Just Stay Busy

Final Post

2008-06-16T14:15:00.000-07:00

25.5 months (with a break), 213 posts (including this one), and one 160 page book of my "best" posts.

Just Stay Busy

(a blog)

By Josh Cunningham

My blogging continues at www.joshcanhelp.com.

Thanks for all of your support!

Link Love part 2

2008-06-05T15:03:00.000-07:00

A couple cool, cool ones for you...

A junk made of junk (via Cnet):

The activists wanted more people to share their disgust about plastic litter that swirls, relatively unexplored, in continent-size patches of ocean.

To that end, they have built a motor-less craft from 15,000 recycled beverage bottles, fishing nets, and the cockpit of a Cessna, and are sailing it more than 2,000 miles from southern California to Hawaii.

One word: gumption.

Also at Ecogeek

(())(())(())(())(())(())(())(())(())

An all-electric, solar-powered speedboat, via Ecogeek...

The Dutch have created the Czeers MK1 – the first solar-powered speed boat – which will help bridge a friendship between the love of speed and the love of the environment....Reaching speeds of 30 knots and producing far less noise and pollution than its peers, this boat is 33 feet long and is covered in 150 square feet photovoltaic cells. $1.1 million.

... and Inhabitat:

...is fully powered by the integrated solar cells. It is absolutely gorgeous; the deep carbon fiber hue, combined with the orange interiors, and the sleek form give off an incredible James-Bondian vibe. It is also, quite likely, very expensive, as no price has been given, and only a limited number will be produced.

Looks SO sexy too:

Video? Don't mind if I do...

Think about it... solar-powered speedboat. That has to be the best combination of green and fun that I'VE ever heard. First off, boats are terrible polluters and gas hogs to boot. Second, have you ever filled up a boat on a lake??? The prices are ASTRONOMICAL. Imagine something you could putter around in while it charged and then hit the "gas" on the way back.

Damn, I'd LOVE a ride in that.

Seth Godin on packaging and solar the way it should (and will) be

2008-05-28T11:00:00.000-07:00

I wanted to share a great riff Seth Godin had about retail packaging. While it doesn't directly have anything to do with transportation, I think you'll find some salient points (and, if you don't, I'll help you out). From Seth's blog:

Item 1: My Logitech cordless remote (which I like a lot) came in plastic, non-recyclable packaging that weighed twice as much as the remote itself.* The plastic was so well sealed and so thick that I actually broke a kitchen knife trying to open it. (*this is not hyperbole. I weighed it).

This is expensive, time-consuming and positions the product as extremely ungreen.

This packaging is the result of a paranoid retail buyer (the person who orders in bulk for the store, not the buyer at retail) demanding pilfer-proof packaging combined with a lazy brand manager choosing a lousy solution to the challenge presented by getting it into a retailer. "Make it pilfer-proof or we won't carry it," he says. The brand manager doesn't want to take a risk, so she packages it the way they packaged it when the device cost $1,000. Impregnable.

True story or what?

The more packaging, the more waste. Not only that, the more packaging the more material is needed and the more manufacturing goes into it. Bigger boxes means more space, more space means more trucks/planes/boats to move the stuff around. Bigger boxes means more stuff inside which means more waste and more weight and more transportation.

Now let's apply this notion to transportation. Everyday, I'm passed on the freeway by people who go to fast in cars, trucks, and SUVs that are too big for their needs. Without turning this into a bashing session on SUVs, the question must be asked: why are we moving around a bunch of extra cubic feet that aren't needed most of the time? Also, why does these cubic feet need to be moving so fast (or have the potential to [think engine size])?

Seth posed a solution to this problem:

When you buy it from Amazon, of course, a cardboard sleeve would be sufficient. The manufacturer, though, only wants to have one sku, so Amazon sells the wasteful one as well.

So, why not compromise and shrink wrap it to a cardboard backad? A simple piece of cardboard, 8 x 10, impossible to fit under your jacket, much lighter, easy to recycle, cheaper and easier to ship.

The packaging versus transportation issue seems to have more in common beyond the idea of wastefulness. Seth points out two problems: un-green packaging and shoplifting. The un-green packaging solves (does it?) the shoplifting problem but creates a new problem in the process. Seth's solution? Minimal packaging that is still oversized and, thus, harder to smuggle out of the store.

Among many other small problems, I see the big issues with sustainable transportation in a similar light. We have two major problems: a wasteful, destructive way of moving things and people around and a need to move a lot of things and people around. How can this problem be solved?

The sacrificers among us (a small minority at best) alter our needs and lifestyle to contribute to the solution as best as we can. Some of us give up cars and ride the bus/train, some take up cycling and walking and encourage others to do the same. Some blog about it, do what we can in our own lives, and give up some of our wants for the greater good. We feel good about what we doing, we offset some (if only a very tiny bit) of the waste that is happening, and our lives are possibly, because of the increased exercise, better food, and less time in traffic, just a little bit better.

But the sacrificers show us that the problem will not be solved by a sudden, global, self-less rejection of the luxuries that are available. We simply cannot depend on the good-nature and kindness of human beings, it's not an exit plan for global warming.

So, our transportation packaging needs to change.

People should still be able to buy, own, and operate large vehicles. An Expedition has it's place in society but that place is a family of 5 and enough gear for a week or 8 people in a carpool. One person commuting long distances using a V8 engine pulling 4,000+ pounds is simply ridiculous these days and will continue to increase in ridiculousness as time goes on.

One way to solve this problem is to restrict large vehicle usage. Anything over a certain weight/height has a separate speed limit and a designated lane on the freeways. This would address the safety issue of a small, light cars sharing freeway space with big, heavy trucks and SUVs.

This could help people feel more comfortable to buy a smaller car in the future or possibly buy a second used car for commuting. It makes perfect sense to own a large vehicle for your large vehicle needs and one or two small cars for running about town or traveling to work. Now, people are still commuting, everyone still has the freedom they once had, and we're still a mobile, viable economy but we're all PACKAGED different on the road. The "road environment" is different making it much easier to adopt a new way of doing things.

Another way to help this packaging issue is to promote lighter vehicles with less horsepower. One of these is the Dodge Sprinter, an ugly but useful vehicle that has become very popular in Europe.

These vans have a small, clean diesel engine with low horsepower that gets things where they need to go. They are maneuverable around the city, hold A LOT of stuff, and are very economical (30 MPG) for their size/utility.

Think about it...what packaging affects you? What are you packaged in? Can the job be done with less packaging?

7 Days of Blog Retribution: Vehicles to know about

2008-05-21T17:34:00.000-07:00

Green vehicles to know about

I've seen quite a few vehicle announcements that have caught my attention lately. One of them was the Fisker I talked about a few days ago. I thought I might spread the word on a few of these and set your expectations appropriately.

It's tiny

A few of these are in the super-sub-compact range of size. As such, tehy get FANTASTIC mileage but probably won't fit the lives of most consumers.

Via Inhabitat:

Three wheels means it's not a car so it's not held to the same safety standards (same like the Xebra). The numbers:

The 20kw electric motor can achieve a very reasonable 80mph, and will take you on travels up to 100 miles on any given charge. It takes about 6 hours for its lithium-ion battery to recharge fully and, as with most electric vehicles, it comes with a regenerative braking system. The package for all of this three-wheeled fun runs about $20,000 dollars.

I'll be the first to say it: $20K is a LOT for this little vehicle. My Element just cost $20K.

On the other hand, 100 miles is really good for something of this size and 80mph is excellent. This is about as good as electric vehicles get right now (save for the Tesla) so it makes sense that the price is so high.

The problem, if their desire is to sell a lot of these, is that they fell into a difficult price bracket with a difficult car to sell. The vast majority of people who might want to buy this will probably, because of size and range constraints, need to make it a second (or a third) car. This is obviously no good for a family and, even for a couple, there is not a lot of room to put anything and it definitely can;t be used for long trips.

I would assume that some people would buy this as their commuter car (drive an E Class on the weekends, take the TRIAC to work through the week). That's a great idea but there aren't going to be a lot of people who want to pay $20K for a commuter car. You can buy an older Civic that gets great gas mileage, holds more, and is much safer for under $2,000.

Next up, the brand I just left... this one is via Ecogeek/Motor Authority:

VW has been talking for a long time about their L1 concept, so called because it uses a measly 1 liter of gasoline to go 100 km. For us Americans, that translates to about 230 miles per gallon. Of course, the amazing mileage comes at a price. The car is tiny, more of a tobaggon than a car. The single passenger actually sits behind the driver, like in a small airplane.

Very interesting, this one is. First off, I HATE the idea of a toboggan and would be really irritated trying to have a conversation with the back of someone's head/my windshield. Additionally, Volkswagen likes to tease us with concepts so getting your hopes up about this thing is probably going to lead to disappointment.

Still, I have to admire the one-off-ed-ness of this strange little diesel missile. Some interesting facts can be had from Wikipedia:

There are no rear view mirrors and it instead uses cameras and electronic displays. The rear wheels are close together to allow a streamlined body. The drag coefficient (Cd) is 0.159, compared to 0.30 for typical cars.

For light weight, the car uses an unpainted carbon fibre skin over a magnesium subframe. Individual components have been designed for low weight, including engine, transmission, suspension, wheels (carbon fibre), brakes (aluminium), hubs (titanium), bearings (ceramic), interior, and so on. Empty vehicle weight is 290 kg (639 lb).

The body and frame are designed with crush zones and roll-over protection, and the tandem seating means large side crush zones, and Volkswagen claims protection comparable to a GT racing car.

The plan is 2010 for production. I'll believe it when I see it.

Last but not least, M-Benz, at it again. This one from AutoblogGreen:

This fall, Mercedes-Benz will offer a new A-Class coupe - the A 160 CDI BlueEFFICIENCY - that gets 52mpg (U.S.). In the NEDC consumption calculation, the car comes in at 4.5 litres of fuel per 100 kilometres and emits just 119 grams of CO2 per kilometer. Those are the best ratings in the A-Class range, and the A 160 CDI BlueEFFICIENCY will still deliver 60 kW/82 hp.

Great looking vehicle, too.

This one I have high hopes for - more than the other two at least. It looks great, it's a Mercedes, and the BlueTEC technology is a fantastic innovation. Not likely that we'll see it over here though.

And now, your moment of zen...

7 Days of Blog Retribution: My New Car

2008-05-19T22:34:00.000-07:00

Wow, it only took two days for me to completely miss a day. I'm just not cut out for the heavy blogging.

So, today, I'm putting myself on trial. I bought a new car on Saturday and, if you know me well enough (or have paid attention to key posts) then you know the new ride isn't a Corolla, it isn't a Civic, and it probably isn't a Prius.

I bought a Honda Element.

First, the conversational stuff...

Yes, I love it.
This is a vehicle I've been pining over for a good 5 years or so. For all of you out there who hate them, I hated them too... HATED them. But I rode in one and the owner, a good friend, loved it to death. And then, something in my brain changed and I knew I had to have one. It's everything I want and need in a vehicle in a very unique package.

The GTI had to go.
Poor Gretchen (yes, she has a name) was running a bit rough and had me a bit scared I might be stranded on the side of the road (again). A check engine light and a funny clunk in the front (along with a few other things) made it seem likely that a few thousand in repairs were coming up soon. I drove that picky German b*tch for 9 years and almost 112,000 miles and had very few problems up until about a year ago (maybe a bit before that).

The price was right, the car was right.
This is exactly how I would spec one of these new and there happened to be one on the lot, waiting for me (got there 4 days before I did). Fate?

I guess the big question is why would a green-guy like myself trade UP in vehicle size when I could afford something much smaller and more economical (like a smart [which I briefly considered]). I'll tell you why...

This gets the same MPG.
Yup, that's right, this little guy is rated at the same MPG as my GTI (actually, one less, 23 vs. 24). It's bigger, taller, clearly less aerodynamic, and it's getting about the same. Volkswagens are typically heavier cars and not very fuel efficient (unless they try).

It's an automatic.
Automatics are notoriously better for fuel efficiency because they switch to a high gear when you're not pushing on it. Driving my mom's big SUV around town back home, I found I could squeeze about 25 MPG out of a heavy V6 just because it was automatic (and had a MPG gauge). I find I'm much less aggressive in this car and tend to be about 5mph slower on the freeway; it's just easier to drive at a slower pace.

It can actually fit 4 people.
No more taking two cars because it's too cramped. The 3 other cars I ride around in besides my own are all 2-door and, if they have 4 seatbelts, it doesn't mean 4 adults should be in there.

It takes 87 octane.
And I'm dead sick of spending the money on premium.

So that's the deal.

To be perfectly honest, it was a big issue to buy a new-to-me car that didn't get much better miles-per-gallon. The gas prices are atrocious but my concern is and will continue to be actual consumption, not finances. I know, however, that the difference in overall consumption between 25 mpg and 30 mpg simply isn't enough to justify big sacrifices in my own life.

From spending my own time recycling to this blog to teaching others around me and volunteering for events, I do a lot to affect as many people as possible and, hopefully, convince a few more to make responsible choices. I replaced my bulbs, I control my speed on the freeway, I reuse plastic like a madman, I take cotton bags to the grocery store (when I remember), and I just recently started carpooling with a co-worker. Environmental choices are about more than just a car.

Trust me, I thought this one through. And I'll be the first one with an aftermarket hybrid kit when a solid, tested kit comes out... that or a low-emissions diesel engine from Honda!

7 Days of Blog Retribution: You know Audi but do you know Fisker?

2008-05-17T20:46:00.001-07:00

First up, great news from Audi via Rueters:

Audi, the luxury unit of Volkswagen, will make cars with no exhaust emissions within ten years, its top executive has told a German weekly. Rupert Stadler told Welt am Sonntag in an interview published on Sunday that he saw great opportunities in electric cars and expected diesel and battery technology to dominate in the coming five to ten years.

Wait, what? Ten years? Is this the same company that built the adorable and well-equipped hydrogen powered A1?

You really have to wonder why Audi would wait that long... and announce so early. An announcement like this can't do anything to affect current sales (which don't need help anyways). Why even comment?

Audi, a subsidiary of Volkswagen (am I saying that right?), is the upscale arm of that corporate juggernaut. Product offerings at both companies take into account the existence of the other. As such, it's unlikely you'll see Audi competing for the sub-$20K market, especially here in America; that's what VW is for. So this announcement begs the question: is Volkswagen planning a real push into the hybrid or electric market?

Volkswagen holds a funny place in the alternative fuel world. They have the cult (but very real) following of the TDI, their turbo diesel engine. This champion of compression and combustion has been reported to get around 50 MPG and run on biodiesel without a hitch. There's also the new TDI, reported to be a big improvement on the original in terms of emissions.

Then again, they have no hybrid offering on the market and just killed the concept that might have changed that. Current MPG figures have a broad range but average out at 25 or so, which is exactly what I got in my GTI (past tense :) guess what I bought?) that is almost 9 years old. 25 isn't bad (just as long as it's not under 15) but it could definitely use some improvement - especially these days.

I think it's going to be very interesting to see what comes out of VAG in the near future (that's Volkswagen Auto Group in case you sounded it out and become confused).

<><><><><><><><><>

This one is via Inhabitat:

Created by noted car designer Henrik Fisker, the ultra cool Karma is a sleek, power packed eco-luxury ride. The Karma’s performance specs rev out at 0-60 mph in 6 seconds, and a top speed of 125 mph. At $80,000 USD, The car is a plug-in hybrid based on technology of Quantum Technologies. The Q DRIVE consists of a small gasoline engine which in turn charges the lithium battery packs in the car. According to Fisker, if charged properly, the hybrid would need to use no more than a fuel tank per year, quite a claim!

From the side, this thing is HOT!

The front? I'm not a huge fan...

Pictures are from Inhabitat, FYI.

As I've said before, I LOVE bold moves like this from the alternative fuel sector. I think the attention it grabs, the limits it pushes, and the contrarians it puts to rest are vital to making fuel economy less of a fringe issue and more of a standard.

One more picture... looks way better here (from The Car Lounge):

7 Days of Blog Retribution: UPS Adds 200 Hybrid Trucks

2008-05-16T14:05:00.001-07:00

One of my only regular commenters (in fact, my only one recently) sent me a note the other day...

yo update your blog.. wtf man.. how can i learn anything without you??

It occurred to me that it has been over a week since my last update. Not only that, the other blog has gone just as long without crisp, fresh content. I'd make excuses but that wouldn't do anything to mitigate the lack of JoshIsJosh content so I'll just go ahead and make some content. And I'm going to do it every day for 7 days. And it won't even be just 7 links posted.

Here's to you, Bridget ;)

<><><><><><><><><><>

UPS: lesser of several evils

I spend some of my browsing time on vwvortex.com (not nearly as much as I used to, thankfully) and have noticed a marked increase in well-spoken car nuts who also happen to think what we do to the environment is deplorable. One of these nuts said something very interesting a while ago (I'm paraphrasing):

Want to do something about the environment and the energy crisis? Don't worry about the difference between 30 and 35 MPG on your compact sedan, stop buying things that need to be shipped. You're out-of-season fruit and trendy clothing made in Europe does more damage than you could ever do with your own car.

That quote stuck with me and is one of the reasons I choose local produce when I can (plus it tends to be cheaper). This quote, however, doesn't seem to occur to me when I buy electronics from Newegg or books from Amazon. If it needs electricity, stores data, and/or incorporates wires in any way, it is shipped to my door from Whittier, CA, pretty much no exception.

Like I mentioned in a previous post about career choice and green-ness, caring about the planet and where your next drop of water or electron is coming from is tied into more things than your MPG and how many CFLs your house has in it. Probably the biggest problem we're going to have with this massive social change is getting people to give up important things that don't seem to be contributing greatly to the problem - like imported goods, mail-order, and unsustainable materials.

This is going to lead to an ENORMOUS rant if I don't go ahead and jump straight to the point... which is that some companies (driven probably by monetary concerns) are doing the sustainable thing, lessening the impact that our consumer culture is having on the planet. One of these companies is Brown, aka UPS.

UPS (NYSE: UPS) today announced it has ordered 200 hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) - the largest commercial order of such trucks by any company - in addition to another 300 Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) vehicles for its U.S. delivery fleet.

Awesome, right?

But this goes beyond the drop-in-the-bucket of diesel fuel saved by a few hundred trucks running around the clock. This is MASSIVE and PRICELESS data about how hybrids hold up, what kind of technology can make them better, and how to optimize them for start-stop city driving (of the worst kind). This goes way beyond the typical Prius for the sheer fact that delivery trucks, next to city buses and taxicabs, are probably the most abused vehicles on the planet. On top of that, they're big, they have to be maneuverable (not only turning radius but acceleration), and they shouldn't be breaking down in the middle of a delivery route.

Hybrids are somewhat unproven in the public eye. People are still afraid of the technical complexity, the longevity of the battery, and the amount of computer control that is going on in a hybrid. I think this will go a LONG way towards correcting that bias.

On the subject of UPS and the environment... check out their press section detailing the sustainable work they've done. I'm very impressed!

UPS Expands "Green Fleet" with 306 Alternative Fuel Vehicles

UPS (NYSE:UPS) today announced it was adding 306 alternative fuel vehicles to its "green fleet" by placing an order for 167 Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) delivery trucks while taking delivery of 139 new propane delivery trucks in North America. Additionally, the company has launched an initiative to use biodiesel fuel in its ground support vehicles at the UPS Worldport® air hub in Louisville.

Energy Lab to Evaluate Performance of UPS Hybrid-Electric Vans

New delivery trucks expected to save fuel, reduce harmful emissions. The U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) is collecting and analyzing maintenance, fuel economy and other vehicle performance data from 50 UPS hybrid diesel step delivery vans powered by an Eaton Corp. electric hybrid propulsion system.

EPA Unveils Unique Hydraulic Hybrid Diesel Delivery Truck with UPS, International Truck and Engine, Eaton and U.S. Army

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today unveiled the first-ever series hydraulic hybrid diesel urban delivery vehicle, which will provide dramatic improvements in fuel economy and in emission reductions. The development of the hydraulic hybrid is the result of a partnership between the EPA, U.S. Army, UPS, International Truck and Engine Corporation and Eaton Corporation.

Go Brown!

Obama Voices Biofuel Doubts

2008-05-05T19:35:00.000-07:00

That's the headline over at the Wired Science blog.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that stays up on this topic that biofuels are looking less and less like what we need and more and more like the same problem that we have now just waiting to re-happen. It's the classic push-pull scenario where addressing one problem causes another serious one to appear. Biofuels are a very interesting sector of technology, it's a great lesson in thermodynamics to see machines (mechanical) powered by the same thing that powers other machines (biological), and 60+ MPG is a great thing but you can't mess with a necessity (food supply) to power a non-essential (sorry, but in the grand scheme of things, planes, trains, and automobiles are non-essential).

In an interview on NBC's Meet the Press, the Democratic presidential candidate said "there's no doubt that biofuels may be contributing" to falling food supplies and rising prices.

That's a terrible quote ("no doubt that [it] may be contributing") but a serious implication.

"We've got a serious food problem around the world. We've got rising food prices here in the United States. In other countries we're seeing riots because of the lack of food supplies. So this is something that we're going to have to deal with," said Obama.

Ya rly.

I try to be as careful as I can be with respect to jumping on the media bandwagon with ANYTHING, green or otherwise. I want the reason why we're supposed to be thinking/acting a certain way or the concrete reason to be scared of something. I don't need abject, out-of-proportion fear based on specious evidence (if you're laughing at me because you think global warming falls under that category, please stop reading this blog).

That being said, this food thing is getting a lot of attention. Just a few links for you:

Food riots in Haiti (CNN) ["Food prices, which have risen 40 percent on average globally since mid-2007, are causing unrest around the world."]

Potential rice riots in the Far East? (Times Online) ["Analysts give warning of governments across the region resorting to a “starve-your-neighbour” policy in an effort to becalm rioting domestic populations, and the UN International Fund for Agriculture has previously said that food riots will become commonplace."]

Food Crisis > Climate Change (Guardian)

Strikes, Protest in Egypt (BBC)

A UN task force for the global food crisis (AP)

I've seen a steady increase in stories like this from all over the web but that's only really been in April. I read about the corn shortage starting last year (connected to ethanol production) but that was the only big news. Now it's a generic "food crisis" as opposed to just one particular export (though rice is getting a large portion of the attention).

The point being that if we MIGHT BE (or are) facing a food crisis then we MIGHT (or do) want to look at something OTHER than food to be powering our nation/world. Diesel from used cooking oil is one thing but ethanol from edible, now expensive corn is not a good idea.

Anyways, the cherry on top of this story (the Wired one) is this quote:

Corn growers are especially powerful in Obama's home state of Illinois, and the candidate has long been a biofuel booster -- which makes his comments on Meet the Press all the more welcome.

It's not very often that a politician will just change their mind on something, especially if it is "close to their hearts." The fact that Obama will change is mind is a very good thing, especially about something like this. All too often it seems like families, companies, countries get stuck in an endless loop in certain respects because people are too scared to say "I was wrong and now I think I'm right."

Obama in 2008, baby!

2008-05-02T19:16:00.000-07:00

This is my Google Analytics data for 2/10/08 through today. I pulled it the other day and was very surprised to see such an international following.

I'm posting this, partly because I think it's fascinating how small the world has become but also because this is a very symbolic image (and only coincidental that the color is green). This tells me that people care, people want to know, people want to learn. All over the globe, human beings are re-thinking what they considered to be the truth and reconsidering their ideas of "the good life" and "success" and "happiness." Consciousness is spreading...

Thank you to my subscribers, thank you to my friends, and thank you to anyone who learned something important on my little (very, very little) slice of the web.

<><><><><><><><><>

Just a few quick ones today because I'm dead sick of the keyboard and mouse today.

First, post number two about a possible re-make of the BMW Isetta in EV form. Caught my attention on Ecogeek, they got it from AutoBlogGreen who got it from EDTA who got it from Lexis Nexis. Long line to get it here... thankfully SOMEONE is doing the dirty work.

