PUMP to Kick Oil Addiction

vzISIS has trebled its forces within recent months and in large measure finances its expansion with $10 million to $20 million per week in illicit oil sales from as many as 70 captured oil wells.

Iran now has multiplied its centrifuges to almost 20,000, enabling it to convert its 5 percent and 20 percent enriched uranium to 90 percent weapons-grade HEU within a 7-week breakout period. With sanctions lifted, Tehran’s monthly oil revenues have soared to almost 3 million barrels per day, generating billions of dollars per month.

Tiny Qatar, with only about 280,000 citizens, provides Hamas with some $400 million annually. Qatar exports more than 600,000 barrels of oil per day helping to establish an estimated $200 billion petrodollar reserve.

Oil is driving it all —and more.

American petroleum use accounts for about one-quarter of global consumption, depending upon whose numbers you’re refining. Kicking our oil addiction is an old mantra that is preached daily from the sidelines by an army of expert energy analysts and security insiders. A slick, kinetic new Hollywood movie, PUMP, is breaking out of the wooden oil documentary mold to help power a concerted national effort to get off of oil.

PUMP’s point is easily distilled: if simple fuel choice were implemented, it would quickly dilute the power of petroleum and those who sell it. PUMP combines flashy cinematography and rock music with irrefutable testimony by the likes of former Shell president John Hofmeister, Tesla founder Elon Musk, analyst Annie Korin, and Auto Channel editor Marc Rauch. I also appear in the film with the inside historical story of corporate crimes committed by General Motors and Standard Oil to cripple the electric mass transit system, which proliferated in the first years of the twentieth century, and replace it with oil consuming buses — in other words, how we got here.

As I wrote in my book Internal Combustion and subsequent works, we never needed to be addicted to oil. Never. The electric car was invented in about 1835. Until the run-up to WW I, most of the motor vehicles in America were electric-powered, until Edison’s plans were subverted by the car industry and the manufacturers switched to gas-burning internal combustion vehicles.

The much-vaunted hydrogen fuel cell that uses water as a feedstock is based on technology developed back in 1835. Some years ago, I drove an ordinary showroom Hydrogen-powered Chevrolet Equinox all over Southern California on a single tank of hydrogen. That hydrogen fuel was zapped from simple water, filled at a public Shell station on Santa Monica Boulevard that maintained a hydrogen pump on the side. Hydrogen supplies are abundant in the US — it’s the ingredient needed for unleaded gas.

More than 17 million compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles operate worldwide. A petroleum car can be converted to natural gas in a day. But in America, less than 120,000 operate —in large measure because Honda, America’s major NGV car manufacturer, stubbornly refuses to mass market its own vehicle beyond a few thousand per year.

Methanol, ethanol, a basket of other alcohol and alternative fuels — all can power an automobile with virtually equal ability. This is the so-called “Open Fuel Standard” that goes hand-in-hand with the flex-fuel-designed vehicles that more than 17 million Americans drive – yet many don’t know it. A minor adjustment in the software and the fuel system would allow fuel democracy — any alt fuel from anyone willing to provide it.

That is the message in PUMP:  Fuel democracy to protect American democracy. Unlock the car engines the way we want to unlock our cell phones.

Until we have a moment of truth with ourselves, America is destined to not only be addicted to oil, but addicted to all the terrible trappings that come with oil.

PUMP opens September 19 at many theater screens across America, including the AMC 25 in Times Square. You can locate a PUMP screening anywhere in America. Prepare to get angry. Getting off of oil is easier than we think — if we mobilize national will. There has never been a better or more critical time to energize this than now.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • tickletik

    Wow

  • swemson

    Once you understand the FACT that the entire campaign against CO2 emissions is a total fabrication by progressives (Marxists) hiding behind a banner of faux environmentalism, it becomes clear that there’s really nothing wrong with using hydrocarbon based fuels to power our vehicles today. Our air is pretty clean, and our planet is actually pretty cool right now…. Everything we’re being told by the Agenda 21 promoting elites is a LIE !!!

