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

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):

San Diego Earth Day 2008... meh

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!

This IS the scientific community (episode 2)

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!

Transportation ZENN

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.

Zap!ped out

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?

Quick ones

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!

What contributes to MPG?

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!

Green Vocab WotD #002: Biodiesel

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.

If dreams were pennies...

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."

Project Better Place

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

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.

Pimp your smart!

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?

Amazing Bike/car

I'm totally in love... vid speaks for itself



BIKE OR CAR - video powered by Metacafe

The Math

From the UCS site again, this article on MPG standards:

With existing conventional technology, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) showed that full-size pickups could reach at least 29.5 mpg, and that’s without considering hybrids or advanced diesels. UCS analysis shows that a pickup achieving 28 mpg would save its owners over $6,000 on gasoline during the life of the vehicle. The pickup would have the same power, performance, size and safety it has today, and would cost an additional $1,500. However, the added fuel economy technology would pay for itself in less than two years with gasoline at $2.50 per gallon. Higher fuel economy standards will help farmers and small businesses who rely on trucks as much or even more than the average consumer.

ALWAYS DO THE MATH

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.

What are people saying (Part 1)

One of my guilty pleasures on the internet is a car enthusiast forum where I learn about all kinds of cars I can't afford and read arguments between other people who can't afford them about which one is better. It's very entertaining and a little bit addictive. Sometimes I get so riled up, I have to participate!

The best part about the site for me is the discussions that pop up about alternative fuels and CAFE standards and SUVs and so on. There are some bright people with great ideas, there are some bright people who have lost their mind, there are a lot of people who are uninformed, and there are a lot of people (the majority probably) who are just unaffected by it but participate in the discussion. I find it interesting to gauge the general opinion about technologies and innovations that pertain to my industry of interest and passion.

Anyways, I thought I would share a few of the posts in one such thread that started with the first post below. Just as a disclaimer, these are other people's words that I may or may not agree with but simply found interesting. If you are reading these words and wish to claim them, let me know and I will append your name or screen name to them. Otherwise, they remain anonymous.
____________________________________________________

"People keep talking about how if they jack up the price of gas high enough that Americans will sell their SUVs and everything will be fine. So does that mean that paying $8 gal for gas and getting 40 mpg is somehow better than paying $4 gal for gas and getting 20 mpg? If we use half the gas but pay twice as much for it then we still give the Arabs the same amount of our money. How does that help us or hurt them? I thought the biggest problem is that we are financing the very people who want to wipe us off the face of the Earth?"

I found this post very interesting because it seems foreign to me that you would equate MPG standards with profit in the Arab world. Of course I see the connection but it has always been my assumption that the PROFIT of the oil-holding countries was not the problem. What they do with that profit, our reliance on a foreign resource, and the uncertainty of that area in general are the problems, internationally speaking.
____________________________________________________

"In general, if prices soar use will drop a little. Smaller more efficient engines simply means less overall fuel used. The real answer is more trains, and public transportation....but people hate that idea. Because of our fascination with automobiles, public transportation is only for a few major cities, and everywhere else it’s simply the transportation method of ROGUES AND BANDITS!"

Hrmmmm... sounds familiar.
____________________________________________________

"The solution to the oil crisis is simple. Eliminate modern pharmaceuticals and nitrogen fixing."

Never heard that before, actually. Nitrogen fixing, BTW, is how we take nitrogen gas and turn it into ammonium for fertilizer and other stuff. The extent of the use of this process is SHOCKING ("1% of the world's annual energy supply is consumed in the Haber process" -Wiki).
____________________________________________________

I am of the opinion that even if every American ditched their gas guzzler tomorrow and started driving 40+mpg people movers the price of gas wouldn't move one cent since China and India would happily buy up every drop we don't use (as they do now). "We" don't have the biggest sway in the UAE anymore folks. Now that doesn't mean we should all just give up and drive Tahoes either. Do what's right for you. Don't like the price, change your habits and/or accept it as the cost of living where you live and driving what you drive.

Is doing what is right for you and you alone the way to do things? That's an honest question. Is there any other way to do things besides that? Is it realistic to expect people to live for other people?
____________________________________________________

"Stable cheap gas prices lulled the population into a false sense that there is absolutely no need to be concerned with energy conservation…Cheap stable gas prices fueled the SUV trend of the 90s. If gas had been 3 to 4 bucks a gallon instead of $1.25 a gallon in the 90s, then we would already have many of those great smaller European vehicles in the US market, including diesels. But the cheap stable gas prices allowed everybody to buy into a very impractical vehicle trend, while also fueling uncontrolled urban sprawl. People saw no need to live close to their work places since gas was cheap. The auto manufacturers just responded to the market demands, and spent more money on designing SUVS than more practical cars. When gas prices finally shot up (arguably where they should already have been based on inflation), we had a large percentage of the population that had made impractical life choices that forced long commutes in vehicles that got poor fuel economy, and those people all shouted "this is unfair", even after several individual energy crisis in the past few decades foreshadowed this happening again and again unless we change out habits. This further proves that unless the price situation forces people to think about conservation, then they just won't. And that is very a strong argument for CAFE."

A very well-thought and important thing to say, IMHO. Also important is the bolded part; automakers simply respond to the limitations applied to them and the demands asked of them. All they do is try to make the most money possible, nothing less nothing more. Even the most altruistic and earth-loving brands only do so because it serves their company.

They are morally neutral, that's the problem.
____________________________________________________

"I am happily getting what the efficiency Nazi's would call "BAD" gas mileage. I truly hope that we do not go into another underpowered car making fad (see 70's & 80's?). I am a car enthusiast, you cannot tell that from the vehicles I say I own, but if it were feasible for me right now I would be driving a gas wasting speed machine. And lets not make this an us vs. them (middle east) battle. We are in a world of capitalism (capitalism=good), where if I wan't it I will pay the lowest price for it whatever that is, or find another governmental legitimate way of attaining it at a rate I like. This is all my opinion, I am not saying any of you are wrong, but fell free to debate my crazy notions"

And my response on the board:

"Your notions aren't crazy, they're old and stale and boring. You are equating wanton, needless waste with capitalism which isn't necessary (i.e. capitalism does not HAVE to beget waste). It's your "wan't" that is the problem. It's the choices people are making to follow this want and the want itself. What if you're married with kids and want to get with the babysitter? What if you want to punch that guy in the face for whatever reason? What if you want something and can't afford it? What are you going to do to get that want? Capitalism does not make all of your dreams come true (you even said so yourself: "I am a car enthusiast, you cannot tell that from the vehicles I say I own").

I understand that, culturally, you've been talked into wanting BIGMORELOUDFAST but we will reach a point soon where you simply can't have it. Instead of choosing not to, you won't have a choice because it is not feasible. And, eventually, that component will fall out of our culture.

There are many examples... the best one, IMHO, is slave labor. It makes our lives easier, it makes businesses more productive, and it gives the "chosen few" more time to enjoy themselves and bond with their family. But, well, it's horrible and now its not a choice. So we're losing all this "choice" and "productivity" "just" so a race of people can be free. How do you feel about that trade off? Would you trade your right to have an E55 AMG to improve air quality and international relations?

I'm not equating SUV drivers with slave owners at all, I'm equating two practices, one which is antiquated (in our country) and one which will be eventually."