I give you a nice planet and look what you did with it!

Sun, 07 Jul 2002 21:43:20 +0100

1. Guardian Unlimited Observer | International | Earth 'will expire by 2050' (11.0 points). outer space will have to be colonized [( blogdex : recent )]

» Yikes.

A 40MPG SUV? Why would you want that then?

Wed, 16 Oct 2002 12:17:59 +0100

Technology review have an interesting article about fuel efficient technologies that could deliver a 40MPG SUV by the end of the decade, based upon existing technology (i.e. not hybrid engines or advanced fuel cells).

Here's a summary of the main points:

To get a sense of the auto industry's progress in fuel efficiency, look no further than the 2002 Chevy Blazer.
The model with automatic transmission, six cylinders, and four-wheel drive gets 18 miles per gallon (mpg), two miles less than a comparably equipped Blazer did in 1985.
Indeed, in those 17 years the average fuel economy of the entire fleet of U.S. cars and light trucks declined from 26 mpg to 24 mpg---in part because of the rising proportion of gas-guzzling sport-utility vehicles (SUVs).
Yet in March, when auto industry lobbyists claimed that building more fuel-efficient cars would be "too difficult," the U.S. Senate once again killed legislation that would raise the country's Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards.
It's not that automotive technologies haven't improved; it's that the improvements have been geared toward delivering power, not efficiency.
"Each year Americans want a little more space inside, a little more power."
But is it really too difficult to build a reasonably priced SUV that can get 40 mpg and still provide the performance, comfort, and reduced emissions consumers expect?
The gains would come largely from emerging technologies such as improved control systems that minimize energy losses in the engine and transmission, as well as efficient electrical components---from water pumps to engine valves---that could replace belt-driven mechanical systems.
Such improvements in gas mileage would have a huge impact on U.S. oil dependence and the environment.

So why won't this happen? Look no further than:

Each year Americans want a little more space inside, a little more power.

Batteries

Fri, 09 Jun 2006 08:58:14 +0100

"It's better for the environment, because it allows the user to not worry about replacing his battery," he says. "It can be discharged and charged hundreds of thousands of times, essentially lasting longer than the life of the equipment with which it is associated."

Nano-tube enhanced capacitor based super-batteries that charge in a second and never wear out?

Make it so!

Curiouser and Curiouser! on environment

I give you a nice planet and look what you did with it!

A 40MPG SUV? Why would you want that then?

Batteries