    Another of their big lies is that America’s petroleum reserves are rapidly dwindling. Not true. We have the largest energy reserves in the world. Our energy reserves in fact are the key to fixing ALL of our problems. Were we to begin to aggressively develop all of our known reserves, we could supply all of the energy we need at home at much lower prices. Additionally, we could undercut the prices of middle eastern oil, thus putting an end to worldwide islamic terrorism which subsists on the region’s oil revenues.

    Any nation that buys middle eastern oil, that wants us to buy their imports, will have a simple choice to make. Want to sell your products to Americans? Then buy our oil (including natural gas & coal). We’ll sell to other countries at the same or lower prices than they’re paying the arabs.

    We have such huge reserves, that we might even be able to put a dent in Putin’s bank account as well.

    So by all means PUMP !

    And don’t waste your money on this leftist movie propaganda…

    fs

    • MarcRauch

      If it was a leftist propaganda movie, I would have never agreed to appear in it. If you want to question my credentials as a right-wing capitalist I’d be happy to have that discussion with you.But that aside, the film doesn’t spend a lot of time on environmental issues; it deals with mostly with economic issues.

      You wrote, “…it becomes clear that there’s really nothing wrong with using hydrocarbon based fuels to power our vehicles today.” That would be true if we (that is to say, we Americans) controlled the production, distribution and pricing of these hydrocarbon-based fuels, which we don’t; and if we didn’t have to keep sacrificing our service men to defend the terrorist regimes that control petroleum oil. Even the staunchest (and ‘stenchiest’) of the oil industry defenders, such as Robert Bryce, admit that the entire oil industry is under the control of the bad guys.

      You are definitely entitled to your opinion about the movie, but you should first go see it. In actual fact, if ‘we Americans’ listed to the things that David Blume advocates (David is also in the film) regarding ethanol production, they would find it to be the best and most inspiring capitalist free-market information they ever heard.

  • Sheik Yerbouti

    If only.

  • Bert

    What is missing from this article is the role of the U.S. government, under both parties, in quietly suppressing any inventor with the technology to challenge big oil. See the list of suppressed inventors at http://www.energysuppression.com. Years ago I was with a small company which had the technology to modify car, truck and bus engines to get an astonishing increase in mpg via a breakthrough in efficiency. This one invention could have economically crippled our petro-enemies. On his way out of office in January 2009 George W. Bush illegally destroyed our company. The public remains unaware because, both parties and the media pretend this suppression does not exist. Breakthrough technologies already exist on the internet including patent numbers but remain ignored and overlooked. My many attempts to have officials, including Jewish officials, simply review this information are routinely ignored.

    • flash287

      Duriong WWII there were rumors of the oil industry supressing a carburator that doubled vehicle mileage. It’s baloney! Any corporation or politician that prevented the ability of our WWII fighter’s range would be exiled forever as a traitor. I think the carb was called the Pogue. Just another commie trick in blaming evil corporations.

      • MarcRauch

        There are “conspiracy theories” and there are “conspiracy facts.” Even if the carburetor you are referring to never existed, it doesn’t mean that American and International corporations have not engaged in keeping information and innovations from the public.

    • MarcRauch

      Bert, you should watch the film and then read some of Edwin’s books; Tickell’s films and Black’s books lay plenty of blame on the government and our politicians of both parties.

  • http://JudeoChristianAmerica.org Alexander Gofen

    One must be completely ignorant in history of science and physics to claim as though “The electric car was invented in about 1835″ (i.e. prior than the electric motors and prior than the practical sources of electrical energy!) That is the degeneracy of the American education where physics is optional…

    • MarcRauch

      It appears that you were primarily responding to an article other than the one written by Edwin Black. In addition, his date of 1835 is correct. Edwin didn’t say that the first electric cars were practical or mass-produced, just that it was first invented in 1835. The point he was making is that it is not a new idea, and that it preceded the use of gasoline in internal combustion engines.

      You seem to have a serious background, so you should already know that it’s best to research something before you open your mouth or put pen to pper, so to speak.

      • kevinstroup

        Google says first car invented in 1884. Off by only 49 years.

