable energy the profitable kind of energy. So I ask this Congress to send me legislation that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution and drives the production of more renewable energy in America. And to support that innovation, we will invest fifteen billion dollars a year to develop technologies like wind power and solar power; advanced biofuels, clean coal, and more fuel-efficient cars and trucks built right here in America."

That too is an old promise, the original commitment was to spend US$150 billion over 10 years, i.e. US$15 billion per year, but the request to: "transform our economy, protect our security, and save our planet from the ravages of climate change, we need to ultimately make clean, renewable energy the profitable kind of energy. So I ask this Congress to send me legislation that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution and drives the production of more renewable energy in America..." but to get that kind of cap-n-trade on carbon, he will probably have to do some heavy horse trading with Senator Max Baucus, (the one who couldn´t get decent compromise from the Senate Finance Committee) who comes from a "coal state" (Montana) or someone similar. He can, however get some of this done through regulations of carbon dioxide from the Environmental Protection Agency´s rules, but it would certainly help to have a nationwide mandate on transportation fuels or a national RFS2 that forces utilities to cut back. He also pointed to China´s efforts to become more energy efficient in an attempt to invoke national pride as a motivator.

And as an example of President Obama´s "reaching out" to Republicans, even in the middle of his State of the Union address, he also said: "… hat means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. (Applause.) It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. (Applause.) It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies. (Applause.) And, yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America. (Applause.) It DID get some of the heartiest applause from the Republican side of Congress of the entire night, whatever the legislative outcome. He was offering an olive branch of sorts.

GMO for LS9 – First Step of Breakthrough

Following along in the footsteps of older brothers and sisters is certainly common in families, but less so in corporations. That´s why you probably should see connections between Amyris and LS9 as familial even if not familiar to you. The two companies have similar backgrounds, similar technologies, and investors (Khosla and Flagship) in common. Amyris has already opened a first plant in Brazil utilizing sugar cane (cellulose) to produce ethanol. LS9 has announced a "single step" process for producing biodiesel from cellulose, although "single step" is at least somewhat misleading because the cellulose still requires some pre-treatment according to some press reports.

Both companies, too, are based in Northern California, and have been at least partially bankrolled by some of the same firms (and even individuals). Of course the innovation of Amyris is perhaps the larger of the two since it was necessary to break down the longer chain molecules into digestible sugars (largely pentose vs. hexose) and getting their microorganisms to accept the 5 carbon chain sugars as "food". The Amyris platform is yeast, and therefore the output of alcohol was a fairly natural consequence of their metabolism. Yeast is self-limiting in that it excretes the alcohol to the point where the alcohol content in its environment is no longer health for its own survival. Fortunately that is useful in some situations and it why it works so well for bread, beer and wine. Clostridium the microbe "platform" that is used to produce biobutanol has a similar problem (butanol is, after all, just a different form of alcohol).

LS9, however uses what is called the "workhorse" of the microbiology world, the humble little E. Coli bacterium. Having given the E. coli the same genetic twist that allows the yeast to digest cellulose into pentose sugars, they then modify the lipid producing mechanism that builds phospholipids for membranes in the cells. Again, the lipids are excreted, and the result is diesel fuel. A pretty good trick.

Scaling up is now the challenge that faces the company. Going from lab and benchtop scale to full on pilot program where thousands of gallons are the target is not always smooth or easy, but they are optimistic that nothing will prevent them from successfully opening a pilot plant this year.

Happy Thoughts and Highly Entertaining Television

Okay, partly because the State of the Union speech was on ALL the networks, and partly because I am proud to be trying to make a difference in the political climate domestically, here follows my "Letter To The Editor" that was sent to the Arizona Republic, The Washington Post, USA Today and a local paper called the East Valley Tribune. It was written at the prompting of Mitch Stewart, Director of the Obama support group, Organizing for America, and processed by them as separate letters/emails to each publication. (Most newspapers don´t want to print something that might be found elsewhere as well, so putting it here is rather likely to annoy one or more of them if they do choose to publish it.)