Ecogeek:

A few bits of information have been leaking out here and there about BMW's plans to create an all-electric, lithium-ion two-seater for the European and American market. It seems to be possible that it will be a re-incarnation of BMW's tiny Isetta...but there are also indications that it will be co-branded with Smart.

Such a neat looking little thing... these are from omolody on Flickr:

Proud to be a green car rumor spreader!

And, again from Ecogeek, a hybrid kit... this is excellent:

A UK company has revealed a retro-fit hybrid conversion kit that has the potential to cut exhaust emissions in existing cars by nearly 40%, and improve fuel economy by 60%. The system, developed by the Motor Industry Research Association (MIRA), features a removable battery pack, arranged into three portable 30kW cassettes, which upgrade existing "conventional" vehicles into hybrids.

According to MIRA, the test model achieves an average of 64mpg (up from 39mpg), while top speed and acceleration remain similar to a standard Fabia.

I'd love to be an importer for this.... hrmmm.

San Diego Earth Day 2008... meh

2008-04-26T23:49:00.000-07:00

Like any good green-type would do, I attended the San Diego Earth Day 2008 event on the 20th of this month (4/20, get it?). It was held in Balboa Park along the museum walk, a beautiful place to have any type of outdoor event. I heard about it from a friend who described it as a popular San Diego event that was not to be missed (not those exact words). The girl and I decided to spend a bit of our minimal free time mingling with the locals and seeing what this whole E-Day thing was about. By the end of it, we were glad to get out of the house but the whole thing was basically a let-down.

We got there right about when it started so, thankfully, we missed the bulk of the crowds (and the parking nightmare). There was a parade gearing up with all sorts of things ranging from cute little kids dressed in random, unrelated costumes to the stilt-walker above (a early-teens girl who appeared to have unnaturally long legs to begin with). We made our way down the promenade and saw booth after booth with everything ranging from organic lotion to investment options to window coverings. I was immediately struck by how unrelated to the earth and the green movement that these booths were. To give you an idea, check out this list of Earth Day exhibitors that were at the Park that day. Just a few generally non-green-related groups were:

AIG AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY
AIG Financial Advisor
Animal Protection & Rescue League
Animals Asia Foundation
Atheist Coalition
B "N" B Kettle Corn
Back Country Land Trust
Baha'i Faith

Listen, I like atheists and kettle corn just as much as the next guy but they really have little to do with Earth Day.

... but I digress...

We made our way down the promenade and ended up in front of the MoMA. We paused for a moment, just long enough to be accosted by the "are you registered to vote" crew. I gave my rote "..mumble, mumble..." and moved on.

EDCO waste management had a neat eye-catcher...

After chatting with a nice woman about some premium acai juice (bottled deceptively but creatively in wine bottles), we decided to make our way toward the west end of the park, hoping to run into the friends we were supposed to be meeting. On the way, a big, colorful sign caught my eye. No surprise that this happened because it was the same old "shock and awe" anti-choice assholes with that tired picture of the mutilated baby's head held with tongs (I tried to find the image but then I realized that I didn't really want to link to their site). Truth be told, this was the second ridiculous display of poor taste we had seen that day in just 30 minutes.

With no booth and no tact but an equal right to be there, a group of anti-choice sign-holders had invaded the Earth Day event. Holding giant images of late-term aborted fetuses in an attempt to sicken everyone into making a social and political choice is a boring, asinine way to make an unnecessary point. I'm really going to fly off-topic here so I'll say this: they were not harming anyone and they were not screaming and shouting but there should have been some kind of exhibitor restriction. If they want to spread their message they need to do so with their own booth, not upstaging the efforts of the people around them who are working towards a different cause. Maybe we could have a "Ban Legal Medical Procedures Day" and they can show up and wave their silly signs at like-minded people.

ANYways...

Right after that, we stumbled upon the San Diego recycling department who had this hilarious recycling bin costume on display (but no one to wear it... Anna said no):

I had a few questions about residential recycling and talked to a very helpful guy who explained the process and how it's going to be mandatory in 2010 for all housing units in San Diego to have recycle bins. What I didn't know is that landlords have to pay to have recycling picked up. I thought the materials that get picked up were finally as valuable as the cost required to pick them up. It shines a light on the reason why we don't have recycling bins (our landlord said that before we moved in, our apartment complex [of 12 units] had "lost the privilege of having recycling bins because people were throwing away the wrong things." hrmmmm). I guess that's yet another bill to look forward to when we have a house.

After that we made our way past a few more anti-choicers and security guards who were trying their damnedest to thwart their plans; the whole scene was ridiculous.

We signed a petition to raise diesel truck efficiency (relating to interstate transport), saw a neat both on green remodeling, and then made our way to the Aircraft/Automobile museum section. I was expecting a really great display of eco-vehicles, both home-made and manufactured. After our experience that day and my disappointing volunteer experience previously (at the Automobile Museum), I'm not sure why I had my hopes so high.

There were things to see, no doubt, but it was maybe 9 or 10 vehicles, most of which did not have their owners/builders nearby. There was nothing from Zap/Zebra (one of which attended the previously mentioned event), no Smart car dealers (there is one in San Diego) and no plug-in hybrid exhibits (like the one at SDSU and the Santa Monica event I went to).

I liked the blue Toyota converted to all-electric...

... and the German-built "Twike" was very interesting...

...and I had to have love for an EV rabbit convertable ("Da Lectric Spidey")...

...but the others were just unremarkable. A "bamboo van" (powered by bamboo somehow, I guess)...

... an electric-converted relic...

... and this:

Phoenix showed up with a little utility truck that was neat:

... but it was really a let-down.

Events like this are a perfect way to get the attention of a big group of people. Not just any people, though, people who might be open to changing their lifestyle a little (or a lot) to make the right choices for our planet. This is a VERY important opportunity, one that shouldn't be taken lightly. The event was set in a great location and the turn-out was really big, even in the morning. But, in the case of sustainable transportation, people were left empty-handed. There is no action to be taken, nothing to do about it, nowhere to go. There were a million and one products to buy but nothing you could do to change your MPG or method of transportation (that's not entirely true... there was an MTS booth as well).

It's hard to say who to blame for this - if that's what needs to be done. Maybe EarthWorks busted their butts trying to get people out there with no response. Maybe they trusted someone else would do it. Maybe they did nothing. Whatever happened, this was a lost opportunity. At the very least I would hope a few green-conscious car dealers in the area would be available to ask questions and hawk their hybrids or sub-compacts. Instead, there were a few tinkerers and their projects drowning in a sea of exhibitors that may or may not have anything to do with saving the environments.

All I know is that I came there for the green cars and left with a few fliers, a sample of Sun Chips, and a nice tan.

Oh, and a picture of a Rolls Royce parked on Park Ave with a bottle of Grey Poupon in the console. Bravo!

Do this please

2008-04-25T12:57:00.001-07:00

After you're done reading the very informative interview below, please take the time to fill this little guy out.

This IS the scientific community (episode 2)

2008-04-25T11:49:00.000-07:00

Hey, look! I talked another professor into doing work for me! I guess it's only appropriate since I'm doing work for him, right?

Dr. Laurance G. Beauvais, Assistant Professor of Inorganic, Bioinorganic, and Materials Chemistry

Dr. Beauvais is my research adviser at San Diego State and I've been in his group for almost a year and a half. The research is concentrated on creating crystalline solids that will, hopefully, assist in gas storage (particularly hydrogen).

The (virtual) interview:

What is your honest opinion regarding the state of our environment and the existence of global warming? Do you believe that this is a serious issue to address or a misinterpretation of data?

Wow, that is a very broad question. Regarding the state of our environment, I would say that we (meaning the United States) have made great strides in some areas but we have a long way to go. For example, recycling programs are ubiquitous and we do a good job on metals and paper, but too many plastics are not being recycled. Combine the poor recycling of plastics with the use of plastics in packaging, and that generates a large amount of waste. We need to either re-use more plastics, most of which are produced from fossil fuels, or move to renewable plastics made other sources. I think that we have done a good job reducing sulfur and nitrogen oxides but we have not done enough to reduce mercury emissions.

Regarding the existence of global warming, I would have to say that all of the reports I have seen from credible scientists and scientific organizations has supported global warming. I am not a climatologist, so I am not ready to argue the minute details of global warming. However, I can do a quick calculation of the amount of CO2 released from gas combustion in this country per year and the number is staggering. The US consumes 400 million gallons of gas per day which results in the release of 884 gigagrams of CO2. Consider that CO2 cannot be removed from the atmosphere rapidly and that the carbon obtained from petroleum sources has been sequestered underground for millions of years. Thus, we will increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by burning oil. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Add these facts up, and global warming does not seem so far-fetched. Therefore, I consider global warming a serious issue.

What is the most important thing that the average earth inhabitant can do to improve or avoid any current or future environmental impacts? Is there anything you do personally?

Are you considering wild animals, pets, and other living organisms as inhabitants or only humans? For now, let’s focus on humans.

Of course, there are many things that people can do to reduce their environmental footprint. I recycle as much as possible, I purchase locally produced items/foods whenever possible, I have a 10 minute commute, I carpool, etc. Consider the 400 million gallons of gasoline that are used everyday in the US. A good portion of that must be devoted to transporting manufactured goods, food, commodities, etc, and a good portion is probably transported by trucks. The more efficient means of moving goods is by rail, but the rail system in this county has deteriorated. If people purchased locally sourced items, we could reduce fuel consumption while at the same time improving local economies. Why do people want to live an hour away from work? Sure, I understand the desire for more space and bigger homes, but do you really enjoy sitting in traffic and paying $20 a day for gas? In most of the county, we do not even offer commuter trains that parallel major highways.

I would love to install photovoltaic cells on my house, but the prices are too high and the efficiency too low. I believe that we should see improvements on both of those factors in the next few years as alternatives to silicon-based systems are commercialized. If a large portion of the country generated their own power, it would go a long way to reducing one of our major sources of various emissions and fuel consumption–power generation.

How important is a move toward sustainable transportation, in your opinion? Do you think it is worth the effort that it will take? Is it a waste of time or an absolute necessity?

It would be great to retrofit our sprawling cities with mass transit systems. However, I do not think that works. You really need to have the transit in place at the same time you are developing a city. As an alternative, I think it worth the effort to produce cars that are as fuel efficient as possible and to target cleaner fuels such as hydrogen. Ignoring the environmental issues, we need to find an alternative transportation fuel to replace gasoline for reasons of national security. Our dependence on gasoline means the continued support of repressive totalitarian societies, such as Saudi Arabia. In addition, as people in China and India seek a lifestyle similar to that of the developed world, the demand for oil can only increase.

In terms of research, where do you think the most money and time should be spent? Are there any important global problems that you believe should be addressed immediately?

We need to determine how we want to address the future energy needs of our country and the world. We can estimate how much energy we will need, and we need to have a plan for supplying that energy. We will have to revisit nuclear energy because it has zero emissions, as long as we have the correct regulations and a permanent waste storage facility, but there is a limited supply of uranium. Ultimately, we need to improve photovoltaic cells so that we can generate power at the point of use and reduce the need for large power plants. We need to couple the power generation from solar cells to a power storage mechanism because solar power is limited to specific times and places. For example, use solar energy to pump water uphill during the day and recover the power at night by using hydroelectric generators. Or, use solar power to split water to generate hydrogen and then use internal combustion or fuel cells to generate electricity.

If you had the power to do so, regardless of your opinion on the state of the environment or petroleum, what technology would you pick to power our society? Why?

Solar power. It’s clean and renewable. Power can be generated where it is needed or converted to a storage medium. But, we need to develop solar cells with better efficiencies and costs. It would be nice to not need silicon because of the energy required to generate pure material. The solar cells will need to be flexible and easy to integrate into building materials.

If you could do one thing to improve the state of transportation in America, what would you do?

Get rid of the upper speed limit on highways and apply a well-enforced minimum speed limit.

Or, increase the average fuel efficiency by 10 mpg.

Do you think that public transportation development is important for major cities? What do you think about the system in San Diego?

Public transportation is important but I think it is nearly futile to build systems in cities like San Diego, LA, Houston, etc. The cities are spread out, land is expensive, and the resulting transit systems take too long for most uses.

Thank you for your time, Dr. Beauvais!

Update on VW diesel hybrid

2008-04-23T15:34:00.001-07:00

An unfortunate update to a previous post. Autoblog says:

The word came down yesterday from Auto Motor und Sport that the Volkswagen TDI hybrid Golf concept that debuted in Geneva wouldn't make the transition to production. According to the print edition of the German rag (translation courtesy of TTAC), the "forward-looking diesel-hybrid is already a thing of the past." That came as a surprise considering how well the concept was received and rumblings we heard from VW's people on the floor that the 69-mpg (European cycle) Golf was destined for the road. We shot off an email to a Volkswagen exec here in the States who responded by saying that, "It was just a concept. No plans to produce were announced." Too bad. Guess we'll have to make due with the gasoline-hybrid Golf that's due out in the next few years.

Boo!

That is all.

Social Action Through Career Choice

2008-04-22T10:35:00.000-07:00

My last post on Friday (Introduction to Link Love posts with examples) had an article on MSNBC/Careerbuilder about "green collar jobs". I would like to, again, reiterate the fact that I am rue to link to anything on Careerbuilder but you're not likely to be inundated with spam by simply clicking on the link (like you will by signing up for their loosely titled "service") so I'll make an exception.

First off, it's important to point out that this article is about as far from me, with respect to intent, as it could possibly be. The point of this article is to point out that there's this great new sector that's likely to grow based on sound-bites from our presidential candidates. The article says nothing about personal responsibility, purpose in life, or altruism through self-sacrifice. Careerbuilder is certainly not going to help you find meaning in your work by guiding you in a direction to make a difference in any way. But I digress; this post is not meant to inaugurate "Bash CB Day."

The article talks, first, about the possibility of new jobs appearing based on forward-looking statements by Obama, Clinton, and McCain. I'll just quote the one that makes any difference whatsoever:

Democratic Sen. Barack Obama -- "We've also got to do more to create the green jobs that are jobs of the future. My energy plan will put $150 billion over 10 years into establishing a green energy sector that will create up to 5 million new jobs over the next two decades."

Brilliant! Hopefully it's clear to you why I'm excited about that but why should you care?

I have seen an interesting phenomenon with my own eyes time and time again and have even participated in it myself. People find it quite easy to remove the responsibility of their own participation in an industry or company by simply explaining to themselves (and others) that "it pays the bills." What can you do? You're working for the man, they pay your rent, it's not really your responsibility to ensure that your job is environmentally responsible or kind to humans and animals or even legal. Does this sound familiar? Is this logic rational? Do you even think about what you actually do at work and what you're contributing to?

Just so we're clear, if I'm pointing any fingers, there are certainly a few pointing back at me. At my last job, animal testing was done on-site. I found myself in a very uncomfortable moral and financial situation, one shared by a colleague. It all came to head (sorta) when a company memo was circulated that advised employees to be aware that animal rights activists might show up on-site. I asked myself if I could casually walk past a group of like-minded people picketing my building and report to my job. I knew the answer was no and I'm no longer employed there (for other, more pragmatic reasons as well).

Your contribution(s) to the job you hold play(s) a part in the success of whatever entity to which you belong. Your good job, good ideas, and hard work will, generally, have a positive effect on the structure above and below you. If this innovation, perspiration, and motivation is sold to a corporation/company/person who strives for environmental sustainability, community improvement, and/or financial equality than you also own a piece of those good deeds. If, on the other hand, your great work belongs to a company that exploits both people and nature, you, in turn, own a piece of that victimization. It's only fair that it works both ways.

As usual, there is an obstacle to making a career choice like this. There always will be ethical ambiguity in all the choices we make and actions we take. Maybe you decide to take a job with Ford Motor assembling Hybrid Escape SUVs. Every bolt you put in, every battery you connect, and every gauge you install moves this vehicle closer and closer to helping someone fulfill their desire to use less gasoline. On the flip side, every Hybrid Escape sold puts money in the pocket of a company named as one of our country's biggest polluter. What's a conscious citizen to do?

Adding "the fate of the known world" into your considerations for a career is a pretty heavy burden to absorb; you're not going to reverse global warming because you chose a company with fleet cars that had better MPG. You're also not going to feel very socially conscious if after talking up your new Prius purchase you have to admit the monthly payments come from Chevron's pockets.

My overall point is this:
Every choice you make has a potential social, cultural, and environmental impact. The first step is being truly aware of this, the next is actually doing something about it.

From the article, here are a few green career options that have my stamp of approval:

- Furniture making (there are some amazing examples of sustainable furniture designers out there)
- HVAC (if you pick your company wisely)
- Green landscaping (something I'm planning on really getting into when I buy a house [soon] and something that I imagine to be very fulfilling and relaxing)
- Green building (again, you have to be company conscious
- Part-time Chemistry student, part-time marketing coordinator, part-time freelance Technology Coach (not sure I would recommend this route).

Link Love

2008-04-18T11:24:00.000-07:00

Link Love is when a blogger can't/won't come up with original content. At the expense of losing momentum he or she might have, they post links to other blogs and sites of note to make it appear as though they're so busy researching the next post that they can hardly be bothered with the current one.

This technique might, on the surface, appear to be creeping laziness but, upon closer examination, the value is clear.

You, the reader, can't be bothered with following all the other great blogs out there about your topic of interest. We, the bloggers, understand the position you are in and make it our responsibility to go out there and get that info. We're on so many different sites throughout the week that it's hard to cut everything away and post the really interesting stuff (or at least the stuff we have something to say about). Sometimes, there's just too much stuff that we want you to know about and we have to take some time to recover from the information overload.

Let me give you an example (to illustrate my point, nothing more). A good Link Love post from joshisjosh,com might look like this:

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Hey everyone!

Lots of stuff to get to so let's jump right in!

An article on MSNBC/Careerbuilder about "green collar jobs" was just posted today. I'll ignore the fact that Careerbuilder is the WORST place to go to find a job in ANY SECTOR and just say that the article is interesting. I'll write more about it on Monday... stay tuned.

Carectomy.com is looking to remove your car from you. They have a few ways of going about it:

8 reasons to start cycling
What is pilgrimage circa 2008?
A promising trend

Thinking about a new car? I am and, fortuitously enough, Ecogeek is trying to convince me to wait until 2010. By then, I might be able to avoid financing (I know, buying a new car in cash is blasphemy in this country)!

Speaking of great new cars, this little Fiat posted at Autobloggreen.com is AWESOME! 56 MPG diesel and a stunner in the looks department:

And, no link love for my blog would be complete without a few from Inhabitat, one of my favorite feeds out there. I'm considering moving up to San Fran just to write for them (just kidding, Anna):

Biofuel from algae
Strange-looking but neat little cube from Toyota, the Hi-CT
Just in case you thought that transportation HAD to be inefficient as a rule

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

And that, my friends, is what a Link Love post looks like. This example was short because I didn't want you to think I was ACTUALLY posting a Link Love. Stay tuned for more in-depth analysis of this trend and others like it.

;)

Transportation ZENN

2008-04-14T17:38:00.000-07:00

What does Zen mean to you?

I recently took a (somewhat challenging [surprisingly]) course in Chinese Philosophy recently and was introduced to the true and original idea of Zen. Not to imply that I'm somehow better suited to write about this than someone else; you could get the same information from wikipedia.

But I digress.

Zen is short for Zen Buddhism (or Chan Buddhism), a collection of principles of thinking devoted to letting go of all pre-conceived notions and, basically, going with the flow. By accepting Zen into your life you move past emotions and hang-ups and stress and worry in order to find a universal flow. It's a beautiful way of thinking but one I find myself very far from when I am cruising down a 6-lane freeway in SoCal. There is not a lot of Zen to be found on I-5, trust me.

One company, however, is looking to change that idea. Enter ZENNcars.

Here's a pic of one I saw at the Santa Monica Alt Fuel Expo:

ZENN stands for Zero Emissions No Noise and is poised to be the first mass-produced, usable, and widely-available electric car manufacturer to come to the states. Their brand credo:

Since we first began to walk, we have loved the feeling of movement.
To get around and see the world.
To be free.
Cars have given us mobility.
But with the heavy costs of pollution and oil dependency.
ZENN is about returning to the purity of that original feeling.
ZENN may look like a car, but it refuses to act like one.
You'll experience the simple joy of moving freely.
With silent, exhilarating acceleration
ZENN will quietly change the way you think about getting from A to B.
The air is clean and your conscience is clear.
ZENN is a car that, while it runs on electricity, is fueled by optimism,
The belief that individuals can make a difference,
That we can do better.
ZENN is enlightened mobility

That's... that's beautiful. Can you give me a minute?

OK, I'm good.. something in my eye... eyelash or something *sniff* I'm cool.

If anything, they have excellent copywriters, that must be said. The proof, however, is always in the numbers, particularly with cars. So what's the low-down?

I guess I should note thte vehicle I'm talking about. If you're messing about on the ZENNcar website, you're probably seeing the regular ZENN car with a 25MPH speed limit and a 35 miles range. While that's fine and dandy, the car I'm referring to is their upcoming subcompact, the cityZENN. Red Ferret has the skinny:

What’s even more interesting are reports that the company plans on releasing a ‘proper’ highway legal electric vehicle next year called the cityZenn, based around EEstor technology. We’re talking 80 mph and 250 mile range, rechargeable in less than 5 minutes. Yeah yeah, I know, believe it when we see it, but hey, these guys seem kosher and have actually invested substantial money in the EEstore company. We’ll see, eh?

That sounds like the EV silver bullet we've all been waiting for, IMHO. It certainly begs an important question: why does it take an hour or more to charge my cell phone but these guys are claiming a 5-minute recharge? Capacitors, son!

From Cleantech:

"We need to move away from chemical battery technology to a whole new way of storing energy for electric vehicles, with a solid infrastructure to support global roll out," said Ian Clifford, CEO of Zenn, at the company's annual general meeting.
"Through their massive improvements on energy storage and power density, EEStor will virtually eliminate all of the shortcomings of existing and proposed chemical battery technology."

Don't worry, I'll do a Green WotD about it soon.

Before I realized that the car promoted on the ZENN site was not the same as the one that is coming out next year, I built one. MSRP is $19,445, specs area here.

I'm all about the EV. I wasn't always but I am now. Electricity is something that humans are always going to need and in increasing amounts (assuming that the population increases or stays the same). The global energy crisis we're facing/seeing/fearing/blogging about includes, for the time being, two different components: transportation and everything else. The more we understand these two things to be the same, the better we understand the problem as a whole. Our energy problem is a global problem despite borders and wars and obfuscation through vocabulary. Energy is energy and however we get it now or in the future, we're going to need a lot of it. The most renewable options - widal, wind, solar, biomass - are all means for generating electricity and that electricity, in whatever form, will need to go towards powering our vehicles.

That is all.

Green Vocab WotD #004: LEED Certification

2008-04-11T15:52:00.000-07:00

This post is part of an on-going series. The first three can be found by searching "WotD" in the search bar above.

It's been a little while but I'm back with a new one...

LEED

First, a pinch of insider knowledge.

When I first saw this term I thought "that looks far to easy to actually pronounce the word, I will, instead, say each letter to appear as though I'm in the know." That worked great until I met an architect who just said "leed." So, it's pronounced "LEED," not "el, ee, ee, dee."

LEED stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design and is a designation given to buildings that are built and function according to certain standards. This badge of honor is basically a rating system for how "green" a certain commercial structure is.

Wikipedia weighs in here:

[The] (LEED) Green Building Rating System, developed by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), provides a suite of standards for environmentally sustainable construction. Since its inception in 1998, LEED has grown to encompass over 14,000 projects in 50 US States and 30 countries covering 1.062 billion square feet of development area. The hallmark of LEED is that it is an open and transparent process where the technical criteria proposed by the LEED committees are publicly reviewed for approval by the more than 10,000 membership organizations that currently constitute the USGBC.

Having a LEED certification doesn't just mean you recycle water and use some natural light, it means that sustainability was a critical piece of the design process. It means that you either set out to achieve the designation or re-designed at some point in the process to incorporate important changes.