        • MarcRauch

          Kevin – I direct you to my reply to Alexander above. Then I’ll add to that:

          In 1769 the first steam powered auto-mobile capable of human transportation was built by Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot.

          In 1807, François Isaac de Rivaz designed the first car powered by an internal combustion engine fueled by hydrogen.

          I think it’s good that you have access to a computer, but the resource you used was off by more than a half century.

          • kevinstroup

            None were commercially viable. Let me know when your dreams come true.

          • MarcRauch

            Kevin – If you have a reading comprehension problem take it up with your parents or grade school teachers. Edwin didn’t say anything about “commercially viable,” he talked about the invention.

            The first Daimler-Benz cars weren’t commercially viable; the Wright Brothers first airplane wasn’t commercially viable; the first rockets weren’t commercially viable; the first vacuum cleaner wasn’t commercially viable; the first television set wasn’t commercially viable…but they all gave birth to the models that became commercially viable.

            C’mon Kevin, there’s no need for you to be digging a hole deeper and deeper. Go read one of Edwin’s books, or go watch the movie and then come back with a real argument, if you can find one.

          • kevinstroup

            I have been listening to pompous pseudointellectuals like you spouting off about their fairytale cures to all the worlds problems for all my life. When you give me real world cures let me know. IF oil could be easily substituted for it already would have been. Get a clue.

          • MarcRauch

            Ah, that’s the problem. You – a zero intellectual – have only been listening to pseudointellectuals. That’s why you can only repeat nonsensical tidbits of information, such as the BTU silliness.

            So when you actually encounter real intellectuals(pompous or non-pompous), you don’t know how to respond. You criticize movies you’ve never seen, books you’ve never read, and people you never heard present a lecture.

            We not only have a clue, we know the entire story.

      • http://JudeoChristianAmerica.org Alexander Gofen

        In the 1830s the inventors struggled to make merely a functional electric motor. Those who succeeded might try to install it into a toy car. In 1939 Jacobi first succeeded to built a motor of enough power to drive a boat over a river – and that was a sensation. In the context of the article popularizing modern electric cars, the phrase of the author sounded as though he spoke about invention of electric human carrying vehicle in 1835.

        • MarcRauch

          The invention of the first model electric vehicle is attributed to various people. In 1828, Ányos Jedlik, a Hungarian who invented an early type of electric motor, created a small model car powered by his new motor. In 1834, Vermont blacksmith Thomas Davenport built a similar contraption which operated on a short circular electrified track. In 1835, Professor Sibrandus Stratingh of Groningen, the Netherlands, and his assistant Christopher Becker created a small-scale electrical car, powered by non-rechargeable primary cells.

          The first known electric car was built in 1837 by chemist Robert Davidson of Aberdeen. It was powered by galvanic cells (batteries). Davidson later built a larger locomotive named Galvani, exhibited at the Royal Scottish Society of Arts Exhibition in 1841. The seven-ton vehicle had two direct-drive reluctance motors, with fixed electromagnets acting on iron bars attached to a wooden cylinder on each axle, and simple commutators. It hauled a load of six tons at four miles per hour for a distance of one and a half miles. It was tested on the Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway in September of the following year, but the limited power from batteries prevented its general use. It was destroyed by railway workers, who saw it as a threat to their security of employment.

          Between 1832 and 1839, British inventor Robert Anderson also invented a crude electrical carriage. A patent for the use of rails as conductors of electric current was granted in England in 1840, and similar patents were issued to Lilley and Colten in the United States in 1847.

          If you want to label the first efforts as toys, it’s just because you want to portray the efforts as trivial. But there was no indication that they were built as children’s playthings, they were models and not all models are childrens’ playthings. However, even if they were, so what? In any event, the electric railway cars of the 1830′s and 40′s were not childrens’ toys and were capable of carrying humans.

          If you knew this information previously you didn’t need to make a fallacious statement in your first post. If you didn’t know it but learned of it after my initial reply, then I’m happy I was able to help you do some research..