Granted, though it was a fine speech, President Barack Obama's 2010 State of the Union Address will not likely rival the Gettysburg Address, but it could be a pivotal one in US history.

(I also love that his nieces and nephews call him "Uncle Rocky". How poetic and ironic that our first black president is, "President Rocky". Think about that for a minute.)

Every history teacher tries to impress upon students that if we don't know about history we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. Something about the innocence of youth seems to convince them that they are invulnerable and immortal in such a way that they almost always fail to see the truth or the value of that lesson. The President's State of the Union speech was another such call, and, "we the people," must wake up to the reality that we are going to see a repeat of the aftermath of 1929 unless we recognize that we have the opportunity to hasten the solution, and that the "deadline" of climate change is approaching faster than we think.

What brought us back from that financial disaster and the deep economic depression of the 1930's was the rapid, mandated re-tooling of the economy to put the nation on a "war footing". I believe that the current administration is offering us just that sort of solution if we can recognize and seize this opportunity.

President Obama has set forth two major infrastructure innovations that will help patch over some of the neglect of the past 40 years, and that in themselves offer tremendous numbers of local jobs and could transform our future rapidly too. High-speed rail development that has been proposed so far is just an appetizer of what we need to renovate our national railroad system, but the fact that railroad ties can now be made entirely from re-cycled materials, recycled plastic and rubber from discarded vehicle tires begins to show how different railroad transport COULD be. Imagine, for instance, the convenience and speed of super-rail like they already have in Shanghai at 300 MPH. Instead of a half hour drive to the airport, another hour in security, an hour and a half flight to go 500 or 600 miles, and another half hour for luggage, and finally a taxi ride home, or you could take a train, downtown to downtown. You do the math.

Freight by air or freight by high-speed rail? Which is going to be more economical and consume less fuel?

And speaking of fuel, doesn't growing our own fuel in the form of plants for cellulosic and bio-synthetic paraffinic kerosene (Sp-K) fuels make more sense than importing fossil fuels from half-way around the world. President Obama also called for "clean" coal and clean nuclear power development, but why are we shipping boatloads of money overseas (in large measure to governments who are almost or actually hostile towards us) when we can use both solar cells and plants to convert the sun's energy into electricity and transportation fuels here at home. With the right kind of government mandates like RFS2 (not the transitory tax-credit schemes that have left the biodiesel industry in dire straits when they were allowed to expire this past January) for perhaps 20% renewable diesel fuels, and 40% renewable jet fuels (phased in over a few years, of course) we can map a future that defeats climate change (if it is, indeed primarily anthropogenic carbon dioxide that is a main cause of climate change). And what if it is NOT the source of all evil in our weather? Well, we can, and should, also become the principal supplier of the green technology to the rest of the world, which will grant fuel sourcing security to even currently underdeveloped nations, in effect, to every community individually as well, while also giving them a "leg up" so to speak toward their own modernization and economic development.

President Obama´s suggested goals of clean and efficient energy, smart grids, energy security from environmentally sustainable sources may need a little legislative nudge to get started, but they have astounding potential to benefit the US and the whole planet. They won't be ruinous to our economy, they will be the foundation of our future economy.

Imagine for a moment the entire continent of Africa with every county, every community producing its own fuel, making power and transportation cheap and plentiful. Such infrastructure would allow them to develop water and sanitation resources as well as industry. There could be hundreds of millions of African middle class consumers adding to the markets for both China and the USA. Think of that as one of the milestones on our map to the future, and our future history will look bright indeed.

Where did I put my sunglasses?

Love and warm wishes,

Sincerely,

Stafford "Doc" Williamson

P.S. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) says he is "working with" Senate Finance Committee Chairman, Max Baucus (D-Montana) to get the biodiesel fuel credits re-instated by mid February.

http://daochienergy.com