A new venture between two advanced mobile electrical technology companies is hoping to develop a new power alternative for the transportation industry.

eVia, a joint effort of Cleveland-based Stratum Technologies, and Swift Development of West Lafayette, IN, is developing a high energy density system consisting of a liquid direct proton fuel cell and a long-life, high-energy, polymer phosphate lithium ion battery.

This unique system, dubbed the Rusek Daroux System after its developers, utilizes advanced production-proven battery technologies and minimal noble metals. The system could be used to power APUs or other auxiliary devices, but it might eventually result in a new option for vehicle power, the company said.

According to the company, the fuel cell acts as a range extender for the battery, continually recharging it using common liquid fuel and oxidant-sodium borohydride and hydrogen peroxide. The advantages of this system include a liquid-liquid closed loop system; minimal use of noble metals; renewable or regenerative fuels; infrastructure already in place for easy refueling; and low operating temperatures and pressures.

The company said it has solved the problem of hydrogen peroxide decomposition with a cathode that can produce ions without generating oxygen. This enables the use of a liquid oxidant. The system also produces a clean generation with no combustion process. There is no use of compressed gases, it’s lightweight, includes fast kinetics, a rapid start-up and is scalable from small to large, which is why the company thinks there may be a future use to power trucks.

The system is being developed by Dr. Mark L. Daroux, president & CEO of Stratum Technologies. Daroux is an electrochemist who holds numerous patents on battery technologies. Dr. John and Mary Louis Rusek, founders of Swift Enterprises, have more than 30 years experience in the chemical, propulsion and aerospace industries. John Rusek studies hydrogen peroxide use in propulsion, power and fuel cell applications. Swift focuses on renewable energy solutions including a replacement fuel for general aviation.

The American Power Act proposed by Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) on Wednesday has critics and proponents lining up their arguments. Why, I ask, does it have to be this complicated? These are some of the problems I have with politicians at times. They over-think.

The American Trucking Assns. (ATA) calls the proposal a “tax” on transportation.

“While others might object to our characterization, the climate bill clearly imposes a tax on transportation fuels and reallocates revenue from that tax for non-transportation purposes,” ATA president & CEO Bill Graves said.

Clean Energy, a natural gas provider, is in favor of the proposal, which would double tax incentives for natural gas vehicles for the next 10 years.

“Natural gas transportation fuel is a cleaner, cheaper, and domestic alternative to our ever-increasing dependence on foreign, particularly OPEC, oil. We applaud Senators Kerry and Lieberman for their efforts to move forward with a broad energy package that includes replacing imported petroleum products with natural gas in America’s vehicle fleets,” said Andrew Littlefair, Clean Energy president and CEO.

Are you in favor of clean energy? There is something for you with tax credits. A proponent of big oil? Refiners would have to purchase carbon allowances matching their emissions output. That’s good, right? Not quite. Who will pay for that? You guessed it, the consumer.

There are also incentives for big oil too, as the proposal has provisions to encourage offshore drilling, according to the New York Times.

This is the problem. The proposal has too many loopholes trying to appeal to a wide audience - and I’ve only seen a small percentage of the 1,000 or so page proposal.

So, Sens. Kerry and Lieberman, what is it? Are we in favor of the environment or not? What is the ultimate goal?

To me, if the goal is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, to find alternative power sources and clean the environment, than write a bill that will do that. There is no reason why we can’t have bills designed to promote alternative energy sources without all the strings attached.

If we want more Americans to purchase alternative-fueled vehicles, then make it possible for that to happen. Can I buy a natural gas car today? Of course. Can I easily fuel it? That’s not as simple.

Is natural gas a viable fuel for the trucking industry? Yes. But it has limitations at the moment. Maybe we need to invest more to solve those issues.

There are plenty of companies out there, companies like AT&T, which are in the beginning stages of building natural gas fueling stations for their fleets. Perhaps we need to support those initiatives to create public/private facilities, whether they be propane, natural gas, biodiesel, or some other fuel source. Then maybe, the public will wholeheartedly embrace alternative fuels.

In the end, I agree with the ATA. The main point of this proposal will do nothing to actually reduce the carbon emissions in this country, it will only serve as a way to increase the final costs to consumers. That’s bad politics.

Under questioning from Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) last week, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood defended the state of our roads in the U.S.

Bond, who sits on the Senate’s transportation appropriates subcommittee, was questioning the Administration’s plan to spend $527 million for “livable communities.” According to the American Assn. of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Bond wondered if DOT was siphoning money from road improvement efforts to fund this new initiative.

“We have a state-of-art interstate system in America; we have very good roads,” LaHood said. “At DOT, we have an obligation to maintain our roads, to make sure they’re fixed up, and in places in the country where they need capacity, we’re for that. The idea we’re giving up on our road program or don’t care about highways is nonsense.”

Perhaps LaHood needs to spend more time on our highways and less time in Washington.

A 2009 study by the Pacific Institute for Reasearch & Evaluation (PIRE) found that crashes on U.S. highways cost American businesses $22 billion annually, in addition to a $12 billion cost to government and $12 billion medical bills.

“The cost of crashes involving deficient roadway conditions dwarf the costs of crashes involving alcohol, speeding, or failure to wear a safety belt,” said Ted Miller, Ph.D., with the Beltsville, MD-based Pacific Institute for Research & Evaluation (PIRE), in testimony before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

In all, the report, On a Crash Course: The Dangers and Health Costs of Deficient Roadways, says deficient roadway conditions cost $217 billion a year.

Numerous organizations have come out against the livable communities plan. Anything that diverts funding from solving our nation’s infrastructure woes – upon which, at last check, the majority of goods move in this country – needs to be closely examined.

Livable communities sound really good, unless you expect your local grocery store to have milk on its shelves when you need it. We’ve long since passed the time when milk is delivered via horse-and-buggy.

I’m sure LaHood is right. Compared to other nations, we probably do have a state-of-the-art transportation system. That doesn’t mean we have to settle.