          • http://JudeoChristianAmerica.org Alexander Gofen

            Yes, thank you Mr. Rauch for stimulating me to do some additional research, and particularly for your bringing fore the data about such early inventions as those of Cugnot and Rivaz: Very interesting. However, re-reading the article “PUMP to Kick Oil Addiction”, the author mentioned alternative (electric) vehicles NOT as a first historic prototypes, but rather as some competing commercially or practically viable solutions. (Otherwise, in your own example, the 1807 Rivaz internal combustion vehicle ought to be mentioned in the article too). For me, the article looks rather a cavalier exercise and wishful (if not wishfool) thinking. I am completely aware about the oil addiction of the West (and especially about mindless oil trade with islamic nations – see my outline http://www.judeochristianamerica.org/Imminent.htm ). And I do love hybrid cars (especially my Prius 2011). However it does not follow from this article that the author is aware about the challenges and physical limitations of the purely electric powertrain.

          • MarcRauch

            It’s clear that you would like to read into what Edwin wrote those things you would like to believe, but you are misquoting and misinterpreting what he wrote.

            Moreover, as I previously replied, Edwin was merely setting the stage for his comment that “we didn’t need oil,” for these new vehicles, that there was other fuel sources. Oil (and gasoline) didn’t make the internal combustion engine and ICE vehicles commercially viable; continuous testing, and improved manufacturing processes made ICE-powered passenger vehicles commercially viable. If anything, it was the automobile that made gasoline commercially viable.

            We (the consumers of the free world) were “forced” into using petroleum oil products to fuel ICE-powered vehicles.

            In fact, one of the most important improved manufacturing process was Henry Ford’s adoption of assembly line techniques that made the automobile commercially viable, and those particular Ford vehicles were not only built to run on ethanol or gasoline, but they performed better with ethanol than with gasoline.

            You then return to criticizing the article because it didn’t say enough, which is just another example of you trying to make the article say the way you want it to say. The article is about Josh Tickell’s new movie, it’s not a study on electric or ICE powertrains. If you want that, or want to see if Edwin knows something about those subjects then you should google him and select one or more of his books that relate to fuel, or energy-in-general, or automobiles.

            Likewise, if you want to get the measure of Edwin’s understanding of Middle East problems or the global picture, you should read some or all of his non-fuel related works, as well as his own commentaries on his website.

            I guess it’s very possible that you never heard of Edwin prior to the article above, but underestimating his knowledge of these areas because of your own lack of knowledge about him is a mistake. Frankly, I think you should have first read some of his books before trying to take him on – and the same goes for the film: you should watch it and Tickell’s other films before you criticize them.

  • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

    This article makes a lot of assertions but without much to back them up. First of all, I’m suspicious of anyone who uses the phrase “addicted to oil” – yes, people are “addicted” to oil, since it vastly improves their lives, in much the same way they’re “addicted” to eating. Then there’s the fact that it’s extolling a movie made in Hollywood – Conservative, rational Hollywood – which means it’s probably as honest as Avatar. The ritual flogging of oil companies is another cause for suspicion.

    What can we say about electric cars? It’s really the technology of the past – about 100 years ago – not of the present or future. It lost the battle in the marketplace to internal combustion. Even with massive taxpayer subsidies no one wants it, and for some very good reasons including battery problems. It also uses up at least as much fossil fuel as does the internal combustion engine in any area where electricity is not being obtained from nuclear power, so it’s hard to see any advantage in burning coal to generate electricity to charge our electric cars.

    As for electric buses, I’m old enough to remember them, although just barely. Black again ignores the question of how all that electricity is to be generated, and since batteries are not practical for buses, you also have the hazard of high-voltage electric wires over populous city streets.

    CNG and hydrogen fuel cells may have possibilities or they may simply be overhyped here – I don’t have the time to research this right now. But some objections are obvious: (1) hydrogen must be contained under pressure in strong steel cylinders which add a lot of weight to the vehicle; (2) hydrogen is dangerously explosive. Motorists who remember the Hindenburg disaster may not want to go the same route, so to speak. (3) The production of water offers a great chance to freeze up in winter. That may not be a problem in Southern California where Black did his test, but it sure is in most of the country.

