Link Love

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.

;)

Very important MPG fact to consider...

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?!?!

Camry hybrid

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:

Toyota RiN

Meant to blog this a week ago. silly education getting in the way of all of my hobbies!

I present the Toyota RiN


This little car, while not being primarily marketed as an eco-friendly, is a breath of fresh air in terms of automotive transport... and not one we're likely to see either. Features include (quoted from the article above):

-> green glass that is said to reduce the infiltration of ultraviolet and infrared light

-> oxygen-level conditioner and pinpoint humidifier

-> seats designed to maintain good back posture

-> headlights feature light distribution control that takes into consideration pedestrians and vehicles coming in the opposite direction

-> image displays aligned with the driver's psychological state are conveyed within the meter cluster of the 'mood-training' steering control

UCS: "All automakers need to do better"

The UCS stands for the Union of Concerned Scientists, one of the best names for action group that I've ever heard. Nothing inspires change more that a group of stressed-out, worried scientists. I'm not kidding, I love that name.

There are some great articles regarding transportation as well as a lot of great general information. One in particular was on display at the Santa Monica event I went to last weekend. The chart below ranks the top 8 automakers in the US based on environmental impact.



It's basically saying what everyone who is down with the the whole sustainable transportation is saying: do better. Sure, it's nice to see companies like Honda and Toyota dipping way below the industry average but that's still not enough. Fleet-wide MPG standards need to go up, period. How is that going to happen?

The next time you purchase a car or truck, choose one with the lowest emissions and highest fuel economy that meets your needs and budget. Automakers need a strong signal that consumers care about the environmental impact of their vehicle choices. When all else is equal, use these rankings to reward the best overall automaker.

You're going to do it. You're going to choose based on different criteria with different priorities in mind. You're going to see the personal and overall benefits to changing how you live your life as a consumer. You're going to see your responsibility as a representative in the most powerful country in the world. You're going to do it for now, later, way later, and hella way later. You're going to teach your kids about it and they'll teach their kids about it and maybe then we'll be talking about something other than our planet getting hotter.

Go Honda, BTW! If you know me, you know I'm a big VW fan but, these days (honestly having nothing to do with this chart), I've been dreaming about an Element SC. I hope they sell them new for a couple more years because I'm buying one the SECOND I graduate. No kidding, I've been obsessed since I was pacing one on the freeway.

In the news...

Toyota gets 350 miles out of a hydrogen fuel cell car; possibility for 480 (whoa). How?

"The new model is one quarter more fuel efficient due to improvements in the performance of the fuel cell, Toyota said. The fuel tank capacity has also been increased."

What, don't want to release the information about technology that could be worth billions? Weenies. Begs the question ... who, really, could ask for anything more? MSN destroys their credibility at the end of the article with this statement:

"Fuel-cell cars are widely viewed as the most promising pollution-free vehicles for the future because they are powered by electricity generated through the chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen and emit only water as a byproduct."

I'm a huge hydro proponent but this kind of broad proclamation is totally unnecessary for the article and widely viewed as uninformed. MSN: Please keep your heavy-handed social analysis to yourself?

Or me.