There are four different ratings a structure can achieve. Each rating corresponds to a point total and the points are earned a number of different ways. You receive points for air quality controls, water reuse, energy efficiency, and pollution reduction. The rating levels are as follows:

LEED Certified: 26 - 32 points

LEED Silver: 33 - 38 points

LEED Gold: 39 - 51 points

LEED Platinum: 52 - 69 points

Points are assigned through an elaborate sporting event involving misshapen plaster-of-Paris "balls" and unflattering kevlar padding.

Only joking.

The points are awarded by the LEED committee in many different categories. The categories are as follows (from here, PDF file FYI):

Sustainable Sites
Water Efficiency
Energy & Atmosphere
Materials & Resources
Indoor Environmental Quality
Innovation & Design Process

Each category has from 5 to almost twenty subcategories. It's very interesting seeing how a building can qualify for this mostly because it highlights a bunch of stuff people have simply ignored for a long time (or the technology was not available until now). Most interesting one? Light Pollution Reduction.

So, that's LEED in a nutshell.

Because buildings are enormous contributors to pollution and global warming, this kind of certification is an excellent how to promote sustainable construction. Not only does it attract attention to the problem but it evokes human competition which GETS STUFF DONE. Why go for Gold certification when there's a Platinum just within reach?

The LEED badging system sets an official standard of rating green buildings and contributes towards a new standard of construction. Not only that, it is, as a side-effect, inspiring some beautiful construction projects...

First ever Platinum Certified house by LivingHomes.

The Genzyme Center in Boston

The Grand Rapids Art Museum (GRAM) (pic from Inhabitat)

High Line 23 in New York

Unscrew America

2008-04-07T13:51:00.001-07:00

This site is CRAZY but you gotta love the message:

http://unscrewamerica.org/

Unscrew America, get it?

I'd talk about it but you can't really explain it. It's like a fun park but less predictable and, at times, a bit scarier. Very well thought, though, and, as I said before, the message is great.

The Great Green Giveaway

2008-04-07T12:29:00.000-07:00

I found this on EcoGeek and thought it might be fun to spread the message!

It's the Great Green Giveaway!

Brought to you by Life Goggles:

According to themselves:

Our “green” blog is about the environment; green reviews, news and interviews - but also music, internet, technology, videos, TV, movies, entertainment and much more. We find things that you’ll find interesting, useful and, maybe sometimes, amazing

Basically, they're giving away almost 4 grand of green-related products. It includes clothing, books, chargers, spa goods, health care and all kinds of things.

The actual contest information (including some of the prizes that can be won) is here. How to enter and other information is here.

FYI, a nice little list of ways to green your life is here.

Good luck!

Zap!ped out

2008-04-04T12:34:00.000-07:00

A while ago, I actually wanted to write a post about this seemingly up-and-coming electric car maker. I saw one of their imported vehicles at the Santa Monica Alternative Fuel Expo back in October:

I also got to sit in one at the Street Smart event I volunteered for in May of last year (which I never had a chance to blog about).

When I first saw it at the Street Smart event, I was wholly unimpressed. That's not fair, actually: I was very excited to see an all-electric vehicle in the flesh but it looked cheaper than an old Beetle. It was very light, had very little structural support that could be seen, and an interior that defined "spartan." It was ugly, cheap-looking, and was missing a wheel (intentionally). Regardless, it was neat to see.

Some clarification is needed here. The car posted above is actually made by a company called Xebra. They make all-electric vehicles in China and Zap! is the company that brings them over here. People pay money to become distributors and, theoretically, are authorized to sell the green vehicles imported through Zap!'s relationships with various companies here and overseas.

Zap! has enjoyed quite a bit of press over the years because it seemed like they were one of the few companies that was actually doing something and importing these vehicles. I mean, just breeze through a few of these stories... they sound like they're really moving!

From AutoBlog Green:

Hybrid Plug-In system
Possible Smart Car importer
Saving an electric car manufacturer

Sounds great but, apparently, this company is all about the hype and nothing more.

I read a fantastic article on Wired detailing their stock manipulations, press release whirlwind, and their broken promises. The article is here and well worth the long read. Quick snippet:

He was hardly alone. Over the years, Zap! has taken millions from investors and dealers eager to see the company's line of green cars hit the road. But that line has never materialized. Of nearly a dozen groundbreaking eco-vehicles Zap! has promised in public announcements and on its Web site, only the Xebra and its sibling, a truck version, have ever made it to market. As a result, fans of electric cars have grown disillusioned, while individuals like Youssef have been financially devastated. What's more, investment firms around the country have become cautious about financing electric vehicles after being repeatedly misled by one of the industry's most visible companies.

I have two reactions to this:

First, I think it's horrible when people use altruistic vehicles to take advantage of others. Mis-appropriating charity money, stealing from a church, suckering people over the phone or via email using a fake cause... I think it's about as bad as karma comes. It's about the same as using a fake death to get out of something: it's just terrible.

Second, it feels like a punch in the stomach when I read about people spending all their savings on a scam. I'll be the first to laugh a bit when someone gets caught up in the email "We need your information to release to you the 1.24Million USD dollars that is in your name" scam but it still makes me sad because you KNOW that was their nest egg or college savings or something similarly depressing.

But, third, I take it as a great sign that scammers exist in this industry. Here's what I mean...

Let's say I'm looking for a payday, however I can, using whatever means available to me. I'm going to look for the place with the most money that is the most easily accessible. The "green industry" is, nowadays, the perfect spot to take in suckers. You have a community of people who are generally kind and committed to making a difference. They're used to fighting uphill, sacrificing, and, at times, spending more for what is important to them. Plus, there is a fairly recent influx of investment capital and massive public attention which means free publicity.

This whole Zap! thing is terrible and I wish the worst anyone who would run their company the way this one has been. At the same time, I'm smiling slightly to think that this green thing finally "getting there."

Because, hey, you're no one unless you have a few copycats, thieves, and n'er-do-wells hanging around, right?

Statement?

2008-03-31T20:18:00.000-07:00

I really wanted to take some time to delve into the chart I posted on Friday but I've had too much fun taking time off so you get something with less words but more impact. Who is that above me?

And, just to make sure the message is clear, here is me and Grandpa with similar sentiments:

Proud of my genes for sure.

The message is clear: time to go GWB. He was a "terrible Governor" and has been an atrocious president. It's time to take accountability for what we've done and make amends to the world.

<><><>

On another note, I found this very interesting at the flagship Whole Foods store in Austin, TX:

This is a "green wall" or "living wall." It's basically an easy way to add greenery to an indoor structure. This takes up no floor space but is still offsetting a bit of indoor CO2.

It was interesting being in the most premium, most organic supermarket in the nation (I can only assume). The store was beautiful: amazing displays, perfect lighting, exceptional design. I was enthralled by all the food and even more taken in by the ambiance and environment surrounding my upcoming meal. I had to wonder whether the whole thing was sustainable. The prices were high, that was a given. But does all of this work have to go into sustainable living? Does your dessert section need 4,000 square feet? In my opinion, if the space does not contribute to the problem then it's fine, even/especially if it costs more. But is it green-washing? Are you really getting the best of the best? Is your guilt absolved if you shop at Whole Foods?

It begs scrutiny... especially now.

2008-03-26T16:19:00.000-07:00

I wish I had more time to write a bit but I'll have to leave you with just the information. Commentary to come on Monday.

<><><>

This one comes from my dad via BusinessWeek. This is the most important collection of data I've seen in a long time. Understand this chart!

To cut greenhouse gases as cheaply as possible, start with the measures on the left that pay for themselves, then take the more expensive steps on the right. McKinsey says that doing all the things below, including those unlabeled, would cut 3 billion metric tons of emissions per year in 2030 vs. what they would be at current growth rates. That would put emissions below current levels. The width of each bar is the volume of emissions reduction, and the height is the cost in today’s dollars.

<><><>

As much as biodiesel intrigues me, this is no thermodynamic surprise by any means. EcoGeek scoops an EV World report that shows solar power to be 1000 time more efficient that soy biodiesel. This is in terms of acreage of land, BTW. From EcoGeek:

At the bottom end of the scale is soybean biodiesel, which can provide only 2,400 miles per acre per year. Corn ethanol is more than six times as efficient, yielding 18,000 miles per acre per year. But because of the relatively slow rate of production from plant-based fuels, these options far fall below the productivity of directly produced energy.

The same acre can produce 10 times as much energy from wind as it can from corn ethanol, 180,000 miles per acre per year. But both corn ethanol and wind power pale in comparison with solar photovoltaic, which can produce more than 2 million miles worth of transport per acre per year.

Nail in the coffin for biofuels? Not really... we still have a long transition period before we're switched over to the next long generation of transportation. This information, however, is important to truly understand if you're a big green advocate. Just because something is an alternative to petroleum does NOT make it tacitly better.

Great chart, also from EcoGeek:

Best MPG figure to date

2008-03-24T21:09:00.000-07:00

25.9 MPG from the fill-up today. Exciting I know. The reason I'm sharing this is that I also filled my tires up this time as well so we'll see how big of a difference that makes in real-life driving.

Quick ones

2008-03-24T21:00:00.000-07:00

Lots of "good" stuff to post! Here we go...

. . .

This about sums it up... from Mike Elgan at Computerworld:

Just when you thought technology was making "snail mail" obsolete, the U.S. Postal Service announces a vital new service that lets you recycle cell phones, iPods and other electronics -- as well as printer inkjet cartridges -- via mail. For free!

Everything goes to one company, Clover Technologies Group, and they take care of recycling. I see this as getting much bigger over time. I think both about how much usable material goes to waste as well as how annoying it is to recycle electronics. Bravo Clover! Stay green now; don't go dumping that left-over ink in the oceans or I'm going to be PISSED for posting this.

. . .

If you're green, then you already know this. From thedailygreen:

A report issued by the tri-national Commission for Environmental Cooperation ... concluded that green building could slash greenhouse gas emissions in North America more quickly and cheaply than other means.

Good information but vague. It goes on to say:

About 35% of the continent's greenhouse gases come from the built environment, making that the largest contributor...about 4% of current North American building can be considered green.

Original link here. More info:

Among its recommendations, the report calls upon North American government, industry and nongovernmental leaders to:

- Create national, multi-stakeholder task forces charged with achieving a vision for green building in North America;
- Support the creation of a North American set of principles and planning tools for green building;
- Set clear targets to achieve the most rapid possible adoption of green building in North America, including aggressive targets for carbon-neutral or net zero-energy buildings, together with performance monitoring to track progress towards these targets;
- Enhance ongoing or new support for green building, including efforts to promote private sector investment and proper valuation methods; and
- Increase knowledge of green building through research and development, capacity building, and the use of labels and disclosures on green building performance.

Want to know more about green buildings? Check over at Inhabitat, they have a recurring feature and show off some beautiful structures.

. . .

This is really mind-blowing... some very powerful photos documenting environmental impact from the Guardian.

Wicked scary.

. . .

Ending on a light note, a very cool gallery of electric automobiles that are out there. The first one, pictured below, is my ultimate dream car, a Shelby Cobra, in electric form. From wired.

. . .

If you haven't already, make sure to check out joshcanhelp.com and see what's going on over there!

How do you like...

2008-03-21T18:10:00.000-07:00

... the new look? Not drastically different but enough, IMHO.

Comments, please!

The Air Car

2008-03-21T16:17:00.000-07:00

Some people might file this in the "Well, Now I've Seen Everything" file but I hope that, by the end of this post, you'll realize the folly in doing so.

First, what the heck am I talking about? I'll let the slightly misleadingly titled manufacturer of this vehicle explain:

If you can, imagine a vehicle that runs on air, achieves over 100 gas-equivalent mpg and over 90 mph, has zero to low C02 emissions, seats six, has plenty of space for luggage, cuts no safety corners, and costs no more than an average economy to mid-size vehicle. This is the expected performance of the revolutionary compressed air vehicle that Zero Pollution Motors (ZPM) is introducing to North America. The vehicle is powered by the Compressed Air Engine (CAE) developed by Motor Development International (MDI), a 15-year old company based in Nice, France, and headed by inventor and Formula One race car engineer, Guy Negre. ZPM is the exclusive representative for MDI in the United States.

Plainly put, that's precisely what we need around these parts. It addresses safety, performance, space, and cost. Looks are relative but I like it:

...especially the truck version:

I am obliged to point out the fact that, while it is great to have a car that does not pollute the air with it's actual motion, movement is not free. Energy to propel things comes from somewhere so whether it is combusting high-energy petroleum-based fuel in a confined space or it's using stored electrons to affect electro-magnetic fields, the energy comes from somewhere. In this case, that somewhere is simply an air compressor at your house/gas station that has to be powered somehow.

That being said, this little car, in a VERY creative way, addresses a lot of the problems we face with personal transportation. First, since compressed air is easy to come by and can be created a number of different ways, it is a fantastic decentralized solution. Anywhere that power can be found, an air compressor can exist. It's not directly addressing our global issue with energy but it is definitely an "open-source," "socialistic" solution (meaning that the power to power these cars is not concentrated geographically or politically).

Second, these little cars will stay nice and clean. The engine bay won't get gunked up, no batteries to leak, just air in, air out.

Third, compressed air is certainly less dangerous than compressed hydrogen or non-compressed gasoline, diesel, or ethanol.

Fourth, it's just innovative! What a great idea it is to power cars this way. I mean, what a great excuse for uber-handy men and women to score an air compressor. Let me tell you, between power-washing the car (using less water in the process), popping bolts off my wheels, and power-dusting the storage unit, I could definitely use a little air power in my life. I'm not kidding, I'd love an excuse to have an air compressor and any mechanically inclined human being should feel the same way.

Inhabitat weighs in on this one:

Reservations for the Air Car will begin early this year, and we are sure that interest in the vehicle will run quite high. While there will be different models around, the company is really focusing its efforts on bringing a six-seat modified version of the CityCAT. This new CityCAT version will not only come with more space, but will also come with a more radical version of the MDI engine, that, according to ZPM, will achieve a top speed of up to 96 miles per hour and a stunning 1000 miles travel distance.

EcoGeek does as well:

MDI has developed a way for the car to get a range of over 800 miles! A small petrol engine heats the air, providing the extra energy necessary to get the car up to 95 MPH and more than triples the vehicle's range. So, indeed, you will have to fill up both a gasoline tank and an air tank to get the car to work.

Thumbs up from me! So many options to consider when I get around to buying a new car...

JoshisJosh "news"

2008-03-17T11:28:00.000-07:00

I put news in quotes up there to make sure you don't think that somehow my life is all that newsworthy (yet). Here is what is going on in my life and how it all fits together.

-> I'm getting back into the swing on this blog, I'm happy to say. My goal is two posting days per week, Monday and Friday. I'm going for consistency more than anything so if I have to save an article for a couple days, I will. Keeping commenting and keep spreading the word... hopefully these posts help motivate you like they do to me. Also, look forward to a light remodel to this blog... the look is really tiresome to me and I'm itching to show off my minimal HTML skillz.

-> I've been putting in a lot of time building a website for a close friend/family member and, thankfully, I've finally gotten it to a point that we're now just working on content. Please check it out if you have a chance and comment here with what you think (positive or negative... if you don't know me personally, I want your feedback even more).

-> In a similar vein, I've been moving forward with JoshCanHelp.com in terms of breadth and depth. I wrote an article, started my new blog at joshcanhelp.com/blog, and added myself to Kudzu, yellowpages, and Yahoo businesses (I would add Google but they want my address and it would be my home address so I'm not sure how I feel about that). Look forward to some new additions to the website, another article, and some new projects.

-> I'm getting into this Twitter thing: twitter.com/joshcanhelp. It's called "micro-blogging." It first look, it seems like something your teenage daughter might latch on to and, in a way, that's probably true. But the point is just a quick place to update your life and check how others are doing. It works the best when you're on-line for long periods of time (like me) and can update throughout the day. You can update from your phone (meh), by logging in on your site (meh), or by simply adding twitter@twitter.com to you Gtalk or Gchat and sending an IM (bingo). If this sounds at all interesting, add me and start updating! Or just watch my unbelievably exciting life unfold before you! I do intend to use this more and more... possibly as an update tool for a JoshCanHelp.com project group (stay tuned).

Feedback? Ideas? Comments? Questions? Add them here or try me at:

Frightening to say the least.

2008-03-17T10:50:00.000-07:00

This article from The Guardian, a long-standing, independent news source in the UK, caught my eye today. Summary (in their words):

Global warming is doubling the rate of sea level rise around the world, but attempts to stop it by cutting back on greenhouse gas emissions are likely to be futile, leading researchers will warn today...The oceans will rise nearly half a metre by the end of the century, forcing coastlines back by hundreds of metres, the researchers claim...The analysis showed that during the past 5,000 years, sea levels rose at a rate of around 1mm each year, caused largely by the residual melting of icesheets from the previous ice age. But in the past 150 years, data from tide gauges and satellites show sea levels are rising at 2mm a year.

More damning evidence comes from another study cited in the article:

In two further studies, also published in Science, a team of German researchers put figures on the extent to which the climate is warming compared with any time during the past 650,000 years. They report that levels of the most ubiquitous greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, are rising 200 times faster than could be caused by any natural process. Carbon dioxide levels are now 380 parts per million, some 27% higher and methane levels 130% higher than at any time over the period they analysed.

For me, that's worrisome.

The article goes beyond simply presenting the data and says there is really not a damn thing we can do about it. The sea level will rise, beach-front property will become submerged and the hippies that live a few blocks back will become millionaires. That, literally, could happen.

So why, of all people, do I sound so nonchalant about this disturbing news? First off, it is not surprising to me, it simply reinforces what I know to be, more or less, true. These are appearing in scientific journals, sources of information that are not biased in any direction (or, I should say, they are the least biased sources available). But, I can tell, I'm going to go off on a tangent and lose my original point.

Why isn't this scary? Because no one else gives a rat's ass so why should I? Let me explain..

In keeping up with this blog, I have taught myself a very important lesson about people: nothing gets done until it has to, for one reason or another. On the small scale, people stay in marriages that don't work for decades before finally giving up and wishing they had done so long ago. People waste away in jobs, letting their talent stagnate and atrophy until they feel like there is nothing else around them. Some people ignore growths, symptoms, and poor health until they collapse or reach a critical mass (no pun intended) and end up in the hospital.

On a larger scale, our industries pollute water sources and nature repeatedly until a sharp increase in some kind of mal effect appears and then they move on to a different spot. We're letting our economic situation get worse and worse and worse until... who knows what will swing it back around (*cough* Obama *cough*)? And we will continue down this path until 10K/100K/1mil/10mil/100mil people die or are displaced before massive action begins.

We're seeing the beginnings of very important changes (political leaders citing the environment as an issue [finally], people changing their buying behavior, a fantastic new green culture and community) but we're not going to see any preemptive changes that make a big difference. We will see a scrambling after something major happens and can be undeniably tied to human behavior. I'll be honest; I'm a little scared to think about what has to/might/will happen before this change occurs. I'm not an alarmist and I'm not an extremist but I think the direction we are going is ridiculous and irresponsible and I think that a huge population of people will pay the price - if that hasn't happened already.

VW TDI hybrid

2008-03-14T08:45:00.000-07:00

Volkswagen for the win... from AutoBlogGreen:

The Golf TDI hybrid pairs a 74 hp/132 lb-ft 1.2L 3-cylinder diesel with a 26.6 hp/103 lb-ft electric motor. At low speeds, the car will run in EV-only mode, with the TDI joining in if/when necessary. The tandem should be good for for 69 US mpg...

That's quite a figure!

And she's a looker too.

Where this Golf concept veers from the norm somewhat is in its use of a 7-speed DSG instead of a CVT. According to VW, using the dual-clutch transmission helps maximize fuel economy. What's left unsaid, but is known to anyone who has driven a DSG-equipped VW or Audi, is that it should also make it much more engaging to drive, given that the operator can manually shift if he or she wants to.

TDI, for those that don't know, stands for turbocharged direct-injection and is the designation for the VW turbo diesel engines. These cars have a huge fan base and are typically prices a lot higher than you might expect for used examples. They were pulled off US markets for a bit while we came to our senses about the benefits of diesel fuel. They last for hundreds of thousands of miles and give great MPG while dispelling a lot of the old diesel stereotypes - they stink, they're slow, they're loud.

This is great news and yet another car to add to my ever-expanding wish list.

Low Resistance Tires

2008-03-10T17:29:00.001-07:00

I can either file this under "the early bird gets the worm" or "wait long enough and someone else will do it for you."

I intended to write a well-rounded, informed article about low resistance tires inspired by my post about the physics of MPG. Green Seal, however, beat me to the punch in a big way. They wrote a great PDF, found here.

I would just direct you there but then you won't read it and, honestly, neither will I so here's a summary.

Tire resistance...

is not a measure of a tire’s traction or “grip” on the road surface, but rather simply indicates how easily a tire rolls down
the road, minimizing the energy wasted as heat between the tire and the road, within the tire sidewall itself, and between the tire and the rim.

This means a low resistance tire is not, absolutely, going to grip less or function poorly. Literally rolling down the street requires no grip... the less the better, in fact.

Rolling resistance has traditionally been measured through an official Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) test procedure known as J1269. It measures the force required to roll a tire against a
dynamometer at a fixed speed of 50 miles per hour.

Good information to know...

The highest and lowest rolling resistance tires we tested differed in efficiency by 60%, indicating that tire choice can have a bigger impact on fuel economy than most people realize. Rolling resistance
differences of 20 to 30% are not uncommon among tires of an otherwise similar size, type, and level of performance. This means an individual vehicle could save up
to 6% of its gasoline use if it were fitted with very efficient tires,

That's a solid improvement.

Keep in mind, you won't see these articles (or myself) urging people to run out and ditch their tires for low-resistance ones. The point is, when the time comes to replace them, do it sooner rather than later and do it in a way that saves you money and saves some oil.

This report does address the life cycle of a tire as well:

Thus, a tire’s rolling resistance is likely to be a larger factor in its life-cycle environmental impact than its composition, longevity, or ultimate fate, though those factors merit consideration
as well.

So, if you're getting close, get 'em replaced. With what? Try these:

On a personal note: My rear tires are "cupped" according to my mechanic and are asking to be replaced soon. I am still recording my MPG and intend to see what kind of real-life increases I'll see. I'll post a MPG chart soon!

Negative footprint?

2008-03-07T07:53:00.000-08:00

I thought this was amazing...from Inhabitat:

The building’s aggressive approach to sustainability enables it to offer the lowest energy consumption per square meter for its class, one of the world’s largest integrated photovoltaic systems and the world’s largest solar thermal driven cooling and dehumidification system. The complex will utilize sustainable materials and feature integrated wind turbines, outdoor air quality monitors. Compared with typical mixed-use buildings of the same size, the Headquarters will consume 70 percent less water.

The kicker? "The Masdar Headquarters building outside of Abu Dhabi is also the first building in history to generate power for its own assembly, using a solar roof pier that will be built first to power the rest of the construction."

<><><><><><>

In a mostly unrelated vein... I've been reading about this for a while and I just noticed it's now open, the Svalbard Seed Bank. What an interesting idea.

The Svalbard Global Seed Vault, which is established in the permafrost in the mountains of Svalbard, is designed to store duplicates of seeds from seed collections from around the globe. Many of these collections from developing countries are in developing countries. If seeds are lost, e.g. as a result of natural disasters, war or simply a lack of resources, the seed collections may be reestablished using seeds from Svalbard.

Within hours of the conclusion of the official opening ceremony of the Svalbard Global Seed Vault, the Vault was already in business. Some 268,000 seed samples containing more than 100 million individual seeds that represent the agriculture of 220 countries have already been catalogued, coded and moved into the Vault.. These seeds were sent to Svalbard from 20 different research institutes and national gene collections.