    • MarcRauch

      Knowing Edwin, and knowing what word-count limitations are often placed on published articles (even those appearing in online publications), I’d say that Edwin didn’t back up his statements any further because of the word-count limitations, in addition to having backed up all of his assertions within the numerous books he’s written that pertain to energy and fuels. Edwin’s books are meticulously researched and he always provides extensive footnotes and source citations. Doubting his research is laughable.

      You write, “…people are “addicted” to (petroleum) oil, since it vastly improves their lives…” That is incorrect. It it the invention of the devices that use oil that have improved peoples’ lives, not the fuel. The fuel (the gasoline) is a poison. The point of this film is that we don’t have to rely on poison fuels to run the devices that improve our lives, we can use alternative fuels that are less toxic – maybe not toxic at all.

      However, I hate to say it, but when you blame the Hindenburg Disaster on the explosiveness of hydrogen and imply that passenger cars will explode at random while driving down the road, your entire argument loses all credibility.

  • NJK

    Shouldn’t they be forced to give up their oil use, before they can preach to everyone else? I think they need to be told this. You first!

  • kevinstroup

    Does this author have any idea how hard it is to store hydrogen? Does this author know what happens when hydrogen gas is contaminated with water? Doe this author know what happened to the Hindenburg? Does he know how much energy it takes to make hydrogen?

    • MarcRauch

      Try Googling Edwin. You’ll learn easily enough that he knows about all the things you question.

      • kevinstroup

        Edwin Black is a journalist. What is his claim of expertise in engineering, chemistry, biology, or physics?

        • MarcRauch

          Edwin is an investigative journalist. He’s never claimed otherwise. As I wrote in another reply to you, your own research into history is quite faulty. If you have a problem with Edwin’s research then do what I did to you: provide better information. Don’t just knock a movie you never watched or books you never read.

          • kevinstroup

            “Methanol, ethanol, a basket of other alcohol and alternative fuels — all can power an automobile with virtually equal ability. ” Really? Not according to Btu’s per gallon they can’t. Oil is used because it works and it is understood very well. Could others work. Of course. Look at Brazil. But they still use a lot of gasoline. Oil is not going away. Electricity? How is that electricity created?

          • MarcRauch

            Kevin – Why do you insist on showing off your lack of knowledge?

            If you work for the oil industry in some capacity you should stop now before you hold them up to even more ridicule. If you don’t work for the oil industry, but you’re just repeating information that you thought was correct, you should also stop now because you don’t know what you are talking about.

            All that’s happening is that you make a silly statements, I correct it, and then you make sillier statements. Don’t you have any self-esteem? Surely you can find something of interest to watch on Netflix or Hulu. Try “Peaky Blinders,” it’s new on Netflix and pretty good.

  • Contemptuous Maximus

    How did this Hollywood dreamer make it to Front Page magazine? Where’s the reset button? Somebody call Hillary.

    • MarcRauch

      Try Googling Edwin. You’ll learn easily enough that he’s no Hollywood dreamer.

  • MN dude

    Leftist nonsense. The problem is not oil, it’s Islam. If there’s an addiction we need to kick it’s our addiction to blind multicultural stupidity.

    • MarcRauch

      Islam is indeed a big part of the problem, as I’ve written about on numerous occasions for Front Page. And indeed, if you were to research and then actually read some of Edwin’s book regarding the Middle East, you’d be quite surprised.

      What I find so funny about this particular message board is how many of you posters have made such rash assumptions before you’ve even seen the movie or read any of Edwin’s books.

  • bob e

    where am i ?? is this huffington’s toast ??

  • joe

    Why is this clown’s article in Front page Mag? He needs to go back to grade school and start all over again. SMH

    • MarcRauch

      As I posted above, try Googling Edwin. You’ll learn easily enough that he knows about all the things you question.

  • http://www.treatmentisnotrecovery.com/ Dexter Brown

    ISIS is a curse on the region. The sooner it is eliminated, the better it is.

  • kevinstroup

    Ethanol and methanol do not have the Btus per gallon that gasoline has.