Opinion: Obama Can Solve the Energy Crisis With Electric Vehicles


There is a way to solve our energy crisis with strong leadership. Either candidate could have done it, and President-elect Barack Obama should. If our rich and prosperous country’s leader defines the strategy, implements the tactics and requires results, he could free the U.S. of dependence on foreign oil, clean the atmosphere, and lower the cost of fuel and enrich our national technology — all at the same time.

The critical steps are:

  • 1. Evolve autos from gasoline/diesel to hybrid to plug-in hybrid.
  • 2. Develop a battery that can run 200 miles on a 10-minute recharge.
  • 3. Strengthen America’s electrical distribution system.
  • 4. Recharge cars in garages, public places and service stations.
  • 5. Build nuclear power plants to enlarge the supply of electricity.
  • 6. Use all alternate sources of energy, i.e. wind, natural gas, solar.

America is a representative democracy, with many forces on our President-elect right now. This is also a time when we need the firm hand of a strong leader, one who can take command and is not dependent on consensus to mobilize our nation to generate abundant energy. The key is to define a new fuel and vehicle system to serve affluent civilizations during the 21st century without being dependent on exhaustible or foreign resources.

The fundamental strategy is to evolve to an electric transportation system and an electricity-based refueling infrastructure.

The internal combustion engine that powers our cars and trucks is 100 years old. Our organization of gasoline stations is effective and well established, with more than 160,000 service stations throughout the U.S. on interstate highways and in our cities. A swift transition to electric cars and the ability to conveniently recharge them is the best energy policy for the future.

The first step is to require or convince auto manufacturers to quickly evolve from gasoline and diesel engines to hybrid electric and then to fully electric vehicles within 10 years.

The second step is to enable our vehicles to be recharged in our homes, parking lots, parking garages and service stations. The electrical distribution system in the U.S. can be expanded to provide capacity to gasoline stations, evolving them into recharging stations. Parking spaces in the public and private environment can incorporate plug-in charging systems as well.

The major challenge is to develop a battery system that is small, light and able to be recharged in 10 minutes for a 200-mile capacity, even though most drivers refuel often and do not require that much range. This technology is not available today, but American ingenuity, entrepreneurship and invention can make it possible. We are accustomed to recharging devices and equipment, from cell phones to electric drills. The problem is that the battery technologies used in our laptops, iPods and cameras are not adequate for automobiles. The technical challenge is clear and can be solved.

Here are two historic examples to suggest that this task can be done. Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized the Manhattan Project, to build an atomic bomb based on the theories of a dozen or so scientists. In just a few years, creative determined people defined a complex new technology and built an entire industry to isolate the materials for the first few atomic bombs.

The second is exemplified by John F. Kennedy’s speech to Congress in 1961, when he said: “I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth.” The complex technology development was successful because of determined leadership and an unambiguous target: Win the race with Russia to land a man on the moon.

Authorizing and prioritizing the development of a suitable battery and recharging system for the 21st century would be a far easier task than the two examples above. From there, a business model for electric vehicle charging could emerge. If the consumer charges a battery at night at home, using off-peak electricity, the cost could be about $2 for a full charge. If the car-owner recharges during the day in a parking lot or garage over a multi-hour period, the cost could be about $4. If the car-owner wants an on-the-road high-speed charge or a battery replacement, the cost could be about $15 for 200 miles. The high-speed charge of 40-kilowatt-hours will require 1,000-2,000 amperes at 110-220 volts, a significant upgrade to our electrical system.

Obama also needs to require the highest standards of safety. Today’s scientists and engineers understand how to expand Thomas Edison’s electrical distribution system and can do it, rendering the grid safe and less vulnerable to blackouts.

American leadership has changed transportation before. In 1956, President Eisenhower and Congress had the wisdom to launch the Interstate Highway System, which replaced the hodgepodge of state highways. Virtually 100 percent of the construction and maintenance costs were funded through fuel taxes collected by states and the federal government, and tolls collected on toll roads and bridges.

President-elect Obama can change our driving patterns more dramatically than the Interstate Highway System did. The time has come to expand the electrical distribution system to power our vehicles and provide an equally elegant system to service stations, parking lots, homes and shopping centers.

Robert J. Potter is a technology and business consultant serving clients internationally from his office in the Dallas Metroplex.


mac kennedy

you all talking about nuclear power as if you knew one thing about it.

kudos mr. potter

Integral Fast Breeder Reactors can run entirely on spent fuel from reactors today and NUCLEAR WASTE!!!

we would only need the uranium mined today and all of the spent fuel and waste to power them.

before you speak of nuclear energy,,,, know what your are talking about

IFR’s can run for 100’s of years of our current supply alone -> supplementing other RENEWABLE energies it could run forever


Folks, we’re approaching peak oil, if we haven’t already. Step outside into the sun, look around. Smell the coffee. We’re in a crisis. This is not about whether solar or other rewewables can directly compete with fossil fuels, this is about making a transition away from an infrastructure that is reliant on fossil fuels! This is not a yes/no question!