Morgan Life Car = Sex

2008-03-04T12:11:00.000-08:00

What a gorgeous design for this concept:

First, summary from Ecogeek (first place I read it):

"Morgan, a luxury car company, has teamed up with the UK government and several leading universities to produce the Life Car, a high-performance, luxury, fuel cell vehicle with a zero-to-sixty time of 7 seconds and a top speed of 90 mph. Think "Tesla Roadster," but nicer and more expensive...and hydrogen-powered."

And a word from Inhabitat, of course (all the pictures came from there, FYI):

Instead of simply locating a large fuel cell to drive the engine, the team installed smaller, more compact fuel cells that can provide enough power for cruising. For accelerating purposes, the vehicle draws upon a row of ultracapacitors which are recharged by the braking system, at the very efficient rate of 50%

The power system sounds positively genius! But time for another pic...

From the manufacturers themselves:

Going far beyond the incremental adaptation of traditional car designs as seen in current hybrid vehicles, it will demonstrate that a new step in vehicle architecture is enabled by the use of a fuel cell hybrid power train. The approach is one of whole system design in which the architecture is generated from the characteristics of the fuel cell, in a light-weight vehicle coupled with a high hybridization level.

Quite an undertaking, for sure. Did you pay attention to the power plant inside of this thing? Small, multiple fuel cells and capacitors to store electricity... a likely combination in the coming years.

The design is amazing... but, in some ways, polarizing. Is everyone going to want a 2-seater? Is a 2-seater environmentally viable? Does everyone like the retro styling that's going on?

Morgan, possibly inadvertently, has made a sexy car that just is not going to work for a lot of people. Is that ok? It's REALLY OK, in fact, it's probably a great move. Appealing to a niche market like this lets them reach the kind of people that will not only feel honored to drive something like this but will likely put up with any shortcomings that it has. The technology they're talking about is not really up to mass production right now (or, said another way, commercially viable) but neither is the F1 racing technology that makes it into our cars after several years.

And, my favorite thing about it, the Life Car puts it out there that innovative, no/zero emission technology can prove to be BETTER than what it replaces. So many people seem to have this antiquated idea that there is no replacing the automobile as it stands... petroleum is too energy dense and cheap! Hydrogen is too expensive! The infrastructure! All of these are problems, there's no doubt about it, but the idea that we're all going to be driving egg-shaped, 1000 lb death pods at 35mph down the freeway in the future is just ridiculous... and short-sighted.

Bravo, chaps!

Addendum to my interview with Dr. Cooksy

2008-02-27T13:15:00.000-08:00

This post is meant to be read after the one below.

A few clarifications I should have made prior to posting.

In response to questions number one: "Are you saying that atmospheric scientists are saying that it exists without question or there have been no questions because it just doesn't exist? I can read it both ways..."

Dr. Cooksy:

I believe that the question was asked and was answered, to the extent that anything in climate science can be, years ago. The answer they find is, the global climate is changing with unprecedented rapidity, and the change can be largely attributed to human activity. Questions will always remain as to the precision of models that try to predict the future. Waiting for those questions to be resolved is futile, because science by its nature doesn't provide any answers with absolute certainty. But if there is any appearance of substantial controversy beyond that, it lies entirely outside this community of scientists.

Still question number one, me: "Their prediction being that global warming is or is not going to be a problem? I hope this doesn't sound naive but sometimes it is hard to differentiate where the information is coming from. Depending on the source, 'scientists' seem to be claiming the whole spectrum of various problems/non-problems. Especially in the last ~year or so, it has been REALLY difficult to nail down what the scientific community, as a whole, thinks about various things. Not everyone will concur, of course, but it's never seemed so impossible to find the mean of opinions/theories."

The only climate models I'm aware of are those that predict long-term global warming, acidification of the oceans, significant increases in severe weather, and so on. And as these effects were predicted years ago, and are already being observed today, early versions of those models have already passed a significant test of validity. If there were believable climate models that showed this just going away, we'd hear about them in a big way.

To emphasize something from the above, scientists aren't going to give you an absolute answer. Even if there was an absolute answer to give, scientific enterprise would move away from that to the areas where questions remain. So if you read any scientific papers on the subject, there will be a lot of emphasis on the uncertainties -- that's a constant of good science. It's important to maintain that questioning perspective, even if you're dealing with an issue of potentially enormous societal impact, because to abandon it threatens the quality of the science.

For that reason, I'm intentionally vague about the value judgments, like what constitutes a 'problem.' As scientists, it's not for climate researchers to tell us whether it's a bad thing that there won't be any Arctic sea ice a century from now. But they're not studying *if* it's going to disappear any more; they're just studying how long it might take.

If you want to know what scientists think about those value judgments, I'd recommend seeing what their organizations have to say. These bodies are expected to review the science, and synthesize what they can to obtain a big-picture viewpoint. In the US, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Academy of Sciences serve this function. I don't think that they've been vague about this at all. AAAS in particular has been vocal about the scientific consensus for years. For a non-US perspective, the Royal Society in the UK is analogous to our NAS.

If you read about any science secondhand, it can be made to look controversial because it never answers any questions absolutely. On top of that, I think there are perfectly valid controversies about the ramifications of global climate change from the standpoints of politics and economics, to say nothing of scientific questions that involve greater or more complex extrapolation (such as far-future climate prediction, biological and ecological impacts). It's easy for the scientific and the non-scientific controversies to become confused in popular reporting.

Good stuff!

This IS the scientific community

2008-02-26T18:52:00.000-08:00

So, I'm starting a new feature called...

This IS the scientific community

The idea came from a conversation I had with a former colleague at Johnson & Johnson. He is a medicinal chemist and we had a short conversation about the state of the world briefly in the chemical dungeon I worked in (I'm making it sound much worse than it was, of course). Anyways, he had some interesting things to say and I thought 'anyone who gives a damn about the environment, whether they knew anything about it or not, would probably be interested to hear what scientists have to say about it.' I think the interesting part comes not only from those who study it directly but also those who do not but, none-the-less, stay informed on the issue.

So, that's my idea, what do the scientists say. And here is the first one.

Dr. Andrew Cooksy, Associate Professor of Physical Chemistry

First, because I would want the same, a website plug.

Dr. Cooksy teaches the physical chemistry class that I am currently taking and, at the risk of sounding like I'm brown-nosing, does a damn good job at it. Physical chemistry deals with the physics of chemistry and how atoms and molecules interact with each other on both a micro and a macro scale. I won't beat around the bush, this class is very difficult but it helps to instill important understanding about what we're actually DOING in the lab.

On with the questions!

What is your honest opinion regarding the state of our environment and the existence of global warming? Do you believe that this is a serious issue to address or a misinterpretation of data?

I’m not an atmospheric scientist; I can only claim to be a reader of the scientific literature. From that, I haven’t seen any serious question among atmospheric scientists about the existence of global warming for at least twelve years, nor any serious question about the significance of anthropogenic contributions for close to ten years. I’m not referring to scientists in general, but the people who are actively pursuing research in this field. This is already an old enough field that many of its early prognostications have been tested. The ability of computer simulations to predict qualitative trends in the climate over the past decade strikes me as surprisingly successful for a field that amounts to, in essence, forecasting the weather. I think the climate science community has made a compelling case that many of their extended predictions are likely to be accurate, if not precise.

What is the most important thing that the average earth inhabitant can do to improve or avoid any current or future environmental impacts? Is there anything you do personally?

Reducing population growth seems to me the most direct way to reduce human impact on the environment, whether for better or worse.

How important is a move toward sustainable transportation, in your opinion? Do you think it is worth the effort that it will take? Is it a waste of time or an absolute necessity?

Certainly it’s in the long list of things that would have to be addressed for long-term sustainability of human enterprise in general. I don’t see how it could be a waste of time, since the exploration of new ways to do things is how we advance.

In terms of research, where do you think the most money and time should be spent?

Offhand I’d be interested in investigating how to get around materials science and materials availability problems related to solar power, and also in exploration of new mechanisms for energy storage.

If you had the power to do so, regardless of your opinion on the state of the environment or petroleum, what technology would you pick to power our society? Why?

Assuming a number of questions could be addressed, I’d pick solar. Clean; perhaps not very efficient but widely available so not so subject to storage and transport issues as other options.

Do you think that public transportation development is important for major cities? What do you think about the system in San Diego?

I do think it’s important. I don’t know any other way to get to and from a ballgame.

The system in San Diego is serviceable. It’s slow, so I use it when I have time and can bring something to work on, and when it’s relatively direct. The trips I’ve taken on public transport in San Diego probably average about an hour each way, counting the time it takes to walk to the route and wait for the trolley or bus. For me, that would be onerous to do every day. I’ve also lived in DC, where a trip downtown from the edge of the city takes about 30 minutes altogether (for me, that’s a bus plus a subway train), and driving takes at least that long.

Thank you!

****NOTE****

Please see the addendum to this interview, found here (or just above this entry, chronologically).

It's live!

2008-02-24T17:40:00.000-08:00

JoshCanHelp.com is up and running!

Please take a few minutes to check it out and let me know what you think in my comments. "Official Release" going out soon.

My Favorites

2008-02-22T09:42:00.000-08:00

For your reading/reminiscing pleasure, a few of my favorite posts from the recent past:

Bike-sharing

2008-02-21T12:57:00.000-08:00

BTW, this I LOVE! From Inhabitat:

(photo credit)

...the super-smart Velib Bike program is taking to the streets of London! 15,000 bikes, 1,000 stations and more than 7.5 million miles of combined biking later have already been implemented in London, and the new scheme will contribute £75 million and 6,000 shared bikes to the mass biking scheme.

The program will begin with 6,000 bikes, distributed across the city in and around London. The so-called ‘granny bikes’ are super sturdy, and have been designed and assembled for high-traffic use, and for low theft appeal. They may not be the sexiest of cycles, but that’s sort of the point...

Very, very cool... I was just thinking about a bike the other day..

Honda FCX... my take

2008-02-21T11:19:00.000-08:00

A friend of mine asked me the other day, 'what's the deal with this Honda fuel cell car?" She read that it was coming to market soon, to which I replied, 'yup, it's on its way!"

This was surprising to her and it was surprising to the first person I told, a gentlemen I volunteered with at the alternative fuel expo here in San Diego (a fairly unfortunate but well-intentioned display). Neither one of them could believe that this car was on its way after years of hype and yet, it was.

I read about the impending release last year on the Car Lounge, a car forum site that I frequent (thought less frequently these days because it is HIGHLY addictive). Then I started seeing articles on Google News. I even wrote about it, seen here. It was coming, I knew it was coming, and it was about time.

It may not make sense to some people why this car would be released. There are very few stations in the US, under 100 (probably well under) and most of them are located in California. Also, there is still no "magic bullet" way to store the hydrogen (yet) nor a great way to create the hydrogen in a way that is energy efficient (yet). So why the heck is it happening?

I, for one, love it. If you've read this blog enough you know that I'm a pretty big hydrogen support. I'm also, however, a trained chemist and understand thermodynamics (for the most part). I don't agree with chasing after technology that isn't going to work (like ethanol from current sources) and I'm not going to just love hydrogen because that was the first alternative fuel I learned about and it holds a place in my heart. Please, give me some credit here.

The reason why I love this news has more to do with the scientific side of me than the green side. I want to see how these hold up in the real world. I want to know what the REAL efficiency is when real people use the cars. I want to see how safe (or un-safe) these stations are when knuckleheads like you and I try to use them. Are these cars livable? Are they maintainable? Do they work how they should? Would I want one?

It really ends up coming back to the chicken and egg logic: what comes first, the car or the stations?

Want to read more? Get it straight from the source at Honda.com.

In other news...

Please make sure you check out my lens at Squidoo, www.squidoo.com.joshisjosh. I'm about ->| |<- that close to launching this little business idea and I could use all the digital friends I can get. As soon as my web presence for JoshCanHelp is built and running smoothly (again, very soon), I'm going to move my green presence over there as well and write a few enviro-lenses. I really miss staying as up-to-date on sustainable transportation news as I have done in the past but it is still a massive part of who I am. Whether I end up an entrepreneur, a chemist, or an author, it will always, ALWAYS relate it back to sustainability. Even my JoshCanHelp Digital Coaching will revolve around getting more out of what you have instead of always throwing money at the problem (new computer at home not withstanding.

Thanks to everyone for your support and please spread the word!

I agree

2008-02-11T12:44:00.001-08:00

I've read good and bad things about Walt Disney but, if there's one thing I remember from it all, it's that he could never be called a slouch by any definition of the word. I found a great quote at YoungEntrepreneurBlog:

“When you’re curious, you find lots of interesting things to do. And one thing it takes to accomplish something is courage.

Somehow I can’t believe there are any heights that can’t be scaled by a man who knows the secret of making dreams come true. This special secret, it seems to me, can be summarized in four C’s. They are Curiosity, Confidence, Courage, and Constancy and the greatest of these is Confidence. When you believe a thing, believe it all the way, implicitly and unquestionably.

I have been up against tough competition all my life. I wouldn’t know how to get along without it.

When we consider a project, we really study it–not just the surface idea, but everything about it. And when we go into that new project, we believe in it all the way. We have confidence in our ability to do it right. And we work hard to do the best possible job.

Biggest problem? Well, I’d say it’s been my biggest problem all my life. MONEY. It takes a lot of money to make these dreams come true. From the very start it was a problem. Getting the money to open Disneyland. About seventeen million it took. And we had everything mortgaged including my personal insurance.

The way to get started is to quit talking and begin doing. If you can dream it, you can do it.”

Love it...

Both sides of the story...

2008-02-10T11:11:00.000-08:00

It's REALLY hard to take a stand when everything is so CONFLICTED. From The New American (a publication I know nothing about):

We have more than 22,000 scientist signers of our global-warming petition who’ve looked at the issue and concluded essentially the opposite of these United Nations people. This says nothing about the science. Science does not depend on polling. Just because we have 22,000, and the UN may have 600, does not matter. The only thing our petition demonstrates is that there is no consensus among scientists in support of the UN claims.

Scientific questions are never settled in this way. Science is about natural truth. The truth doesn’t require any advocate. It stands by itself.

In science, a scientist may discover the truth about something. Then he develops a hypothesis, and the hypothesis is tested by various means. So long as the hypothesis passes experimental tests, it becomes stronger and is further relied upon — unless it fails an experimental test. If it is a very fine hypothesis with wide utility, it may spread throughout the entire scientific community and become part of the basis of scientific knowledge. The process by which this is done is not what is important. The truth is important. Scientific truth is not determined by polling or by convening meetings.

If you like truly understanding the environment, make sure you read that article. I can't stress how important it is to get the entire picture. If you blindly follow a cause that is supposed to be based in reality/science, you better make damn sure you're always questioning your stand. That's the scientific method.

I'm always trying to get the most accurate picture of what is going on around me. True, I blog about sustainable transportation and environmental impacts but I'm always willing to see both sides of the issue. Burning oil to power our cars has more than just climate impact and that's, clearly, still being debated.

QUESTION EVERYTHING or you have NOTHING.

Hrrrmmmmm....

2008-02-09T15:48:00.000-08:00

This keeps coming up... via AutoBlogGreen again:

When people like GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz talk about how new fuel economy regulations are going to add $5-6,000 to the price of new cars and trucks, it's worth examining how they come to those numbers. Obviously there are some cars today that can achieve the 35mpg level without being insanely expensive. Unfortunately those tend to be smaller cars that the vast majority of American new car buyers seem to be unwilling to buy at current fuel prices. For any number of reasons, Americans still prefer vehicles that are larger, heavier and thirstier, in some cases for perfectly legitimate reasons.

Unless the cost of operating those vehicles rises dramatically, it seems Americans won't want to make the switch. Of course the cost may jump anyway, although the timing of such a rise is uncertain. As is all too often the case, trying legislate a simplistic solution to a complex problem is likely to lead to unintended consequences. If customers want their bigger vehicles but carmakers are forced either produce unaffordable versions of big rides or smaller vehicles people don't want, something has to give.

In Cuba, where nearly half a century of U.S. trade embargoes have eliminated access to new American cars, people have just learned to keep the cars that existed there in the fifties on the road seemingly indefinitely. During a discussion at the Chicago Auto Show, GM NA President Troy Clarke indicated something similar could also happen here in the coming years. If car-makers are unable to provide the vehicles customers want at a price they can pay, businesses that specialize in reconditioning used vehicles could step in to fill the gap. While this would benefit consumers by providing affordable transportation, it would negate the benefits of higher fuel economy standards by keeping those more efficient vehicles from supplanting older ones in the fleet. Unless car buyers have a real financial incentive to move to smaller vehicles, they will likely just move to the used car market.

Sounds familiar...

CleanTDI on its way

2008-02-09T15:39:00.000-08:00

The new 50-state legal CleanTDI is on it's way! This is great news from the company who built a huge TDI following here in the states only to leave them hanging for several years. I guess I shouldn't put the blame on VW; a lot of the problem had to do with the US and our diesel regulations. For a while there, diesels could not be sold in California and 4 other states. Not any more!

via AutoBlogGreen, the most prolific blog I've ever subscribed to (really, it's out of control, guys/gals).

sigh ... going the wrong direction

2008-02-08T08:18:00.000-08:00

Innovation and consumer choice has it's upsides and downsides. Meet the XUV.

That makes the 660 ft-lbs of torque generated by its 7.2L Caterpillar engine seem paltry. Besides the big-rig-meets-Excursion bodywork, your nearly $200,000 expenditure for this XUV will get you hardwood floors, custom captains chairs, a 42-speaker sound system, two drop-down 16-inch TVs plus a 42-inch plasma, four computer workstations, plus a train horn

I have not forgot about you...

2008-02-07T12:05:00.000-08:00

Hang in there my few but intrinsically excellent subscribers! I hath not forgotten about thee!

There has been a lot going on in my world, most of which is demanding attention and time-critical. I don't like to half-ass things so I'd rather simply just not post then post for posting's sake.

Coming up:

More words of the day

A session on batteries

A session low-resistance tires

Maybe a scoche of politics

Thanks for your support... I won't disappoint!

I want one

2008-02-04T17:22:00.001-08:00

Very cool alternative to the SMART I don't have... from here:

A new range of city models is being planned by BMW, and they could be called Isetta after the famous bubble car of the Fifties. In Issue 989, we revealed how the firm was looking at the designs for such a vehicle (above). But now, it seems the project is being developed into a range of eco-friendly models to sit below MINI. Back in September, bosses announced plans for a fourth brand – and this is the clearest indication of what it will be. An insider revealed the range would be primarily designed for town use, but driver appeal would still be key. As with MINI, it would need a badge with a strong heritage. And while Isetta is the likeliest candidate, BMW has some classic British badges at its disposal – most notably Triumph.

There has been speculation that BMW’s new range would be hybrids. However, our insider said: “That technology is reserved for larger models, such as our SUVs.”

Instead, small turbo petrol and diesel engines would be used to help keep costs down, yet provide decent performance and excellent economy and emissions. This last feature is a key reason for BMW giving the city car project the go-ahead. It needs to reduce the average CO2 outputs from its vehicles to meet new EU targets.

Great concept picture:

And the original for reference:

Edit: found another post here at AutoBlogGreen

And another intersting (but less enticing) concept pic:

BTW...

2008-02-04T17:04:00.000-08:00

My reader count, which got all the way up to 14 (WHOA!!!!), is coming back down. If you read this blog on a regular basis and like it, please help me by..

-> Adding me to reader.google.com or another feed reader. Email me if you need help!
-> Forwarding posts you like out to your family and friends
-> Commenting (try to compete with kat! It will be fun!)
-> Signing up for Digg and adding the articles that you like

The best way to combat environmental damage is to keep learning and keep teaching. Make your mark by doing what you can and help me reach a wider audience.

Thanks!!!

Great site - thanks mom!

2008-02-04T16:36:00.000-08:00

I know not everyone is apt to spend $20 on this but I couldn't keep the money in my wallet when I read what this site does.

You pay them $20 and they basically remove you from all junk mail lists. That's it, plain and simple. Not only that, they pull you off of catalog lists as well (unless, say, you tell them that you actually WANT 3o copies of the Victoria's Secret catalog every week - because 6 or 7 per week makes sense, you know, but 30? Really?).

This, to me, should OF COURSE be a free service but who would offer it? I guess advertising falls under the "bastardization of free speech" category and, as such, there's not much to do about it besides having recycle days. Still, I find it very disturbing that I can't simply generally opt-out from useless, wasteful, ineffective marketing campaigns. I hate spam and I hate telemarketing but there is nothing worse, in the marketing sphere, than having a pile of coupons and catalogs that go from tree to manufacture to post office to my house to the trash. I find that MASSIVELY agitating and, as such, will gladly pay to stop it coming to my house.

Please, please sign up for this service... $20 is very little and the impact is very important. Also go here...

https://www.optoutprescreen.com/

...and opt out of all those ridiculous pre-approved credit-card notices. This helps keep you secure (no more pre-approved applications floating around) and gets rid of another chunk of mail. It is free and run by the government which is how it should be. It stopped all of my credit card offers (besides the ones from my current company... what the heck?).

Ooooooooo I love it!

2008-01-31T10:52:00.000-08:00

This is what I'm talking about! I WILL do this someday when I have a garage and more than 12 minutes a day of free time.

From Ecomodder (a site I will be checking in on a lot going forward):

What do you get when you cross a Geo Metro with an electric forklift, a golf cart, and a bunch of used batteries? You get a ridiculously inexpensive, home-built, street-legal electric car.

So cool... and a Geo Metro none-the-less.

I'd quote more but you can just click the link and read the original. 3 posts in a couple days and I'm POOPED!

Discrepancy

2008-01-30T13:55:00.000-08:00

I don't usually post items about human-interest stuff but this literally made me sick...

Poor Haitians Resort to Eating Dirt

From here:

It was lunchtime in one of Haiti's worst slums, and Charlene Dumas was eating mud. With food prices rising, Haiti's poorest can't afford even a daily plate of rice, and some take desperate measures to fill their bellies. Charlene, 16 with a 1-month-old son, has come to rely on a traditional Haitian remedy for hunger pangs: cookies made of dried yellow dirt from the country's central plateau.

The story only gets worse...

At the market in the La Saline slum, two cups of rice now sell for 60 cents, up 10 cents from December and 50 percent from a year ago. Beans, condensed milk and fruit have gone up at a similar rate, and even the price of the edible clay has risen over the past year by almost $1.50. Dirt to make 100 cookies now costs $5, the cookie makers say.

Imagine if our food went up 20% in a month or two. Are we headed for that?

Food prices around the world have spiked because of higher oil prices, needed for fertilizer, irrigation and transportation. Prices for basic ingredients such as corn and wheat are also up sharply, and the increasing global demand for biofuels is pressuring food markets as well.

GROWING OUR FUEL IS NOT GOING TO WORK, PERIOD.

What contributes to MPG?

2008-01-29T20:02:00.000-08:00

MPG Increases and Decreases Explained

If you are a member of this blog, you certainly have heard a lot about miles per gallon. Maybe I'm talking about triple-digits, maybe I'm complaining about single-digits, maybe I'm talking about my own mediocre numbers. Whatever the reason, if the discussion is about sustainable transportation then the concept of energy efficiency will inevitably surface.

It is fairly simple to point at a big es-yoo-vee and say "yup, low MPG." Most of the time you will be right but what about the mid-sized sedans? The compacts? The sub-compacts? Does same size mean equivalent consumption? You might be surprised by what, exactly, makes up a miles per gallon figure.

I wanted to make my GTI have a little better MPG so I looked into what I might be able to fix or change. Here's what I learned.

There are two different numbers to consider

When you look up the figures for a car, you're going to see two figures (well, three including the "combined" number): city and highway. Here's mine, taken from fueleconomy.gov:

Big difference, right? That's actually a pretty significant gap between the two compared to other cars.

It's good to keep in mind that hybrids are the opposite of this: great mileage in the city but less on the freeway. This is because hybrids benefit from stop and go (it recharges their batteries through regenerative braking) and not so much from cruising long distances (no chance to use the electric motor).

So why the discrepancy?

Why are the numbers so different?

In my quest to find the biggest change I could make on my car to make the biggest difference in miles-per-gallon, I stumbled onto a great article at Tirerack.com. My first idea to raise my efficiency was to change the tires to low-resistance ones. I had seen on many a concept car that they came with tires that were manufactured with a rubber compound that contributed less friction to the whole mess of driving dynamics. Tirerack explains low-resistance tires:

A tire's rolling resistance does affect fuel economy...[low rolling resistance] tires are often designed with a priority on reducing weight and rolling resistance and are molded with slightly thinner sidewalls, shallower tread depths and use low rolling resistance constructions and tread compounds.

Is goes on to summarize, entirely, everything I have an will say in this post in one useful sentence:

A vehicle's fuel economy is the direct result of its total resistance to movement.

Hot damn! It's like Physics all over again!

Inertia is (according to Cutnell & Johnson's "Physics") "the natural tendency of an object to remain at rest or in motion at a constant speed along a straight line." It goes on to say that the "mass of an object is a quantitative measure of inertia." Basically, without some kind of force (generated from some kind of energy output), a banana or a mountain or, I don't know, a car won't move if it it not moving. If it is already moving, it will continue in that direction until some kind of force stops it. Park a car in neutral on a flat spot of pavement and car no go. Push it (calories used from your output), start it up and hit the gas (joules from the gasoline), or stick it in the middle of a hill (good ol' gravity) and now the car is going.

Now, on the freeway, put your car in neutral and what happens? It keeps going but it will eventually stop. Breaking the laws of physics? Nope, just being acted upon by resistance from the wind, your driveline (transmission, etc), and tires.

That's the science, here's the specifics.

MPG on the highway

Unless you're in a hybrid, you're going to find higher miles per gallon as a default. That is, of course, unless you're doing an average of 100MPH every day on the freeway but switch back to Dr. Jekyll on the surface streets. Either way, there are different forces at work on the freeway. Tirerack, again, explains:

Overcoming inertia no longer plays an appreciable role in the vehicle's resistance during steady speed highway driving. For those conditions it is estimated that driveline friction is about 15%; air drag is about 60% and tire rolling resistance represent about 25%.

Keep in mind that we're talking about "resistance to movement" so we're not including engine size or driving style though these both play a big part.

As you can see, air drag is a huge component of freeway MPG. This is a good thing to know, especially those who might have a roof rack on their cars year-round. This also explains why your efficiency goes down as your speed goes up. the faster you go, the most air drag you will need to deal with.

Take-aways:

Reduce drag by removing unnecessary extrusions (roof racks, spoilers, mirrors, antennae, stickers, etc)

Keep your driveline in good shape by staying up on maintenance and replacing brake pads that are making noise continually (these are good things to do regardless)

Look into low resistance tires if you're in the market (stay tuned for more information on this)

City dwellers?

MPG in stop-and-go

Stop-and-go conditions (the kind where you stop and then go... repeatedly) are a totally different bag of beans. Back to Tirerack:

During stop-and-go city driving, it's estimated that overcoming inertia is responsible for about 35% of the vehicle's resistance. Driveline friction is about 45%; air drag is about 5% and tire rolling resistance is about 15%.

To explain: overcoming inertia is getting the vehicle off of its haunches and going. This is, by definition, going to be greatly affected by the weight of the vehicle. Big cars and trucks need big engines to get their big masses going.

Driveline friction, here, clearly makes a much bigger difference than on the freeway. Air drag, unlike on the freeway, is basically nil and the effects of your tires are even less.

Take-aways:

The less you carry around in your car, the better. Ditch the useless crap in the trunk, replace your 4 twelve-inch subwoofers with a pair of tens (please), and lose some weight.

City drivers should be more vigilant about their tune-ups (for many reasons).

Averages

If you average about the same city and highway, here's how the figures break down (simple averages):

Inertia: 17.5%
Driveline friction: 30%
Air resistance: 32.5%
Tires: 20%

Now you know! Stay tuned for more information on tire resistance!

Highlights

2008-01-26T13:03:00.000-08:00

My inspiration to write is fairly low right now so just a quick update on things and a few highlights...

<><><><><><><><><><><><>

This kills me:

it turns out, the greenest thing about paper bags is the way people perceive them. Because they seem more natural, people think they're better for the environment. Well, it's a damn shame, but they're wrong.

Whole Foods' moving over to 100% recycled paper is actually going to be worse for the environment.

Creating recycled paper, it turns out, is a much more energy-intensive process than creating plastic bags. That's why grocery stores prefer you take the plastic. Plastic is also much easier to ship, as it takes up way less space in packing, and they weigh far less per item of shopping you take home with you. And while we might worry that all that plastic is coming from foreign oil, the amazing thing is that even with all the billions of plastic bags we use every year, they constitute about 0.03% of our oil use in the U.S.. Obviously not the most pressing problem we've got.

Frustrating because of the perception dissonance but a good thing to know regardless.

<><><><><><><><><><><><>

Speaking of getting things in perspective, watch this space:

www.eyesofatexan.com

<><><><><><><><><><><><>

Speaking of Josh projects, check out my updated lens:

www.squidoo.com/joshisjosh

And my website under construction:

joshcanhelp.com

Big things! and also reasons why I have been able to blog as much.

Also check out the Young Forest Martial Arts Academy website... my first web site!

www.yfmaa.com

<><><><><><><><><><><><>

Back to the grin, more soon for sure!

Entoo da feu-chah

2008-01-23T11:28:00.000-08:00

I might just like this because of it's acronym, LAPCAT. This pic is, of course, computer generated:

It's basically a hypersonic beer can (mach 5 speed and no windows).

From Inhabitat (of course):

Not too far in the future you may be able to travel that entire distance in less than 4 hours - emissions free - thanks to an amazing hypersonic hydrogen jet project called LAPCAT. LAPCAT standsfor Long-Term Advanced Propulsion Concepts and Technologie, and is funded by the European Space Agency. This type of hypersonic jet would put the Concorde to shame with it’s speed, and the best part is that it would not be powered by the typical fossil fuels, but instead by a much greener hydrogen alternative.

That about sums it up. There is, of course, the usual criticism about where the hydrogen comes from but those are so BORING.

The concept is basically a turbine jet engine that benefits from ram-compression, which is essentially air being smashed into the intake. If you're going really, really damn fast, you don't really have to worry about injecting oxygen, you simply use the rushing air in front of you.

From the LAPCAT site:

The Space Shuttle punches through the atmosphere as quickly as possible on its way into orbit, but the LAPCAT project is focusing on an aircraft that would remain well within the Earth's atmosphere throughout its flight. Whereas the Shuttle uses the thrust of its engines to fight the force of gravity, a hypersonic vehicle would use the aerodynamic lifting force generated on its wings and fuselage. This vision of sustained hypersonic flight requires air-breathing engines, which are highly efficient because they scoop oxygen from the atmosphere rather than from an onboard tank.

My take? It's completely conceptual right now which is uselss for the time being but I really like this concept... much more than the some of the car concepts I've seen. This overcomes two big hurdles: air travel time and the green factor of the jets themselves (leaving the generation part to be answered]).

My personal take? From the comments section (me):

I hate flying and I hate looking out the window at the wing/engine/ground. Doing everything you can to shorten my trip AND helping me avoid eye contact with what is around me is the biggest favor that the airline industry could do for me. Yay for supersonic beer cans!

What do you think?

2008-01-22T07:39:00.000-08:00

My first foray into entrepreneurship!

Here's the first site:
http://www.squidoo.com/joshisjosh

www.joshcanhelp.com and Craigslist ad push coming soon!

If you know anyone in the San Diego area that needs tech support on just about anything you can plug in, let me know!

Recycling day

2008-01-19T17:31:00.001-08:00

Should have taken a picture of the car full of crap... it was great, we looked homeless, quite humbling.

No, the one picture of all the Heineken bottles is NOT all from us.

We go about once every 2 - 3 months after collecting everything in our storage unit. It really begs the question, is it all worth it? I decided to figure it out.

Loss

85 minutes
0.58 gallons of gasoline (19 miles at about 33MPG)
$1.89 (058 gallons at $3.29/gallon)

Gain

$5.32 from glass and plastic (they don't pay for tin... or non-CRV glass)
$1.50 from mixed paper
John Steinbeck’s “Grapes of Wrath” (Anna recommends)
Richard Preston's "The Hot Zone" (Josh recommends)
Will Self's "The Book of Dave

I'll say the loss of 85 minutes on a sunny day with a beautiful girl is definitely negligible. Total monetary gain was $4.93 ($1.74/hr wage for each of us, yikes). The three books were found in the mixed paper pile at the recycle place. No, I/we were not digging through garbage, they were right on top (that's what they all say). It was interesting, actually, there were hundreds of books in this pile. I started rifling through them and it was a really diverse collection... computer books, business books, fiction, textbooks. I would have spent a few hours looking through them (just the ones on top, of course) but then it occurred to me that the place paid someone for the books so I would actually be stealing from them. We took a couple but since the place weighs your car before and after you dump the stuff, we ended up paying for them. Random!

So, really, was it worth it? Personally it is but what about environmentally (which is the point of the whole thing)? Let's find out...

The only environmental cost imposed on the world would be the gasoline used to transport the materials; everything else is too small to be counted.

0.58 gallons of gasoline = 2.42 kg of carbon = 5.34 lbs of carbon(Oak Ridge National Laboratory)

2.42 kg carbon = 201 moles of carbon (basically, a certain number of actual atoms of carbon [12,133,529,620,000,000,000,000,000]) = 201 moles of CO2 and CO combined

* It's hard to get a number/percent of how much of the exhaust is CO. I'm going to go with 10% and feel good about it.

201 moles of CO2 and CO combined = ~181 moles CO2 = 7.97 kg CO2 = 17.6 lbs CO2

Also...

0.58 gallons of gasoline = 124,884 BTUs (onlineconversion.com)

I'll see if I can't find some good numbers on how much plastic + paper + glass manufacturing pollutes per bottle. Or, even better, how many bottles, etc. my pollution accounts for... stay tuned.

In a bizarre twist of destiny and fate...

2008-01-17T15:14:00.001-08:00

.... I ended up driving this (not this one exactly but same car/color):

...a brand new V8 6-speed Aston Martin Vantage last night. Hands-down, one of the sexiest cars I've ever been around and certainly the fastest/nicest care I've ever driven. One of the lest green too but it was only a couple miles ;)

The inside was glorious (again, this is not the exact one I drove):

If you're reading this, thanks Jose. I'll be your D.D. anytime.

Green Vocab WotD #003: REEV

2008-01-16T10:22:00.000-08:00

A quick one

REEV = Range Extended Electric Vehicle.

From ecogeek.org:

The idea of a REEV is that an electric motor drives the car 100% of the time. REEVs plug in to your house and charge overnight or while you're at work (4-8 hours depending on batteries), and then the REEV drives purely on the more-efficient (though still not carbon-neutral) grid power for a set number of miles (generally betweem 20 and 60.)

After those 20 - 60 miles of driving, a small onboard generator kicks on to recharge the batteries and "extend the range" of the electric vehicle. This onboard generator can be anything that produces power: gasoline engine, diesel engine, ethanol engine, or even a hydrogen fuel cell. The vehicle remains as efficient as a hybrid even after the grid power is all used up because they still use regenerative breaking.

The engine (meaning that which does some kind of power production: gasoline/diesel combustion, ethanol combustion, fuel cell, etc) does not power the wheels, it charges the batteries. That means that forward motion is only being caused by an electric motor so they are, in all sense, electric vehicles (or EVs).

I think this is an interesting concept but I wonder: is this just another technology to "get us through the now" (such as the Prius - good for now but not forever) or is this our answer for the next century+? Something to think about...

New MPG figure for me

2008-01-15T13:37:00.000-08:00

I goofed it up a little bit because I reset my miles prematurely (which is ridiculous because, being the MPG nerd I am, I have been looking forward to this fill-up for weeks) but new estimate is 25.0. It went up because I've been commuting to work.

I think I went a few more miles than that but this is right in the range of the last one.

Intersting move for Ferrari/Porsche

2008-01-14T11:48:00.001-08:00

You know the "Green Movement" has reached new heights when the top sports car manufacturers take note. First up: Ferrari's new 430 Spyder Biofuel concept:

What's the skinny?

Labeled as the 430 Spider Bio Fuel, the roadster runs on the familiar mix of 85% natural ethanol and 15% gasoline, which reports suggest yield a modest 2% increase in power. That’s enough to bring the 4.3-liter V8’s output up to 500 from the standard 490 with torque rising 4% and fuel economy improving by 5%.

Our old friend, ethanol. Blech. Thankfully we're only looking at a concept for the time being. What might change the tides?

...a ferrari official has said that if E85 became widely available in California (where 10% of Ferrari’s worldwide sales are) then this Bio Fuel model would become a viable option.

I do my best to sort through the countless articles I read about this or that concept to bring you what I consider to be either a really good thing or a really bad thing. I leave the middle-of-the-road stuff to anyone that follows this type of news outside of reading my blog. There are plenty of generic green blogs out there, including ones that deal with cars.

Point being... stuff like this usually flies under my radar but, in this case, it is worthy of mention. For one thing, this particular model gets BETTER fuel economy and has MORE power than the gas version. What you find when you read about ethanol is that it contains less energy per gallon than gasoline... from a thermodynamic perspective. That means if you combust them the same way, you have to get either less power or worse MPG. What this means is that Ferrari made the 430 have much better fuel economy IN GENERAL which translates to better MPG for the E85 blend. That means that the regular fuel economy must be a lot better. I'm very interested to hear how they did that...

The other reason that this is worth mentioning is that we're looking at an industry-wide change - in a vary strange industry to be making this change. From here (quote from the official Ferrari press release which can be found on ferrariworld.com):

The development of an engine powered by the biofuel E85 comes as part of a research and development program announced during the Technological Innovation Conference held at Maranello last June as part of our 60th Anniversary Celebrations. On that particular occasion, Ferrari also unveiled projects focused on improving the energy of the whole car which would in turn lower fuel consumption and emissions levels. The ultimate aim being, of course, to cut the latter by 40% by 2012.

It's good to see big names like Ferrari waving the green flag for any number of reasons. It's nice to see them have a conscience, first off. But they might also just see it as another obstacle to overcome. Their heart is in F1 racing and that's why their cars are so amazing. The technology that comes from developing some of the most amazing machines on the planet is mind-boggling. But, for street and occasional track use, how fast do they need to be? How light? How nimble? Cars can only be so fast and so capable before they start to exceed a human's ability to control them. Aside from that, looks are relative between the supercars.

But what would it say about your level of technology if you attained similar power numbers but got 30% better fuel technology? That, to me, says that there might be better, newer, stronger technology in that particular car. And, aside from that, what kind of message does that say FOR your customers? If I'm a greentech mogul and I run a sustainable company that, say, builds fuel systems for a new wave of biodiesel trucks, wouldn't I want to exclaim my green-ness? If I was a big car guy, I would want something really nice but I would also be wary, as a big green guy, of the mixed message I would be broadcasting by driving something that gets single-digit MPG. See what I mean?

In a similar vein, Porsche recently unveiled a hybrid Cayenne SUV idea:

The gas/electric hybrid Cayenne will cut fuel consumption by about 15 percent over the non-hybrid version. It will use a hybrid system being developed in partnership with Volkswagen, the same company Porsche partnered with to create the Cayenne and the Volkswagen Touareg SUVs. The Porsche/VW hybrid system will allow the vehicle's gasoline engine and electric motor to operate independently or together as needed. The Cayenne hybrid should be available by the end of the decade, the company said.

Not the exact car in question but you get the idea.

I see big technology muscle getting involved in fuel efficiency as a very good thing, even if their intention is simply to sell to a broader market. The more players, the bigger the game and as the competition gets hotter and hotter, the sustainable industry can do nothing but reap benefits. If Porsche and VW together design a great new hybrid system for the Cayenne, that means a couple years down the road that we'll probably see it in a Passat.

...and I can finally say I drive a Porsche because they share a bolt or two :)

Me = energy saving machine

2008-01-11T09:44:00.000-08:00

I checked out my energy usage rating on the SDG&E (the power company here in San Diego) web site and was pleased with the results.

I'm in the 97th percentile in terms of electricity usage which is awesome. This is compared to similar households (in terms of size, location, and build date).

I think those CFL bulbs I "installed" made a big difference. If you look at my usage below, you'll see that it flat-lines during the summer months (everyone else's goes down too) but it is not going up like everyone else's during the winter (when you use lights more often). Check it out:

With respect to gas usage, it's not as great as electricity, unfortunately.

There really isn't much I can do about it though. We have the dubious title of "Couple Using the Oldest Known Stove on Planet Earth." This thing probably weighs close to a ton and has a pilot light that, for all intensive purposes, burns with a constant flame the size of a butane lighter. The metal on the top of the stove stays constantly warm, this thing is a total energy sink. We don't use the gas heater hardly ever simply because it burns so much gas but, to be honest, we live in San Diego so how bad could it be, right? Thankfully, that thing does not have a constant pilot light (which makes it a PITA to start)

So, the consumption that I can control easily is really low and the one that I cannot easily control is at least above average. I think I'm going to look into cutting that pilot light off and just light the damn thing with a lighter. It might sound primitive but, trust me, the word is "romantic." Anna would say it's "charming."

Oh, speaking of places to live, we might be moving... into something we own! Look forward to Anna and I super-greening our own house! Hope I didn't just jinx it ;)

Cool Loremo pics @ Inhabitat

2008-01-10T08:23:00.000-08:00

Man, they always have the cool stories... they're looking for passionate writers living in San Fran or NY. Time to give up the school track? Ha ha... no.

I've talked about this little guy before. The great MPG comes from low air resistance and light weight. The looks are definitely growing on me:

But more importantly, the Loremo LS is designed to achieve a stunning 157mpg. It will go up to 160km/h [about 100mph, JC] on a 2 cylinder turbo-diesel engine, though the company is also exploring an all electric version of the vehicle. The vehicle weighs about 450kg [not even a half ton or about a third of what my little VW weighs, JC], and will cost around 13,000 euros [or 19,110 USD, JC]. Expect the vehicle to go on sale in Europe, China and India in 2009

Via Inhabitat

Words of advice from Mr. MacLeod

2008-01-10T08:04:00.000-08:00

A "purpose-idea" just doesn't land on your lap because you're lucky, smart and good-looking. A sense of purpose only comes your way usually because you've been working your ass off over a long period of time, intensely cultivating it. And yeah, sometimes that will appear to more mainstream people as "Having no life". To hell with them. They don't know or care about you. Successful people get that way by doing the stuff unsuccessful people aren't willing to do. Harsh but true.

gapingvoid.com

And isn't that what we're all looking for? An idea to be purposeful? A reason to live? A mission? Isn't that what we look for in religion? Isn't that what we want when we have a family?

Hugh is talking less about the biggest picture and more about how we choose to spend our time and make a living. A sense of purpose in a job truly is cultivated and created, it doesn't just happen. Does a position of great responsibility and high visibility instill purpose? It might for a minute, then you actually have to own it.

And that's what this all comes down to: what do you own? I'm not talking about possessions, I'm taking about accountability. Do you own what you do? Do you own everything you do at work? Do you own what you create? Do you even own your own life?

Owning who you are and where your going is, simply put, a lesson you learn and understand or one you avoid until you die.

Green Vocab WotD #002: Biodiesel

2008-01-07T08:41:00.001-08:00

Thought the WotD was a one-time thing, huh?

biodiesel

Before anyone gets up in arms about my reduction of such a cool technology to a simple vocabulary word, realize that there are not a lot of people out there who really know what biodiesel is. And, who better to explain it to the people than me, right? My readership, at this point, must be in the low millions, my delivery style is smart but accessible, and I almost have a degree so... yeah.

First thing is first - let's consult Wikipedia on the matter:

This article is about transesterified plant and animal oils.For thermally processed biodiesel, see Biomass to liquid. For hydrogenated alkane renewable diesel, see NExBTL. For organic waste to light crude production, see Thermal Depolymerization. For unmodified vegetable oil used as motor fuel, see Vegetable oil used as fuel.

What the...? Already we have a problem: there are a bunch of different kinds of biodiesel. Maybe that is where some of the common confusion comes from. We'll get into a technical description of all of that in a bit.

For a more general description, I went to biodiesel.org. They tell me that there are three different kinds of "biodiesel" happening in the world today (I assume these are the pirmary types with many other variations)...

-> The fuel with the true Biodiesel moniker is one made of "mono-alkyl esters of long chain fatty acids derived from vegetable oils or animal fats." Long chain fatty acids are components of fat (yes, that fat) and it is what gives them their greasy feeling and ability to cling to your dishes. This also means they are "hydrophobic" or do not mix with water (for all of you that thought 'non-polar,' that's right too). Calling something a 'mono-alkyl ester' means that, instead of an acid group (making it a 'fatty acid'), there is an ester group (the acidic hydrogen of the acid is replaced by one carbon and three non-acidic hydrogens). This process basically makes the compound more energetic and easier to burn.

-> The next fuel that is more or less biodiesel but doesn't get the name is Renewable Diesel. This is described as "fuel produced from biological material using a process called 'thermal depolymerization.'" Polymerization is a process (natural and otherwise) where small molecules are turned into larger molecules. As an example, plastics are polymers - 'poly' indicating many repetitions and 'mer' indicating a unit. So, reverse it and think about what happens when you depolymerize something thermally - you change the temperature enough so that large (in this case biological) molecule break into smaller ones to be used. As molecules polymerize, they typically become more stable and less likely to combust. Break them down and you might get something that can burn.

-> Last but not least (and possibly more likely to be popular for the time being) is co-produced renewable diesel which is generated "when an oil company adds small amounts vegetable oils or animal fats to the traditional petroleum refining process when producing diesel fuel (coprocessing)." Think E85 but, like, B15. A portion of the diesel fuel being produced is replaced with something renewable, likely similar to the biodiesel defined above. This, IMHO, is a nice gesture but too little too late.

Here are the FAQs (that I've heard at least)

Can any diesel car run on biodiesel?

This is a great question and the answer, through the reading that I have done, is yes. I've read that it may have a better solvent effect (meaning that material is more easily transported by biodiesel compared to regular diesel) which actually would lead to a cleaner engine and fuel system. This, however, may also "degrade natural rubber gaskets and hoses in vehicles [mostly found in vehicles manufactured before 1992]" (Wiki). All-in-all, you shouldn't have to worry about it too much but, to be safe, I would probably recommend taking your car to a good diesel mechanic and consulting him/her about it (JIC).

Does biodiesel have a greater or lesser impact on the environment?

A very important question, especially when you start talking about a fuel that is known for being, in the past at least, quite dirty. Here's what biodiesel.org has to saw about the matter (in their FAQ section):

A 1998 biodiesel lifecycle study, jointly sponsored by the US Department of Energy and the US Department of Agriculture, concluded biodiesel reduces net CO² emissions by 78 percent compared to petroleum diesel. This is due to biodiesel’s closed carbon cycle. The CO² released into the atmosphere when biodiesel is burned is recycled by growing plants, which are later processed into fuel..Is biodiesel safer than petroleum diesel? Scientific research confirms that biodiesel exhaust has a less harmful impact on human health than petroleum diesel fuel. Biodiesel emissions have decreased levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and nitrited PAH compounds that have been identified as potential cancer causing compounds.

Brilliant! I, honestly, never realized how green that fuel really is. A diesel hybrid running off of biodiesel fuel is a great way to drastically reduce your carbon footprint and save a bit of cash!

FYI, EPA says a 67% reduction... a bit less

Is it hard to find? Does it cost more?

There are over Does biodiesel have a greater or lesser impact on the environment?">1,200 places pumping biodiesel fuel in the United States so, no, not too hard to find if you're near a major metro area. Cost-wise, it's hard to say... I want to swing by Pearson Fuel nearby my place to see what it goes for. There is not a lot of current, accurate information on how much biodiesel costs; I've seen $1 to 2 or $3 to more in my random Google search.