Robert J. Potter

When I used the word ‘battery,’ I did not mean to limit it to conventional chemistry. I believe we need a device to store electricity, which I called a battery. The point of my recommendation is to find a new one that can meet my 200 miles in 10 minutes challenge. Also I would not be opposed to a small gasoline engine to recharge. If we could swap out in ten minutes, that is OK too. I do believe we could expand the grid to provide ‘outlets’ at home, office, parking lots, etc.
Thank you for your candid comments.

Garry G


If I could respectfully disagree the assumption in your post– and argue that our easiest way forward (batteries) might be a classic ‘fix that fail’ outcome. Building a better battery is akin to making a faster horse. Even with nanoscale solutions, it’s a mature platform that does not give up the room for disruptive performance innovations.

I’d like to see the public conversation on electric vehicles expand beyond these first generation battery-only vehicles.

Expanding our notions of energy storage:
I think we tend to get caught in hype cycles with energy storage platforms, rather than take a longer view of systems integration. H2 goes south as batteries get hyped. Instead we need to see both integrated.

Cars are not iPods, and batteries suffer from bad chemistry. It is doubtful that batteries alone will be the main energy storage device for electric vehicles. I’ve yet to hear an Auto industry Executive say batteries are their future. It’s electric motors– and no company believes in betting on one energy storage device.

In fact I would argue that auto engineers are working to integrate batteries, fuel cells and capacitors. Not one device rules the vehicle. While I haven’t drank the koolaid on H2– I still believe in its performance/cost advantages over long term. Batteries will hit a ceiling of size cost and safety. Fuel cells offer long term growth and hydrogen-hydrogen bonds (stored as a solid) are a universal standard for all inputs.

So, I am worried about this limited framing of ‘electric’ to only include batteries.

Infrastructure – Plug in or Swap out
I have never support ‘plug ins’ and remember quite clearly that early advocates dissed hydrogen b/c of infrastructure set up costs. “We only need to plug in at night” they said. Now, it’s clear that they were wrong. And companies like Better Place are pricing out regions like the Bay Area at $1 billion.

For what? Plug in stations? I can’t see it. Honestly and without trying to flame your post. It makes no sense to extend wires and sockets.

We are entering an era of ‘unplugging’ so why couple the car to the gird.

We need to decouple ‘grid’ elements from the fueling infrastructure, not try to extend it.

I think we should be exploring ‘swap out’ (batteries / solid hydrogen blocks) as a leap frog alternative rather than extend copper wires to slow charging stations.

I realize my proposals are longer term solutions, but I try to keep perspective that this conversion will take 20-40 years. I’d hate to see short term fixes that fail based on incremental strategies with limited returns.

In any event– glad to read your post- and to see this conversation evolving beyond the combustion engine.


Garry Golden
The Energy Roadmap.com


Robert J. Potter

Point 2 is the core of the recommendation. A suitable ‘battery’ is not available today and would require a major development…on the scale of the Apollo project. A gas engine hybrid is a suitable and sensible step on the way. I agree with your point “A battery system capable of charging 40 miles worth of driving over 8 hours would suit most consumers quite well.” However, that vehicle would be limited to commuter applications. Most people would not want to buy two cars.


Point #2 is not necessary and would be very difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish.

Furthermore, the author makes no effort in explaining why this is a “critical step” in our energy independence.

A major benefit of plug-in hybrids is that fast refueling by electricity is NOT necessary. If you need a quick refuel, you just gas up.

A battery system capable of charging 40 miles worth of driving over 8 hours would suit most consumers quite well. That’s about a factor of 200 less than what the author suggests.


Electric cars? And all that new demand for electricity will really drive down my monthly JCP&L bill, right? That’s brilliant.


It’s important to improve fuel efficiency but the source of the energy is important. It has to be carbon neutral (or low carbon emissions) AND sustainable.

Two options among many:
– next generation bio fuels http://optimism.thorscave.com/?p=58
– fuel cells http://optimism.thorscave.com/?p=63

Nuclear power is not an answer. Even if it’s error proof and safe, the available Uranium will last us less than 30 yrs at current energy demands. Even then, it will be ~10 years before a single plant can be built.

A portfolio of sustainable energies including solar, wind, tidal, and geothermal sources will be the solution.

As the article states, a national power grid will be a critical component of any plan.

Comments are closed.