There is certainly much more to know and learn... this is a technology I'm going to keep my eye on.

Very important MPG fact to consider...

2008-01-03T14:12:00.000-08:00

First things first... this is a very simple concept but the idea to put it into a spreadsheet to illustrate it is NOT my idea. I can't seem to find the original website in the Digg-iverse but I think it is a very important point to make.

If you're reading about the same stuff I am (which I can imagine that you are), you are seeing a lot of stuff about 100, 200, even 300 mpg vehicles being imagined and conceptualized (and built). Personally, I love the idea of extreme ingenuity and material science being applied to sustainable transportation but this kind of research begs the question 'are triple digit MPG cars essential?"

It is quite easy to believe that fuel efficiency has a linear relationship with fuel used but that is not the case. If it were, there would be a point that we would reach where a car is so efficient it begins producing fuel. This can't happen so the relationship is not linear.

When you plug the numbers into a spreadsheet, you see this kind of data:

When you plot MPG (x-axis [bottom]) versus amount of fuel used on a graph, it looks like this:

When you see fuel usage like this, what do you think? Did you understand this concept before now? What implications does it have? Study the numbers and I think you'll see some interesting things...

My salient points:

1) Buying a slightly more efficient SUV makes a BIG difference. If you decided against the 6.2L Chevy Tahoe (12 MPG city) and went with the 5.3L version instead, you'd save almost 180 gallons of fuel and $580. If I wanted to save that by buying a new car to replace what I have, I would have to get 35 MPG (like a Camry Hybrid) or five times the increase in gas mileage.

2) Big changes in the low end of things makes a huge difference. If I opted for the Tahoe Hybrid over the aforementioned 6.2L option, I would save 536 gallons of gas at about $1,700 a year.

3) My friend who bought a Camry Hybrid to replace his Ford Explorer (getting 9 MPG [had to be one part poor Ford MPG, one part lunatic driving style, and one part mechanical problem of some sort]) is saving 1,200 gallons of gas per year and almost $4,000. That's over $300 per month or a significant portion of his car payment, I imagine.

4) If you drive an SUV, remember that every little MPG helps. If your EPA MPG rating is 14 but you drive more aggressively than others, you're probably getting more like 11 or 12 and costing yourself over $700 per year to drive like that.

5) Buying an Element is going to cost me an extra $185 per year (57 gallons of gas). Reaching my 30 MPG goal while keeping the car is going to save me $356 (110 gallons of gas). *sigh*

Honda! Make it damn hybrid already, will ya?!?!

Thank you Chad & Erin!

2008-01-02T17:41:00.000-08:00

For my renewable wind energy card! I asked for something green for Christmas and, being that they are from the eco-friendly state of Colorado, they knew what the heck I was talking about so I got one of these:

Which means this:

This is a renewable certificate product. For every unit of renewable electricity generated, an equivilent [sic] amount of renewable certificates is produced. The purchase of renewable certificates supports renewable electricity generation, which can help offset conventional electricity generation in the region where the renewable generator is located. You will continue to receive a separate electricity bill from your utility. This product matches up to 100% of your estimated electricity usage. The product will be made up of the following new renewable resources averaged annually.

The site also did the math for me and, according to them, Chad and Erin offset my annual mileage by 1,116 miles, which is, coincidentally, happens to be almost exactly how many miles it is from our house to theirs! I like the subtle hint!

My MPG

2008-01-01T20:16:00.000-08:00

I drive a 2000 1.8L turbo GTI, FYI.... right now I'm getting 24.6 MPG. I drive mostly in the city so that's not too bad. Over the next year or so, if I decide to hang on to this car, I plan on getting it over 30 through low resistance tires, change in intake/exhaust (possibly), and maybe a software solution as well. My big plan is to replace the current engine with a VW TDI and build a hybrid system for it... you know, because I'm SO mechanically proficient! That's me being sarcastic.

What is talent?

2007-12-24T00:36:00.000-08:00

talent.

I have a Hotmail address that includes the word "talent" in it. I'm not going to broadcast the story of how this address came to be simply because the entertainment to embarrassment ratio is far too low. Regardless, every time I give this address out over the phone or in person to someone, it makes me think about the word "talent" before I think about the genesis of the address. I think 'does this person think I'm full of myself because I have the word "talent" in my address?' Then, I think 'do I deserve to have this word in my email address?'

talent.

Talent is a funny thing. Being talented in something is a product of chance, practice, both, and neither. By chance, you can be a talented writer. By practice, you can be a talented basketball player. By both, you can be an inspirational painter. By neither, you could have the potential for something within you and never even know. Talent is born and built and wasted and ignored.

talent.

In the past couple of days, I've talked to two very talented people. These are people that I have a lot of respect for and whose work I am amazed by. The talent they both display is fascinating to experience though each of them have very different talents that exist at very different cultivation levels.

talent.

One is both accomplished in his field and an expert at human interaction. He is, thankfully, writing a book which, if the universe is fair and just, should sell a million copies. He is a family/marriage counselor by trade who happens to be the most insightful person I know when it comes to humans interacting with each other. He can say very, very little while telling you more than anyone has ever told you before. This is what he told me (personally) about talent (this is not a direct quote; I'm paraphrasing):

Use who you know and what you know to do what you need to do. Sometimes we think that we need to do everything and know everything ourselves but that is not how you get done what needs to be done. Leverage your talent to build relationships and use these relationships to reach your goals. When you try to do everything at once, you get bogged down in the details. You need to find the people that can help you the most and use their talent to help you.

What do you think?

talent.

The other person I talked to about this is a musician with an international fan base and an album coming out soon. I'm really not sure exactly long he has been making music but I can assume that it's been at least a decade. Having a conversation with him is a pleasure because he's both very smart and very knowledgeable and does everything he can to make sure he speaks his mind as clearly as possible. He's political, musical, socially-conscious, sans both a driver's license and a cell phone (OMG, can you imagine?? LOL), and a great person to talk to about talent.

We got on the subject of someone he knows that is a talented videographer. Hearing someone like him talk about someone he respected made me want to ask him how he handles others with talent. I asked him, essentially, how he feels when he is around talent that is potentially greater than his own? He had this to say (again, paraphrased):

I just like to be around talent, be the nexus of talent around me. I like to be around people who are more talented than me because I can learn from it. Having talented people around me makes me work harder and do more, not to compete but because I have more resources

Intrigued, I dug a little deeper. He clearly has a talent that he has no choice but to follow. How does it feel to have a talent and a passion you can't deny?

I'm not sure it's all that great. I'm stuck doing this whether I want to or not. Trying to be a rock star and making an impact on pop culture is a curse, really. I don't have anything that's marketable, I'm basically a starving artist. Either I make an album that works and appeals to people or I fail; those are my two options. I'm always facing failure no matter what I do. There is a stigma to being creative, I don't really have a marketable skill. If this doesn't work, then what? If I fail, people can look at me and say 'silly boy, of course you don't do that, you'll never get anywhere in music."

talent.

Talent is a blessing and talent is a curse. Talent ties you up and talent sets you free. Talent pays the bills and talent drains your savings account.

So what is universal about talent? Talent only gets better with practice and focus. Talent makes you popular if you let it. Talent is knowing when to use your talent and when to use someone else's talent. Talent gets better in the presence of complementary talent. Talent comes to you, it finds you. Talent is finding your own flow, tapping into something that's bigger than yourself. Talent won't guarantee your happiness and talent won't guarantee your income.

Your talent is bigger than you, it's bigger than what you can create or fix or destroy. Still, the talent that you have inside of you is yours to use or yours to ignore. Not everyone who finds and exploits their talent will end up with what they wanted or thought they deserved out of life. What they will do, always, is inspire and amaze and cause people to think if they let that talent out into the world. Human ability appears limitless in it's depth, breadth, and scope. Even if you don't or won't find it in yourself, talent has the ability to affect you in fascinating ways.

talent.

Energy bill... what's the buzz?

2007-12-19T13:50:00.000-08:00

What's the skinny? A new energy bill just passed in in the House and is on its way to the Prez. Here's what it demands (using this NY Times article as a reference):

-> "The bill requires cars and light trucks sold in the United States to meet a fleetwide average of 35 miles a gallon by 2020."

This are the infamous CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) standards you hear about all over the place. Currently, it is 27.5. To me, lowering energy used is as simple as making the things we use more efficient. This gets the action it out of the hands of people who don't care about the big picture (i.e. a majority of consumers). You put part of the burden of conservation on the manufacturers, where, in my opinion, it should be. This does not take the burden OFF of the consumer by any means but it makes it easier for people to make the right choice.

Problems? "Critics say it will make cars and trucks less safe and more expensive," two valid points, to be sure. But this is assuming that safety and economy are mutually exclusive which I don't agree with. Will it make cars more expensive? Sure but so does all the technology and research that goes into making them faster, which, at this junction, is going to take a back seat. You could say that making them more expensive puts off the decision to buy a new car, reducing manufacturing across the board and potential waste of an old car. You could counter THAT with saying that this will keep people in potentially less fuel-efficient cars (i.e. older) for longer. There's also been suggestion that the last time that fuel economy was raised, people simply started driving more and made up for it.

I think a CAFE is necessary but, as it is, will not be effective enough. I think an ECAFE is better: EFFECTIVE Corp Avg Fuel Economy. Under current CAFE standards, a car company could sell one model at 20 MPG and one model at 40 MPG. If 75% of your sales are the 20 MPG car, your EFFECTIVE fuel economy is (.75 x 20) + (.25 x 40) = 25 MPG while your current CAFE would be (20 + 40) / 2 = 30 MPG. Of course you can't enforce consumer choices of a higher MPG automobile but this would mean that the worst offenders would have to be phased out and replaced with better alternatives. People will complain about the lack of choice but our choices are restricted now as it is. I posted the following statement here (scroll down):

Eventually, consumer choice will have be curbed by necessity. We can't own a fully auto weapon, we can't drive cars that don't meet safety standards, we can't drive drunk, and we can't own slaves. These are all choices that have been restricted because of a number of reasons and I'm doing fine because of it. In understand that my quality of life isn't better because I'm allowed to do what I want to do. I've learned to cut back my speed on the freeway, take public transportation, deal with CFLs and power strips, and be a little colder in the winter and warmer in the summer.

That's enough from me... I want to include some relevant feedback from The Car Lounge because there are some serious gearheads and environmentalists who know more about this stuff than I do.

uncleho: "I think the process of conservation of dino fuels (my belief is that we will be tied to it for some time to come, because other fuels are not readily available or practical) in relation to cars requires "motivating" both companies AND consumers. IMO... the root cause necessitates the most motivation, because car companies will only build what people desire. Furthermore, there is only one motivator - government. I believe CAFE is a good start, but that reviews for loop holes (be it truck exclusion or dumb statistics or credits) is required."

CarLuvrSD: "Intrinsic motivation> Government coercion."

rimtrim: "The problem with waiting for intrinsic motivation (aka market forces) to kick in is that it will likely only happen AFTER a major problem has become clear -- either we really do begin to have oil shortages due to lack of supply, or global warming floods NYC, or whatever. By then it will be too late to change in an orderly fashion.

This raises the question of what our goals are. If we want to get as many people as possible into more efficient cars right away, raising the gas tax dramatically is the way to do it.... On the other hand, if the goal is to encourage a gradual changeover with minimal disruption of people's lives, a CAFE-style system is better. It has no effect on people who are happy with the cars they already have, and the effects on new-car buyers are not likely to be huge price increases. While there will be some price increases for additional hybrid or diesel equipment, the automakers would also be pressed to look for low- or no-cost changes to improve economy, such as restricting power, changing transmission gearing, improving aerodynamics, etc. The overall results of this would be that new cars would be less "cool", but more efficient, and probably not that much more expensive."

uncleho: "I often wonder WTF do we fix the CURRENT community design as so much of America (and unfortunately other countries trying to emulate us) is setup for the car (i.e. It is too late to fix it as it will be a massively expensive undertaking.). But if we don't fix it now, when will we fix it? Should we just live under some short-sighted/ignorant design forever or spend the money know for long term conservation?

Detroit and its utter lack of a real public transit system is a good candidate. And who's to say the auto companies need to make money with just CARS? GM's 'motto' is actually to be "#1 in transportation". Guess what GM??? Transportation can = buses (again), train/railway/subway, and even aircraft!

Changes in transport strategy to conserve can actually BE profitable as a whole new drive can be started in an otherwise niche market - public transport!"

The CAFE thing, unfortunately, is not the only change proposed...

-> "[The bill] requires the annual production of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2022, a fivefold increase from current ethanol production levels"

That's bad, plain and simple. Want to know why I think that? Start here, go here and then keep reading; it should not take much to convince you that ethanol is not the answer.

If dreams were pennies...

2007-12-19T08:09:00.000-08:00

According to the State Department, MIT is on-track to save the world. I always roll my eyes at these articles about concepts and dreams... I like to read articles about things hitting the marketplace or starting to be manufactured. On the other hand, it is MIT, the same group that brought you the "Flexcar2" idea. Here's the skinny:

Amy Jaffe is surprised that only very few people think she and her colleagues are crazy. What the Massachusetts Technology Institute (MIT) senior, about 400 other students and 30 faculty members from around the world want to do is not a small feat. The group plans to build, in just three years, a hyperefficient, supersafe four-passenger to six-passenger car called VDS Vision that will be produced and used with 95 percent less energy and toxic materials throughout its lifetime than an average existing vehicle.

Hyperefficient! Supersafe! Neither of these words are accepted by my browser spell check, just in case you were wondering.

Adrian Chernoff, who volunteers as a guide, mentor and adviser to program participants, says they face a tremendous challenge...Chernoff, an accomplished inventor and innovator, knows what he is talking about. As a chief architect and principal inventor behind General Motors's 2001 Reinvention of the Automobile program, he helped to bring about several concept and demonstration vehicles such as AUTOnomy, Hy-Wire, CARousel and Sequel. With many independent teams spread around the world, working together smoothly and efficiently will be the most difficult part of the project, Chernoff said. “In the end, it is about networking, collaboration and teamwork,” Chernoff said.

*Sigh*, the Hy-Wire...

It's funny that this car should come up in a article considering my recent reminiscing session. The Hy-Wire was the GM car that really got me excited about hydrogen power in cars. The innovation behind the car was less about its propulsion and more about its actual design. Hydrogen (and electric) cars allow (read: require) you to re-design the idea of a car from the ground up. Forget about steering shafts, drive-lines, engine placement, and cooling systems; everything needed to move the car is modular and doesn't really limit its placement in the vehicle. What this lets you do is include all this stuff into one "skateboard" section of the car and then rearrange the rest of it as you will. I did a Google Sketch-Up to illustrate:

So imagine the green as the batteries and/or fuel cell(s) and the blue for your electric motors. Computers are interspersed through-out and the car is drive-by-wire (so instead of the steering shaft actually turning wheels or your gas pedal actually feeding fuel, your inputs tell the computer to do it [my VW is drive-by-wire for gas input so this isn't crazy future stuff]). That means you can add and remove all the interior parts (seats, dash, etc) and even change the body on it and you won't be affecting how the car moves. It's a great concept and not that hard to actually make happen.

The point I eventually intend to make is that this little Hy-Wire guy has been out and about for many years, at least 7 if my memory serves me right. Despite its great ideas and "potential to revolutionize the blah blah blah," it's gone nowhere. Well, Wired got to drive it at least, that's something.

I admire long term goals ("the group's goal goes beyond that; members also want to change the way cars are produced and used") but it's important to take this kind of news for exactly what it is: a step in the right direction and a promise of absolutely nothing. I would hate for someone to read this and go "here it is! The future is now! Problems are solved!" There are quite a few safe and economic options out there to begin with and not everyone is rushing to get them. You can buy and own an electric vehicle, you can choose a hybrid SUV, you can drive differently. All of these things contributes towards the same goal and this project: using less oil, changing our economy, and polluting less. If people the way we produce and buy and use our cars was apt to be changed, wouldn't we already be doing everything we could?

Simply put, there are not enough people out there (yet) who care enough to make this kind of radical change. Never stop dreaming, never stop building, never stop designing, never ever. But make sure you have the big picture in your head too: there's more to overcome than just the products that are available. There is a massive, interconnected, complicated sociology, psychology, and infrastructure in place that just won't shift directions for a product like a Saint Bernard for a milkbone.

Keeping dreaming but don't quit your day job (see number 7):

THE SEX & CASH THEORY: "The creative person basically has two kinds of jobs: One is the sexy, creative kind. Second is the kind that pays the bills. Sometimes the task in hand covers both bases, but not often. This tense duality will always play center stage. It will never be transcended."

OMG! Seattle INCREASES public transportation!?

2007-12-18T07:52:00.000-08:00

This I've got to see in person. Here is the main site and here is the route:

Call me crazy but I'm not sure that route is going to help too much. You're cutting right through a section of Seattle that doesn't have a lot of people living in it. The whole North half of the route is not a very populated/popular area. Plus, the housing there is fairly expensive and I'm pretty sure the bulk of public transportation (PT) riders, for now, are not the ones who left their C-class Mercedes at home (congrats to you if you do, though; PT should have nothing to do with socioeconomic status).

Other then the kind of goofy route, the fare is low ($1.50) and the website says it does connect the other PT systems which is a start:

The Seattle Streetcar's South Lake Union line has eleven stops conveniently located a short walk from other transportation hubs connecting the entire the region's transportation options, including: Metro buses and Sound Transit buses, trains and light rail; Ferry service; Taxi; Flexcar; Park and Ride; and Monorail.

The big upside is that the South Lake Union Trolley has a great acronym. Part of me wonders if someone was smart enough to "accidentally" give it such a funny name to possibly get it into people's minds.

Someone: "Wanna drive there or ride the SLUT?"
Someone else: "Is that a serious question? SLUT, of course!"
The first someone: "Alright, let's go SLUT it up!"

That was fun but I digress... So they have a great nickname, the fare is low, they connect other modes of transportation, and they look pretty neat:

All this is fine and dandy but there's a big problem in the mind of those who would like to see a massive increase in PT options like this one (especially in Seattle). The Seattle PI says that this could lead to new networks of PT: "We now want to talk about a network that connects neighborhoods to downtown." But those are talks, not plans. There is now this fancy, new trolley system covering areas where the ridership is, naturally, going to be pretty low. These are not congested areas, they are not huge urban centers (in terms of living spaces), and they probably didn't need this route to begin with. I suspect that they will see much less people riding the trolley as they anticipated and will use it as a reason to avoid future PT plans. The purse-string controllers will go "see, you silly Seattlites, we told you PT was stupid... look, no one is riding the one we gave you $52 million to build."

Seattle is a beautiful city caught up in a lot of goofy crap. It has two of the most amazing sports stadiums in the country and two disappointing sports teams with a pretty weak (in terms of numbers and overall fanaticism) fan base (come see the maniac Charger fans and you'll see what I mean). PT gets cut and cut and cut and people wonder why no one rides the buses and monorails (the monorail goes from the friggen Science Center to the Westlake Mall... not useful). Ineffective leadership, poor money management, and almost zero cultural diversity, Seattle simply needs a huge injection of something other than heroin.

So what to do? Why not make Seattle the shining example of a green city? Lots of rain to use, it already looks great, and the whole place could use an identity. I mean, it's already called the Emerald City. Make an environment for architects that fosters green design, legislate strict LEED enforcement, add a greentech museum... none of this is hard and none of it is all that expensive. Tax breaks for adding EV charging stations, same for alternative fuel stations.

*sigh* complaining about Seattle makes me miss it a little bit... coming home soon.

What does it all mean?

2007-12-17T10:18:00.000-08:00

Hugh MacLeod, the first blogger I ever started reading and ever subscribed to, drew this carton which makes me laugh first, then consider the implications:

What are your meaningful brand experiences? What brands get you going? Does it make you feel icky to be asked that question? I think it is a natural human reaction to recoil a bit from the idea of a "Meaningful Brand Experience" making us feel better but I also think it is not a waste of time to consider what it means.

Since we're sharing, I'll start. I have had meaningful brand experiences with Apple, for sure. Listening, organizing, and sharing the music that gets me through my life... also yelling, swearing, and threatening when I realize Apple's conspiracy against PC users (this has not been officially substantiated). Despite it's recent and mysterious demise, I've always had a love affair with Canon digital cameras. The 4+ gigabytes of pictures I obsessively and repeatedly back-up show a long trail of friends, relationships, and experiences, all of which I relate back to my two Canon cameras. On a smaller scale, I also have a strong affection for the BreakBeat Science record label. They were my drum&bass mecca and visiting the shop in New York was a big highlight of my trip out east. Their logo still makes me smile...

Today, I'm faced with a different kind of brand experience, a distinctly sad one. Stumbling through alternative energy news on Google News (I know, surprise surprise, a Google product), I came across a few stories mentioning the potential demise of Ballard Power Systems, a fuel cell company in Vancouver, British Columbia that I always fancied myself working for.

Here's one sign:

Peter Stickler, vice president of human resources at Ballard Power Systems Inc. sold 19,180 shares at prices ranging from US$4.90 to US$5 on Dec. 13 and Dec. 14, 2007. His total company holdings after these transactions was 115,440 shares.

And another (with a particularly morose headline and picture):

Ballard -- the Canadian fuel-cell company that once hoped to be the "Intel Inside of the hydrogen car revolution -- has sold off its automotive fuel-cell business to Daimler and Ford.

[Analyst]: [Ballard] would never contemplate such as move if it thought it had any chance of making good on the millions it has poured into that research -- and the vast financing it has been able to raise with promises of the hydrogen highway, a route to the future that has never materialized, but seduced investors with visions of cars that spewed only water from their tailpipes.

The above article takes much of its content from here, BTW.

From the horse's mouth:

Ballard Power Systems (TSX: BLD)(NASDAQ: BLDP) today announced that it has agreed to sell the company's automotive fuel cell assets to Daimler AG and Ford Motor Company. Payment for these assets will consist of all 34.3 million Ballard shares held by Daimler and Ford. These shares will then be cancelled. Ballard expects to record an estimated gain on the transaction of $95-to-$105 million.

"This transaction will enable Ballard to concentrate on growth in fuel cell applications which provide clean energy solutions in commercial markets," said John Sheridan, Ballard's President and CEO. "It also lowers Ballard's risk profile by addressing the realities of the high cost and long timeline for automotive fuel cell commercialization. At the same time, a new private company will be established and will be positioned for success in automotive fuel cell technology over the longer term, with management and funding provided by Daimler and Ford."

So what does it all mean? I have two perspectives on the matter...

If this does, in fact, point to hydrogen's eventual demise as an automotive fuel, so be it. If you know me then you know I love the idea of hydrogen and I feel like it is a viable option. A lot of my optimism is simply a general belief in scientific progress and an overall "never say never" sentiment. I know there are problems with a massive hydrogen economy/infrastructure as it stands; if you follow the industry at all, you'll know this. But the storage problems are, in my opinion, minute and easy to overcome. The hydrogen production problem is the big one but even that has some promising technology .

Regardless, if hydrogen is not meant to be, I'm not going to be the lone voice screaming against all reason for the fuel to be adopted simply because I like it and think it is neat. I'm seeing a lot of this going on with ethanol and I refuse to be counter-productive in the search for sustainable transportation simply because my pet technology didn't work out.

Enough said on that.

The sad part - i.e. my second perspective on this news - is the death of an icon representing something very important to me. Ballad Power Systems was the second company I attributed to clean energy and sustainable vehicles. The first was GM. In fact, GM was the whole reason I started pursuing this industry as a career. It was a Wired article about their fuel cell technology that made me perk up, get my crap together, and go to school (no joke). As I learned more about the technology and what kind of promise it held, Ballard ousted GM as my dream company for employment (after GM declined my generous offer to move out to Detroit and help them pursue green technologies... also no joke. Apparently they have my resume on file). I imagined myself living in Vancouver, making a name for myself in the transportation world. It was a perfect dream but, of course, just that... a dream.

It turns out, all of that dreaming actually lead somewhere. I'm in school with a goal in sight, I'm building valuable contacts in the field, and I'm working hands-on with chemistry that might just be the hydrogen storage silver bullet (there's that bright and shiny optimism). The loss of my "corporate role-model" certainly doesn't indicate the end of the road for my quest but it is symbolic. Ballard's name comes up in almost every hydrogen fuel cell story simply because they build the best fuel cell available right now. The were THE name in fuel cells and, for a while, represented a pretty solid investment.

So is this the "end of the road for hydrogen?" Will Ballard Power's symbolic loss of their automotive sector really lead to the demise of this technology? It's a bad sign but, really, who can say? All it really means is that hydrogen will not be profitable in the very near future and Ballard, certainly a company that has shouldered huge financial burdens to try to make this technology come to fruition, needs a break. I will add, however, that having a buyer (Daimler Chrysler...not expected) ready and able to step up and take over the technology is a good thing. Ballard will continue to develop fuel cells but in a different sector (hopefully a profitable one). Who knows, maybe this is exactly what hydrogen technology needs. Ballard can concentrate on different markets and leave the automotive stuff to an automotive company. Win-win? I guess we'll see :)

As for me, I'll have a little moment of silence for the company that symbolized progress and altruism despite obstacles but I will also revisit the big picture reason why I'm pursuing what I'm pursuing.

1) I'm for safe, clean, scalable, and sustainable transportation for the most people possible.

2) I'm not a cheerleader for anything except the greenest, most feasible technology available.

3) It will be hard but not impossible for us to achieve a long-term, valid replacement for petroleum.

I wish great karma and financial success for all the people involved with Ballard Power Systems. Thank you for my meaningful brand experience...

Great minds think alike I guess

2007-12-14T16:25:00.000-08:00

Great post from Seth Godin about Whole Foods and this whole eco-movement thing:

A trip to the Whole Foods Market used to be really fun. It's an amusement park for food, a place where the lights are bright, the vegetables are fresh, the potato chips apparently guilt free.

Sometime in the last year, it feels to me, the story changed.

The mantra of "less" which is a natural offshoot of carbon-footprint thinking, combined with the mantra of "less" which is a natural offshoot of overfishing, combined with... have made shopping in a store like this a contest over who can have less impact.

So, here's a can of tuna, but maybe that's not okay because it's a can and it's tuna.

And here's an avocado, but maybe that's not okay because it came a long way in a truck.

And on and on.

For me, local and organic is a treat. I feel great doing it and I'm happy to invest the time to go to the Union Square market. I wonder, though, about how long the legs on that story are. If we're going to make people feel guilty when they spend money, pretty soon they're going to start ignoring the story that makes them feel guilty.

Do you remember when you were a kid and you were supposed to clean your plate when eating because somehow that was going to help some starving kid in China? That story didn't last so long.

I'm more and more convinced that the best hope for the eco movement is to tell a story of efficiency and growth and ingenuity. More is easy to sell. Less almost never is.

Bold emphasis is mine...

Efficiency, growth and ingenuity... certainly things you've read on here, right?

The future (and present) of science

2007-12-14T09:35:00.000-08:00

Science, chemistry in particular, is a very interesting world to be involved in, academically and professionally. Actually, I hate the word interesting, too vague. Allow me to start over...

Chemistry is pretty bad ass for the most part. The classes are fascinating if you pay attention and you understand the implications, the implications are important because chemistry, plainly put, is involved in every single thing you experience every second of your life, and practically every experience you have in a research environment has the potential to be novel.

When I started my undergrad research project at SDSU in metal-organic frameworks, I was immediately struck by the open-source nature of the chemistry community. This was something I experienced in my position at Johnson & Johnson but had never seen first hand. For those of you outside of this world that I am just now getting acclimated to, here's exactly how chemistry works:

The skeleton (in this case meaning underlaying framework) is one or a group of very smart people. These are the PhDs and the post docs (those who have continued their formal research after a doctorate degree has been achieved) and they are the heart of any lab environment. They are the brain and kidneys too and, while we're at it, probably the lungs and DNA and hemoglobin as well. I'm really getting out of hand with these anatomical metaphors and probably losing a little focus as well. Keep in mind I'm just now trying to recover from an intense two weeks preparing for final exams. I'm recovering by working a 10 hour day if that makes any sense.

What I'm trying to say is that chemistry is nothing without some serious brain power hanging around. What is interesting about PhDs and professors and so on is that they are not the main workers (most work damn hard, don't get me wrong), they are the directors, the conductors if you will. I would venture a guess that if you're not involved in chemistry that you might think it's all about mixing colorful liquids to get colorful solids that save the world. The real work is done researching and problem solving OUTside of the lab. Let me be clear: the mixing and heating and solvating and freezing and separating and roto-vapping and analyzing are what all of the research is for but, without a plan, the scientific foot-work is useless.

You might be surprised if you knew how much time people spent in front of a computer or notebook doing any number of (somewhat) tedious tasks: recording results, calculating molarity and yield, summarizing information, setting up presentations, and, the major time sink, researching the NEXT STEP. Doing this research can be massively frustrating and, for the time being, is a very medieval (almost spelled that right first time around) system. I guess it might seem a bit ridiculous to call building molecules in a software program and searching through countless records accessed through this crazy thing called the interweb 'medieval' but, to someone who deals with "optimizing web experiences," it's a PITA.

What we do in chemistry is start with a problem, gather as much information as we can, and then just poke at solutions until we find an answer. The first time you start doing this, you're struck by how inefficient the whole process is. Just to start working might take an hour or more of baking glassware and pumping equipment into the "airbox:"

The point I'm meaning to address through this long, ridiculous ramble is that the scientific process for chemistry has come a LONG, LONG way and is almost incomprehensible in terms of its complexity and capacity but there is A LOT of room for improvement. The biggest/best change I could suggest (from my very novice POV) is a vast improvement in the sharing and exchange of information. Right now, we search through existing successful chemical procedures in the form of academic papers which may or may not be clear, free, safe, in English, capable of producing a usable yield, or incredibly expensive. The person who wrote the report may of may not be alive, still reachable, or even willing to answer any questions. They also might be wary of competition for grant money or fame and fortune (and groupies, of course). Here's an example of, basically, what we use to direct our research...
Click here and select "Full Screen" to view it better...

It is, of course, amazing that so much information is available on-line to academic institutions but using it is a drawn-out, frustrating hunt-and-peck activity that can go on for hours or days. The question is, how do you take work that people have, potentially, spent their whole lives accumulating, work that exists in many different forms, published or not?

Science, in a lot of ways, is a very open environment that wants, more than anything, the simple pleasure of accomplishment. Scientific advancements are also the source of a fantastic amount of money and will be as long as sentient beings are mucking about. So what is the middle ground? How can I retain sovereignty over work I've done while giving back to the system that made this work possible? I certainly don't have the answer to that question and I think that no one truly does.

Personally, I'm a fan of things being as open as possible. That's why I blog, plain and simple. That's also why I help people around me with anything I'm good at. I would be much happier in a world with more incorporation, more community, more open-source everything and less chances to be fantastically rich, less copyright laws , and less restriction altogether. "What about the work you do?!!" If everything I did needed to have a clear, upfront monetary value, I would be A LOT LESS BUSY. I certainly wouldn't blog, I wouldn't read, and I would be hard-pressed to stay as diligent in school as I have been. I am truly a fan of open information and will always contribute with that sentiment in mind.

Which brings me to the article that I stumbled upon (yes, that was definitely one hell of an introduction). From the Chronicle of Higher Education:

Microsoft is partnering with several universities to create open-access Web sites where chemists, freely and easily, can find details about molecules and atoms. That’s the report today from Peter Murray-Rust of the chemistry department at the University of Cambridge, in his blog.

Murray-Rust notes that Microsoft has financed and developed a software design called Object Re-Use and Exchange “which sees the future as composed of a large number of interoperating repositories rather than monolithic databases.” Using it, he continues, will allow bench chemists and undergraduates to browse libraries of molecular structures to get information they need for research and publications, rather than being restricted to whatever database to which they happen to have a password.

“We shall also be ‘scraping’ (ugly word) any material we can legally access,” Murray-Rust writes.

Partners in the program, besides Cambridge and Microsoft, include Penn State University, Cornell, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and the PubChem project, a free database of molecular structures hosted by the National Institutes of Health

We will, hopefully, see this more and more as time goes on. As Google keeps making uncopyrighted work available for free and science opens up further and further, people will see the benefits that don't have an intrinsic dollar value.

The best part about this is that the ones who create the information (students, professors, etc) are FAR more likely to be the ones who want the information shared (compared to executives, deans, etc.). Though the universities where the work was done have some kind of claim over the knowledge, it is ultimately up to the scientist whether that information goes anywhere. They can share it clandestinely, talk about it whenever they want, and help 'competing' researchers take that next step. The information always belongs to the holder, no matter how many copyright laws there are.

Here's another example of a push for professors to share their research (also from the Chronicle):

Dan Cohen, director of the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University, wants scholars to stop keeping their research materials to themselves. Just about every academic has notes, photographs, digital scans of research documents, and plenty of other data on their hard drives, he says, but they rarely share anything beyond what makes it into their final books or journal articles. Why not upload such material to a shared online database for other scholars to draw from?

The center announced yesterday that it will work with the nonprofit Internet Archive to create just such a database — and to build tools to make it easy for professors to add their personal research files. The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation awarded $514,000 to the center to support the effort, and gave more than $700,000 more to the Internet Archive for the project as well.

Mr. Cohen said that the key to his plan was ease of use. Many professors are using the Zotero software already, he said, and the upload will take place with just a few clicks. Plus, adding materials might enhance a scholar’s reputation, since his or her name will remain attached to the contribution. Materials in the archive should be easy enough to find, since the Internet Archive, where the materials will be posted, is already popular online.

Open it up, folks, let your information out. Your value, monetary or otherwise, is based largely on your future potential, not your past body of work. Your past body of work serves as a possible indicator of your future potential. Get out there and share what you have, no matter what it is. Everyone will benefit, yourself the most.

The magic of statistical mechanics

2007-12-12T11:45:00.000-08:00

The software that likely went into this (unless it's a big pile of pseudo-science) is probably a sight to behold. From the NY Times:

The company employs what it calls a “package flow” software program, which among other hyper-efficient practices involving the packing and sorting of its cargo, maps out routes for every one of its drivers, drastically reducing the number of left-hand turns they make (taking into consideration, of course, those instances where not to make the left-hand turn would result in a ridiculously circuitous route).

Last year, according to Heather Robinson, a U.P.S. spokeswoman, the software helped the company shave 28.5 million miles off its delivery routes, which has resulted in savings of roughly three million gallons of gas and has reduced CO2 emissions by 31,000 metric tons. So what can Brown do for you? We can’t speak to how good or bad they are in the parcel-delivery world, but they won’t be clogging up the left-hand lane while they do their business.

That's what I'm talking about!

The act of going green comes in many different shapes and sizes (only one color, of course). It ranges from altering your life completely to eliminate/drastically lessen your impact on your surrounding environment all the way to doing something that benefits both yourself and the environment. At this stage in the game, people should at least be CONSIDERING their impact on energy, water and waste. For one, it is just the right thing to do (see John Locke and his ideas on Limits to Accumulation... I would argue that overuse [waste] falls under the same heading as spoilage do to over accumulation). For another, it could lead to savings and quality of life improvements you never thought about.

Gold star to UPS for finding a very interesting way to save money and use less gas!

Fun

2007-12-11T09:31:00.000-08:00

Try typing "joshisjosh.com" into your address bar... sweet huh?

POLITICO

2007-12-10T20:58:00.000-08:00

Politics, as a rule, usually just make my head spin and my tummy hurt but I found a nice, succinct collection of presidential opinions on major issues.

http://www.2decide.com/table.htm

It really brings everything together and makes you think very big picture. I think a lot of people pick one issue and make that the way they vote (*cough* stem cells *cough*). I think, if you are a rational person, it would be hard to look at this long list and only pick one issue.

Keep it real out there ;)

Odd categorization

2007-12-10T09:50:00.001-08:00

Want to pick a fuel efficient car? The government site www.fueleconomy.gov seems to have a few options for you here. Best of the best for those who don't like clicking on links for themselves?

Winner:

Toyota Prius with 48 city and 45 highway

Runners up:

Honda Civic Hybrid with 40 city and 45 highway
Toyota Yaris with 29 city and 36 highway
Toyota Corolla with 28 city and 37 highway
Honda Fit with 28 city and 34 highway
Nissan Versa with 26 city and 31 highway

What was the surprise of this site? The MPG for the following may not be surprising but their categories are...

Since when is a giant Bentley coupe called a mini compact?

Camry hybrid

2007-12-08T11:38:00.000-08:00

Kind words from a friend of mine who ditched a 9 MPG SUV (an Explorer gets 9MPG???) for a 34 MPG Camry:

Not only going broke paying for the gas in my truck (9mpg) but I'm really getting behind the alternative fuel movement. Trying to do my part baby! :) Car is AWESOME!! It doesn't have the power that you usually get (4cyl) but I'm too old to care about that kind of crap anyway. I do miss being up high while driving though - thats a tough transition. We got it all tricked out with NAV/Leather etc.. The mpg is only stated at like 34mpg as compared to the 07' Camrys which were stated as 40city 38hwy for the hybrid but I guess the EPA changed their standards for mpg testing? In the past I guess they did those tests with some 100lb dude driving with no AC/Heat/stereo etc in perfect conditions and driving on a completely flat surfaces. But now they are making it more realistic or something??

Yes, EPA MPG standards have been changed which is a good thing and, yes, moving towards sustainability means losing things that you thought you couldn't live without. It seems blasphemous to say that you're willing to give up a few ponies and try something new for the sake of doing the right thing but that'll change.

BTW, the new Camries look pretty darn good in the right trim level:

Green Vocab WotD #001: Cogeneration

2007-12-06T15:31:00.000-08:00

My, aren't I being optimistic by numbering this one 001 and though I expect 998 more of them! I'm hoping to bring a little more information into my blog here as well as keep myself "in the know." No use talking about stuff I know very little about, eh?

Cogeneration:

From Wiki:

Cogeneration (also combined heat and power, CHP) is the use of a heat engine or a power station to simultaneously generate both electricity and useful heat.

Hence, COgeneration. It goes on...

Conventional power plants emit the heat created as a byproduct of electricity generation into the environment through cooling towers, as flue gas, or by other means. CHP or a bottoming cycle captures the byproduct heat for domestic or industrial heating purposes, either very close to the plant, or —especially in Scandinavia and eastern Europe—for distribution through pipes to heat local housing.

This goes back to the LED lights I put on my X-mas tree. I told you that there is no hear coming off of them and that is where the energy savings is. In this case, the "byproduct of electricity generation" is heat and there is nothing to do about that (for now). So, there is waste energy. Remember, heat = light = electricity = radiation = energy. They are in different forms but it's all, thermodynamically, the same thing. We could theoretically power our own biological processes with electricity... in fact some of them are (nervous system, anyone?)

Cogeneration is another example of "Big Picture" thinking. Someone realized, decades after the discovery, that, hey, energy is energy. Waste heat (like your car engine) is wasted energy from gasoline. Get rid of the waste heat and you use less gasoline, plain and simple. In the case that you can't get rid of the heat (like your car engine), use it somehow.

In the United States, Con Edison produces 30 billion pounds of steam each year through its seven cogeneration plants (which boil water to 1,000°F/538°C) before pumping it to 100,000 buildings in Manhattan—the biggest commercial steam system in the world.

Cities are disgusting, pollution-soaked, dangerous clusters of wasteful humans... for now. They are also beautiful in their design and complexity and a great place to start using green technology. I find cities fascinating and will likely never live outside of one. Despite the destruction and waste that goes into maintaining them, it is better, in my opinion, than sprawl. Working to make NY, LA, Seattle, etc. cleaner will always trickle down to other locations.

Where was I going with that? Oh yeah... that kind of heating couldn't really happen in Spokane or Poway or any other small city. The electricity generation has to be massive and the populated areas have to be nearby. Look forward to systems like this pervading the nation.

Byproduct heat at moderate temperatures (212-356°F/100-180°C) can also be used in absorption chillers for cooling. A plant producing electricity, heat and cold is sometimes called trigeneration or more generally: polygeneration plant.

Heat used for cooling?! That's witchcraft!!! Not really... refrigerant like what is in your car/home AC is simply moved and vaporized using heat. Refrigerant cools things down by evaporating, like how your hand gets cold when you spill rubbing alcohol on it. It's all thermodynamics!

Cogeneration is a thermodynamically efficient use of fuel. In separate production of electricity some energy must be rejected as waste heat, but in cogeneration this thermal energy is put to good use.

Amen to that!

Hopefully we all learned something... I know I did :)

"My" Idea

2007-12-05T10:04:00.000-08:00

I say that because this came to me a little while back. I certainly claim no sovereignty over it, just explaining why I thought this was so neat.

The article

On a beautiful, crisp late fall afternoon, rock icon Neil Young took his 1959 Lincoln Continental for one last spin before a team of mechanics ripped out its gas-guzzling engine to make way for an electric motor.

What a great idea! Reminds me of the high school I posted about a few months ago. I love the idea of switching such a great, old car into a symbol of sustainable transportation. It's also nice to see celebrities doing the right thing.

Car in question (not actually his):

The article goes on to quote Neil as saying it will get 100 MPG and runs off of biodiesel. Transformation apparently takes 45 days... I'm sure Neil has a replacement.

More interesting than this specific car is the idea itself. I was asked a while back what my dream job would be and I said "CEO/owner/prez of a company that either built sustainable cars or modified current cars to be sustainable." I feel like that would really stretch my business sense, let me work individually with people, keep me in the auto world, let me be an innovator in terms of technique, and really work my entrepreneurial spirit (which really has not had a chance to be seen at this point). It's the perfect job, IMHO. In fact, being the CEO may not be exactly what I want but having something to do with a company like that would be ideal.

Well, the company that is changing this Lincoln is doing just that:

Goodwin is making a name for himself -- and his company, H-Line Conversions -- by turning gas-guzzling behemoths like Hummers, Cadillac Escalades, Jeeps and other big American cars into clean-power machines. The first thing he does is remove the old inefficient engine -- even if it's a brand new vehicle -- and replace it with a diesel engine that can run on biodiesel. What's the drawback of his method? You guessed it. Cost. "It's not cost-effective for someone to run out and spend $40,000 to double the fuel economy, but I have no shortage of customers," Goodwin says. Including California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who's having his Wagoneer converted to biodiesel. Goodwin, 37, drives a 1987 gas burning Wagoneer, rents his home and will sheepishly tell you he didn't graduate from high school. Expect to hear a lot more about Goodwin in the future. Companies are knocking down the door to work on projects with him.

I'm torn between seeing this as a massive opportunity for the future or scared that someone is already doing it....

What do you do when you see someone else living your dream and it's suddenly very clear to you how real that dream could be??

Sh*t.............................................................

Zero inspiration

2007-12-03T15:32:00.001-08:00

Final exams are impending and, with that, comes comprehensive, suffocating exhaustion. No longer am I tired or happy,or good when asked, I just am. This sentiment is both very familiar and not at all unique to me. All around, the incontestable signs of impending, permanent, official critique are popping up. Attendance, which dropped last week, is quickly climbing back up. Faces I'm not quite familiar with are appearing in class. The black-circle-under-the-eye plague is spreading unchecked across previously fresh-faced young whatevers-to-be.

Finals bring out the soldier in some, the beggar in others, and nothing at all in a third segment on campus. Some beg, borrow, and plead for a passing grade, suddenly feeling regret for the last 3 months of letting things slide. The library and computer lab are now both full of inconsiderate asses, completely mindless to what could and should be a quiet environment. The population there doubles; the regulars still remain but now they are joined by a new contingent, a platoon of slackers, procrastinators, alcoholics, and others who treat school like it starts and ends in the same month.

Much like the roles we take, the dress code around campus also splits into thirds. Suits and ties and dresses and blouses appear as everyone gets ready for that final group presentation in This Won't Help You Later 110. At the same time, old T-shirts and track suits and pajamas and helter-skelter hair dos also propagate, the product of a complete lack of interest in anything but the task at hand. Appearance, hygiene, laundry, and other typically essential components of society easily take a back seat to your future which, invariably, rides on your receipt of a vowel or a consonant. Some, like myself, didn't care, still don't and won't next semester either. About appearance, of course. My future rests in the letter, just like everyone else.

Still, despite the morose turn the campus takes this time of year, there is a small glimmer of hope in the student body's heavy and bloodshot eyes. With the end of finals comes a respite from the regular regimen. Some of us leave, some of us work, some of us stay and do nothing, but the bells aren't ringing, the tests aren't being passed forward, and the heavy books are on the shelf. Combine all of these together and you have something, however small, to celebrate. I plan to double the amount of hours I'm working, learn how to use a publishing software, spend a while at home half-relaxing, and catch up with my schedule-estranged girlfriend (who's name, unfortunately, escapes me for the time being). I call this celebration.

So good luck to you in whatever you do and Happy December to all.

Well said

2007-11-30T13:56:00.001-08:00

From the WWF (World Wildlife Foundation) "Deeper Luxury" report found here (it's a 52-page PDF, FYI).

If everyone were to live like the average European, three planets would be needed to provide adequate quantities of natural resources – for the average North American, five planets would be required.13 It would be physically impossible for all the world’s poor to achieve greater wellbeing in the same ways that Europeans and North Americans have managed so far. Such wasteful development is possible only for a minority, and for a limited time. This is neither morally nor environmentally sustainable. Our challenge is to find ways to improve human wellbeing within natural limits; to stop living as though we had another planet to go to.

So freakin cool

2007-11-30T12:41:00.000-08:00

Man, it took a while for someone to do this... so neat!!! Just a regular CFL (compact fluorescent light) bulb in a gorgeous shape. Ever just see something that makes you stop for a second and appreciate? It doesn't have to be as ostentatious as a Ferrari or cliche as a model... it can be something simple, like this.

Dig a little deeper into the producer and you'll find some rather disturbing other products: a lizard-skin bluetooth handset that makes it look like you're on a normal phone. Can we PLEASE, as a species, move beyond killing animals just to make things like pretty? Totally senseless and unnecessary, IMHO.

Light bulb is still sexy though...

Maybe E85 not a miracle? Shocker...

2007-11-29T09:38:00.000-08:00

Link is here:

A recent study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development concluded that biofuels "offer a cure [for oil dependence] that is worse than the disease." A National Academy of Sciences study said corn-based ethanol could strain water supplies. The American Lung Association expressed concern about a form of air pollution from burning ethanol in gasoline. Political cartoonists have taken to skewering the fuel for raising the price of food to the world's poor.

They have this very telling little graphic as well:

^^^ That says a lot to me. It says beware of fads, particularly green ones. It says don't have the "short sell" mentality and try to make that fast buck if you have no idea what you're doing.

I found this to be quite interesting... did you know this?

The U.S. gives oil refiners an excise-tax credit of 51 cents for every gallon of ethanol they blend into gasoline. And even though it's the oil industry that gets this subsidy, the industry dislikes being forced to use a nonpetroleum product. The U.S. ethanol industry is further protected by a 54-cent tariff on every gallon of imported ethanol.

How did ethanol get all of this help so fast? It was interesting to see how fast the idea of ethanol made it into our collective consciouses. At first it was rarely talked about, then it was all over the place, and now people are asking questions.

But here is what REALLY bugs me:

Ethanol's opponents also began to highlight reasons why ethanol might not be such a boon to the environment, citing some recent research studies.

Look at ANY objective research and this will be blatantly clear to anyone. I spent a total of maybe 20 minutes going through scholarly journals (electronically of course) and found that ethanol not only frees up 10% extra energy (i.e. if it takes 100 joules to make a gallon, that gallon produces 110 joules), it uses a whole lot of fresh water, something else we need to conserve, and really does a number on the soil. It has been a total mystery to me why people were pursuing this fuel. Now I know, it was probably...
$

Hybrid Choo-choo

2007-11-27T10:04:00.001-08:00

Taking us one step closer to that hybrid jet I've been designing on the weekends, GE announced that they are working on a hybrid powered locomotive. "Wow, cool," you might be saying and I am saying the same except it's more like "HOLY SH*T! COOL!" and it's probably for a different reason. First, an interesting fact from their site:

The energy dissipated in braking a 207-ton locomotive during the course of one year is enough to power 160 households for that year.

That fact is probably one of the coolest I've heard in a while (and I live an existence bombarded by facts). First, that is a helluvalotta energy which makes sense because trains, because of their weight, generate a lot of momentum (the product of speed and mass). Now add in deceleration (reducing speed) and you have energy, joules of power. Second, the comparison to 160 households is simply incredible. I'm floored... in a good way.

But here's why I'm so excited:

GE's hybrid locomotive's lead-free rechargeable batteries will be able to provide superior performance by allowing operators to draw an additional 2,000 horsepower when needed.

What a great way to test, research, and develop high-horsepower and high-torque applications for electric motors! Right now, there's not a lot of propulsion methods that will work for a semi-truck or a bulldozer or, well, a train simple because big, heavy things need a big push. It is difficult to get an electric motor to push that mind of weight around which is why you'll find a lot of weight-saving features on hybrids and EVs. GE is going to have a fantastic, constant lab to try new things in the high-load realm.

Getting big, thirsty, heavy, dirty diesels off of the road, whether we clean up diesel fuel and engines and replace everything or find a new method, is an important piece of the sustainable transportation puzzle. You better BELIEVE that if these hit tracks, I will replace some/all of my air travel with them.

Really, more green than red

2007-11-24T17:13:00.000-08:00

Wow, holidays just came and kicked me in the butt this year.

In order to avoid being caught off-guard by the impending holiday season, the happy couple concocted a continuous reminder of the upcoming festivities in the form of a plant draped with electronics and doo-dads. Feel free to follow our festive lead.

How does it look? I'm very pleased with the whole set-up. The lights are low-energy Phillips LED lights in the "soft white" color. Being a complete green-compulsive that I am now, I was unable to just go with regular lights. These are $12 at Target, not anymore than regular lights, and, according to the general hype, use 80-90% of the energy. That's enough to switch if you already have a set, that's for sure.

The interesting thing you will notice about these lights, despite the strange things they do to your eyes when the lights or your head is moving, is that they emit no heat whatsoever. Grab the bulbs and you feel nothing but room-temp plastic. This is where all the energy savings is coming from and, when you understand this, you begin to understand some of the energy waste that plagues our, well, world.

Light bulbs certainly don't need to emit heat to light our way, only photons. Same goes for your car engine; you don't need all the heat of a combustion engine to get from one place to another. The heat, in fact, is a bad thing for our cars (particularly turbocharged ones like my VW). Heat, in many instances, is just a byproduct of the process required to get energy out of a substance/material. Find a technology that gets rid of an energetic byproduct (heat for lighting your house or light for, say, welding metal) and you save energy.

Anyways, I'm 100% satisfied with the LED light purchase and would recommend storing as many strands of regular lights as you can afford. Save some dough, save some electrons, and lower your risk of fire. Also, pick up a glass pickle ornament while you're out:

Wiki says:

The Christmas Pickle is an American tradition related to the Christmas tree. In this tradition, a family decorates its Christmas tree with ornaments including one glass pickle. On Christmas morning, the first child to find the pickle on the tree would get a special gift and would supposedly have a year of good fortune.

No kids here and I'm not a particularly traditional American but the thought of a random, glass pickle on the Christmas tree was simply too enticing to ignore.

Happy Thanksgiving

2007-11-22T09:26:00.001-08:00

I'm thankful for:

- My friends, family, and everything in between that keep me going through everything. I need you more than you might think I do. Take care of yourself and stay in touch.

- My health, mental stability, and employment. I never take these attributes for granted and I'm glad I know how to retain them; I spent years trying to do away with them, glad that's over.

- The skills, talents, abilities, and capacities people keep telling me I have (I won't admit to them... not ever).

And, because you've been good, here's a treat :)

Thermodynamics... very funny

2007-11-20T19:53:00.001-08:00

Thermodynamics is a funny subject. The first time you go through it, you don't understand it at all. The second time you go through it, you think you understand it, except for one or two small points. The third time you go through it, you know you don't understand it, but by that time you are so used to it, it doesn't bother you any more.

Arnold Sommerfeld

Hydrogen from biological sources

2007-11-20T18:52:00.000-08:00

What's the most miraculous thing you can think of? What is the most amazing thing that exists on this planet? What just totally blows your mind about your existence? If you said "my existence," you totally got that question right.

Life is amazing, plain and simple. If you're unconvinced, Wiki "DNA" or "protein folding" or "hemoglobin" and try to make sense of it. The processes that are involved with living are just... incredible. English will fail in describing just how incredible they are so I'll stop stuttering and move on. The reason I'm on this tear is that I had a biochem test today and, with my regimen of chemistry lecture classes, I'm always torn between overworked and utterly fascinated. I guess that's how you know you picked the right major, ya?

We know so much about life and, yet, so little. What we do know is that, in it's present form and capacity, the earth can handle a whole ton of organisms without importing anything from anywhere. Well, there is one exception: the sun. Without the sun, we're toast. Actually, we're the opposite of toast but either way we're screwed. Solar radiation is pretty much the source and power for all life on the planet.

Point being, the sun will be here while we're here and, when it's gone, we're gone too. While it's here, it's unlimited and we must find a better way to use it than we are doing at present. Solar power and all of it's subsets are THE way to energy independence for every country, state, and person on this planet. I've said it before and I'll say it again:

biological processes can solve virtually any problem. in particular, it can solve our energy problem

Here's just one reason why:

Researchers at Penn State University say they've developed a way to use bacteria to extract hydrogen from almost any biodegradable organic substance, from grass clippings to wastewater.

You always hear that hydrogen is the most abundant element on the planet. It is but not in the gas phase that we need it to use it for energy. Why? Because it just can't ever be that easy, can it? That and it is really energy dense so creating it costs energy. Thermodynamics says you can't create or destroy energy - one system uses it to do work on other systems and the energy just moves around. Anyways...

The main problem with a hydrogen economy as it stands (and, if I say, from a very pessimistic or simpleton mindset) is our current inability to get hydrogen out of the states it likes to be in (mostly bonded to carbon like in oils, tissue, hair, anything relating to life). Algae is currently being explored, now bacteria.

Logan and his research assistant Shaoan Cheng's method uses bacteria called exoelectrogens to break down acetic acid -- produced by fermenting cellulose, glucose or other biodegradable organic matter -- in a microbial electrolysis cell to create hydrogen.

You might, at this point, be asking "whathef..." What they're doing is taking cellulose (very abundant, non-digestible carbohydrate from plants) or any other organic material (something that contains carbon and hydrogen like your bod, anything you eat, anything that grows) and making acetic acid by fermenting it (letting it go bad). The little micro-organisms break it down and...

When bacteria consume the acid, electrons are transferred to a graphite anode. The bacteria also release protons -- hydrogen atoms stripped of electrons -- that are held in solution. As electrons are transferred to a platinum cathode, they combine with the protons and generate 0.3 volts of electricity. Adding another 0.2 volts creates hydrogen gas.

These bacteria are actually oxidizing (removing electrons [what electricity consists of]) the acid! Stuff happens and electricity is created. Boost that voltage with a little bit more and hydrogen gas is generated. Wow... Here is the big picture:

The researchers noted that the method produces up to 82 percent more energy than the electricity and biomass needed to produce it.

Keep that in mind... that is an important figure. The higher that percentage is, the better. Oil is probably 200-300% (total guess) while ethanol is under 10% and sometimes less.

Here is the Penn State announcement.

A few quick ones

2007-11-19T10:36:00.001-08:00

I went back to Washington this last weekend and had no time to update while my list of links was getting longer and longer.

<><><><><><><><><>
Hybrid pick-up truck... a step in the right direction I guess but sub-20 MPG is still pretty bad. Here's the problem:

Partnering General Motors' patented 2-Mode Hybrid system and a powerful 6.0L gas V-8, the Silverado Hybrid delivers highly efficient performance while maintaining full-size pickup capability

Why the heck do you need a 6.0L engine? That's really big, probably one of the biggest in its class. Drop the displacement and keep the hybrid system. I'm well aware that the electric motors are not going to haul/tow very much but you don't need more than probably 100-150 HP to cruise on the freeway.

*sigh*

<><><><><><><><><>

Well, maybe just one quick one. Time for class

Dont conceal, reveal

2007-11-14T08:18:00.000-08:00

From Seth Godin's blog:

A different technique is starting to gain traction, though. Working to reveal instead of conceal. My fish monger in Grand Central has started placing signs in front of each fish. They describe exactly where the fish came from, whether it's healthy and how endangered it is. You'll never see fine print saying "previously frozen." They don't have any fine print. The first few times you visit the stand, it's actually off putting. It takes the romance and pleasure out of buying the fish, because you realize that there's a cost to it. The meat guy across the way doesn't have pictures of cows being slaughtered, does he?

But after a while, because the information is out there, because smart fish buyers already know some fish is endangered, the signs give you power. They allow you to make smart choices. They send a message to the customer about the honesty and intent of the seller. They build trust.

This will, by necessity, become more popular as the green economy advances. Hopefully, people won't easily fall prey to the "green" tag without evidence of its extent. I think if you have half a brain (meaning you use half your brain when you buy something), you can skim off most of the bullcrap. But inventive, persistent, well-formed marketing has a way of circumventing our brains instead of appealing to them. Marketing is, unfortunately, value-neutral in so many cases (think cigarettes, fast food, Blackwater). It's hard to figure out how to vote with your money when the candidates are not what they seem (that was meant to be a metaphor).

Brilliant - Silicon Recycling

2007-11-13T16:54:00.000-08:00

First off, I'll say that this technology is brilliant:

IBM today announced an innovative new semiconductor wafer reclamation process... The new process uses a specialized pattern removal technique to re-purpose scrap semiconductor wafers -- thin discs of silicon material used to imprint patterns that make finished semiconductor chips for computers, mobile phones, video games, and other consumer electronics -- to a form used to manufacture silicon-based solar panels. The new process was recently awarded the “2007 Most Valuable Pollution Prevention Award” from The National Pollution Prevention Roundtable (NPPR).

If you're unsure, this is a GREAT, GREAT, GREAT win for solar technology. As the article states, solar technology is being held back by a shortage of materials - in specific, silicon. Nothing worse than trying to bring greentech to the people and having it be too expensive because of materials. Briefly:

"One of the challenges facing the solar industry is a severe shortage of silicon, which threatens to stall its rapid growth,” said Charles Bai, chief financial officer of ReneSola, one of China's fastest growing solar energy companies.

IBM and others in the industry use silicon wafers both as the starting material for manufacturing microelectronic products and to monitor and control the myriad of steps in the manufacturing process. According to the Semiconductor Industry Association, worldwide 250,000 wafers are started per day across the industry. IBM estimates that up to 3.3% of these started wafers are scrapped. In the course of the year, this amounts to approximately three million discarded wafers. Because the wafers contain intellectual property, most can not be sent to outside vendors to reclaim so are crushed and sent to landfills, or melted down and resold.

Awesome, it's win-win... but I still wonder...Why did IBM put time and effort into this project? There are three reasons I can immediately come up with

1) The did it out of the goodness of their hearts

Though this is, IMHO, fantastic in the way that the chances of it being true fall somewhere between "slim" and "zip." Which, as you heard in Dumb and Dumber, still means there is a chance. If I started an environmental company, you better believe I would put "green" and "profit" as equal in priority. In fact, I wouldn't start a business I believed to be unsustainable. So, yes, IBM could have had an epiphany. More likely, however...

2) They did it to APPEAR to have good, green hearts

Is that wrong? No. It's predictable, to be sure, but the outcome is the same in the end. Or is it?

Though this is, as I mentioned, a big win for solar power regardless of the motivation. But if this is a marketing opportunity more than anything else, it leaves the possibility of it going away quickly when the benefits don't outweigh the costs for IBM alone. Lets say the recycling process gets a little expensive or they have to hire more people to take care of the process or any number of different things that could happen. Suddenly, appearing green is no longer a priority and the process slows to a halt. The press release already went out so the impact was already felt. Is anyone going to track and report on it if they decide to stop? No one... BUT ME!

Which brings me to the last reason this process might have been created...

3)It makes them money

Between 2 and 3, it's hard to say which one is more likely and, in the end, it's all the same thing (green image leads to more sales). In fact, it ends up being both:

IBM’s commitment to environmental conservation blah blah blah blah blah blah

and

The projected ongoing annual savings for 2007 is nearly $1.5 million and the one-time savings for reclaiming stockpiled wafers is estimated to be more than $1.5 million.

This further proves my (and others') theory on the environment:

things will not change until it becomes profitable for them to do so

Keep in mind I am not saying ANYTHING against IBM. This is a great move on their part and I would not expect an industry giant to do anything but do as it has done in the past. If this is an indication of corporate altruism, then all the better. An environmental win is a win.

The new wafer reclamation process produces monitor wafers from scrap product wafers - generating an overall energy savings of up to 90% because repurposing scrap means that IBM no longer has to procure the usual volume of net new wafers to meet manufacturing needs. When monitors wafers reach end of life they are sold to the solar industry. Depending on how a specific solar cell manufacturer chooses to process a batch of reclaimed wafers - they could save between 30 - 90% of the energy that they would have needed if they'd used a new silicon material source. These estimated energy savings translate into an overall reduction of the carbon footprint -- the measure of the total amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases emitted over the full life cycle of a product or service -- for both the Semiconductor and Solar industries.

Project Better Place

2007-11-12T16:07:00.000-08:00

A great name for a potentially great project. This is a FOR-PROFIT corporation that is dedicated to making EVs (cars powered by electricity) a wide-spread, viable transportation solution. I feel like if I paraphrase more, I'm just going to ruin it so I'll let them speak for themselves.

Today, the world depends on oil as its fundamental transportation energy source. With the rapid rise in oil prices, a number of alternatives to oil have been proposed in recent years with little success. Project Better Place will focus on the integration of existing technologies and systems to provide the infrastructure and scale necessary to make electric cars a viable alternative to fuel-based vehicles. By doing so, Project Better Place will overcome low adoption rates to-date due to the lack of an established and ubiquitous charging infrastructure to support electric vehicles.

The timing of the launch of Project Better Place is based on two trends—the upward trend in the price of oil, and the downward trend in the price of cutting edge batteries. For the first time, the per mile energy cost for an electric vehicle has fallen below that of an internal combustion engine-powered vehicle. Within a decade, the cost of energy production and storage for the lifetime of an electric vehicle will fall below the fuel costs for a single year of a traditional automobile.

I'll say, first-off, that having solid ground to base your business on is a good start. I'm not a business expert but that part makes sense. Green companies frequently depend upon the altruism of consumers which simply does not exist in the quantities that would make a sound business plan. You can't ask someone to pay twice as much or settle for an inferior product simply based on how environmental it is. You'll get people like me and the other < 1% but everyone else will want the better performer, regardless of how guilty they feel. When you say "gas cars will cost more, EVs will be cheap," you have a draw for the majority of people. The EV might be a bit smaller and less horsepower but it costs you 1/4 of what your car does AND it's green. THAT'S where you start to get converts.

So, how to do it? Here comes the really neat part:

The business model for the electric cars will be similar to that used by mobile phone operators. In the same way that wireless operators deploy a network of cell towers to provide an area of mobile phone coverage, Project Better Place will establish a network of charging spots and battery exchange stations to provide ubiquitous access to electricity to power electric vehicles. The company will partner with car makers and source batteries so that consumers who subscribe to the network can get subsidized vehicles which are cheaper to buy and operate than today’s fuel-based cars. Consumers will still own their cars and will have multiple car models to choose from.

Similar to cellular phone companies, Project Better Place will offer consumers several subscription-based ownership models. Through these subscription models, vehicle owners will be linked into a nationwide network of charge spots and exchange stations. When a consumer parks his or her car, the network synchronizes the car with the smart electric grid to recharge the battery. When a driver travels long-distance, he or she can swap batteries at an exchange station to get a fully charged battery, similar to how we now stop to fill our gas tanks today.

To match multiple customer segments, Project Better Place will offer several car models and subscription pricing packages that will reduce total cost of ownership and subsidize the car as part of this package.

I like the way this sounds! Hopefully they will also be able to address existing cars. I would think that there are a lot more people out there who would rather convert their current car to EV rather than buying a new one. Keep in mind, this also saves manufacturing energy and pollution as well as raw materials. Gotta look at the BIG PICTURE, right?

Reading a new book

2007-11-12T08:22:00.000-08:00

I'm pleased to be starting a new book: "Zoom: The Global Race to the Car of the Future." My dad sent it to me (he's a book-a-holic... I don't think he's even touched this one yet) the other day and I started it yesterday. I'll post a review when I'm done with it.

I find it very hard to set aside time for reading when I'm in school. When classes are in session and I try to pick up a book because it looks interesting or might just have what it takes to distract me for a little while, I feel guilty. How could I be reading for pleasure when there are thousands of pages of required reading I could be doing? Same goes with blogging vs. term papers. Go fig. It's probably a good thing that I write and read for pleasure alongside of the mandatory stuff. Maybe I won't see either activity as tedious, I can just trick myself into thinking it's fun. Ya right.

KINEDAAAAA!!!!

2007-11-09T16:54:00.000-08:00

Anyone get that?

This bike looks like a lot of fun! Maybe not as much as the last one I posted but still... driver position is great; it looks like you might be able to stand it for the 110 miles it gets per charge. And a top speed of 92 isn't too shabby either.

To avoid any awkward situations involving bad jokes, I'll end by saying that there is no official mention of the inclusion of leather-clad asian girls but I'll leave the ironing out of those details to the company.

As a side note, their website is beautiful if not immediately legible.

Antiquated mindset...

2007-11-06T22:11:00.000-08:00

The title of this post is a bit ironic and I think you'll see why.

In 1832, a man named William Lloyd Garrsion wrote an article about slavery called "On the Constitution and the Union." I'll preface this post by saying I certainly would not have been exposed to this article without a required Political Science class but I'm glad that I have.

Garrison believed that, since slavery remains in place under documents like the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, that the documents must be a problem. He saw major faults with the system in place and wanted it dismantled. He was a true abolishionist and he said this:

Be assured that slavery will very speedily destroy this Union, if it be let alone; but even if the Union can be preserved by treading upon the necks, spilling the blood, and destroying thesouls of millions of your race, we say it is not worth a price like this, and that it is in the highest degree criminal for you to continue the present compact. Let the pillars thereof fall - let the superstructure crumble into dust - if it must be upheld by robbery and oppression

Slavery was an antiquated mindset, even in 1832. Many, many people believed it should be completely abandoned while many others practiced cognitive dissonance by keeping human beings in bondage for their own profit and benefit, despite the obvious despicability.

Wanton overconsumption of natural resources and production of waste is, like slavery was and is, an antiquated mindset. It started during a time in our country's history when trees and water and space seemed positively infinite. The industry in the East combined with the expansion to the West combined to create a crescendo of environmental damage and resource hogging. We look back at the living conditions of the cities with disbelief, wondering how some could live in such utter dispair while others were experiencing wealth at an incredible level. Becoming a wasteful, careless citizen was something to look up to, something to work towards.

Come back to present time and you can see the industrial revolution everywhere you look. For one, the current wealth gap is very similar for the first time since that time (I'm sorry I don't have references on-hand [which is a funny thing to say in 2007 while you're typing on a computer hooked up to the internet - I kinda just told you I'm sure it's true because I read it but I simply don't have the interest to find it for you]). For another, production and efficiency is still a science, just like it was to Carnegie and Rockefeller.

Make stuff, sell it, ship it all over the place, make it cheaper somewhere else, find the absolute best production curve at all costs, legislate destruction, ignore nature, f*ck the other guy. The capitalism that made our country "great" is causing massive damage to everything besides the system itself. People are bent on consumables, durables, and disposables. Celebrities live their life showered in publicity while a war quietly grinds on in another country.

I might sound all over the map but this all relates. This isn't a blue thing or a red thing or an American thing or a Chinese thing, it's a fundamental breakdown in our own humanity and sense of community. People are ignoring their amazing frontal cortex and its ability to determine where actions lead. Destroying forests, wasting precious fresh water resources, decimating native plant and animal species, and ignoring alternative energy sources and irrational energy sinks is, plain and simple, sh*tting where you live - in the BEST case!

The system is the problem and the system must change. It will be slow but it won't be painful; human beings are amazing adapting machines. Even if we all ended up farming and irrigating in 1,000 years, we'll have the same chance at happiness and the same risk of sorrow.

LET THE PILLARS FALL

... I mean, you know, if its required. Slavery was abolished without the need for a match and a new pad of paper.

Pimp your smart!

2007-11-05T20:41:00.001-08:00

German tuner Lorinser offers an upgrade kit for the fortwo. I'm not a fan of the front bumper but the wheels and the back-end look great (paint the mesh black). I like the 25% horsepower increase as well...

Specialized in Mercedes tuning, Lorinser did something special this time. The German tuner revealed the Lorinser Smart ForTwo. The car features now an upgraded engine from 84 bhp to 104 bhp and has more exhaust pipes than cylinders(4 exhaust pipes and 3 cylinders). The 1-liter engine is capable to provide a top speed of 180 km/h while the sprint from 0-100 km/h is made in 10 seconds, of course this with some help from the 17″ alloy wheels. The price of this Lorinser sport pack is of 7000 euros. All you need now is the Smart ForTwo!

I like the Brabus version better:

Eco is sexy, ja?

Just Stay Busy

Final Post

Link Love part 2

Seth Godin on packaging and solar the way it should (and will) be

7 Days of Blog Retribution: Vehicles to know about

Green vehicles to know about

It's tiny

7 Days of Blog Retribution: My New Car

7 Days of Blog Retribution: You know Audi but do you know Fisker?

7 Days of Blog Retribution: UPS Adds 200 Hybrid Trucks

UPS: lesser of several evils

Obama Voices Biofuel Doubts

San Diego Earth Day 2008... meh

Do this please

This IS the scientific community (episode 2)

Dr. Laurance G. Beauvais, Assistant Professor of Inorganic, Bioinorganic, and Materials Chemistry

Update on VW diesel hybrid

Social Action Through Career Choice

Link Love

Transportation ZENN

Green Vocab WotD #004: LEED Certification

Unscrew America

The Great Green Giveaway

Zap!ped out

Statement?

Best MPG figure to date

Quick ones

How do you like...

The Air Car

JoshisJosh "news"

Frightening to say the least.

VW TDI hybrid

Low Resistance Tires

Negative footprint?

Morgan Life Car = Sex

Addendum to my interview with Dr. Cooksy

This IS the scientific community

This IS the scientific community

Dr. Andrew Cooksy, Associate Professor of Physical Chemistry

It's live!

My Favorites

Bike-sharing

Honda FCX... my take

In other news...

I agree

Both sides of the story...

Hrrrmmmmm....

CleanTDI on its way

*sigh* ... going the wrong direction

I have not forgot about you...

I want one

BTW...

Great site - thanks mom!

Ooooooooo I love it!

Discrepancy

Poor Haitians Resort to Eating Dirt

What contributes to MPG?

MPG Increases and Decreases Explained

There are two different numbers to consider

Why are the numbers so different?

MPG on the highway

MPG in stop-and-go

Averages

Highlights

Entoo da feu-chah

What do you think?

Recycling day

In a bizarre twist of destiny and fate...

Green Vocab WotD #003: REEV

New MPG figure for me

Intersting move for Ferrari/Porsche

Me = energy saving machine

Cool Loremo pics @ Inhabitat

Words of advice from Mr. MacLeod

Green Vocab WotD #002: Biodiesel

Very important MPG fact to consider...

Thank you Chad & Erin!

My MPG

What is talent?

Energy bill... what's the buzz?

sigh ... going the wrong direction