Paul Krugman, Professor of Economics at Princeton, summarizes what the passing of the Waxman-Markey bill would mean to Americans in a short NPR interview. He explains how it will help us take into account the cost of global warming into the economy, providing incentives to change how we produce and consume energy (see my article on externalities for more on this). He says that the overall number of jobs will remain about the same, but the mix of jobs will be different. Krugman says he would bet his Nobel prize that the climate bill would not cost Americans much financially (he says serious studies conclude it would cost most families less than the value of a postage stamp per day), but was not willing to bet his Nobel prize that the bill would save the world, explaining that it may not be enough. In fact, some members of Congress opposed the bill because they felt it was not aggressive enough. Several environmental groups, including Greenpeace, also oppose the bill for the same reason.
How does all of this relate to design? While many exciting technologies are emerging that help us use less energy and produce it more sustainably, these technologies only make it to market if they make economic sense. To invest in a new renewable energy project, for example, a business case must be made. If we include the true, long-term costs of fossil fuel derived energy, some renewable energy sources are clearly the right choice. While many engineers and others are concerned about sustainability and interested in energy efficiency and renewable energy, this concern is not enough to produce the large-scale shift to sustainability we need. We need to create an economic environment that supports substantial, continued investment that will accelerate the development and deployment of clean energy technology.
I hear many folks talking about what individual choices they can make to reduce their carbon footprint or live more responsibly. I hear support for wind and solar energy. Consumers are starting to consider ‘greenness’ in purchasing decisions. But oft times there seems to be a disconnect when it comes to making collective choices that will bring about substantial change, much more than what individual choices will procure. We need to shift our collective support from status quo energy systems to new energy strategies that will carry us (and the natural world) through successfully for generations to come. The innovative spirit and talent is there, waiting to rise to the challenge. It will lie relatively dormant until citizens make the clarion call for strong incentives and bold policy that will empower engineers and others to accelerate the metamorphosis of our energy, transportation, and agricultural systems.
Waxman-Markey is not ideal. It may not be enough. But perhaps it will give Americans a taste of the exciting progress that can be made when we focus and guide our efforts in the right direction. Perhaps after this first taste we will be willing to move beyond this first step.
Posted: June 28th, 2009 | Filed under: Energy, Policy, Sustainability | 1 Comment »
The Waxman-Markey bill may not be the ideal solution, but its passing is a landmark event, and offers significant progress over the status quo. This energy/climate change/jobs bill passed the House hours ago by a narrow margin; it still needs to pass the Senate. Friday’s vote is historic, and deserves increased attention. If you are looking for a way to have a big personal impact on sustainability, consider learning and talking about this and other legislation that is aimed at leading society toward a path of sustainabilty and better quality of life for the long term.
Posted: June 27th, 2009 | Filed under: Energy, Policy, Sustainability | No Comments »
U-Haul is jumping on the low-carbon bandwagon by promoting their ‘clean gasoline’ moving trucks over ‘dirty diesel’, but this blatant corporate greenwash is endorsing choices that actually lead to increased carbon emissions. Have a look at a screenshot from this U-haul webpage:
U-haul is telling us here that using a gasoline-powered truck instead of a diesel truck would reduce CO2 emissions. This campaign is actually doing more harm than good. It may garner more business for U-Haul, but switching from a diesel truck to a gasoline U-Haul truck will actually increase carbon emissions. This advertising campaign will also lead to indirect carbon emission increases by perpetuating misconceptions about diesel. Let’s have a more careful look at the numbers used here.
The core of U-Haul’s claim of lower carbon emissions is that the amount of CO2 emitted by burning a gallon of diesel fuel (22.2 lb) is somewhat larger than the amount released by burning a gallon of gasoline (19.4 lb) [Data source: EPA]. So what is wrong with U-Haul’s claim? It is based on the (incorrect) assumption that diesel and gasoline trucks get the same fuel economy. What U-Haul doesn’t explain is that you can do a lot more work with a gallon of diesel than you can with a gallon of gasoline. Diesel fuel efficiency is typically 40% better than for gasoline engines. That’s a huge difference!
The better fuel economy is a result of two main factors: diesel has 11% higher volumetric energy density than gasoline, and the Diesel cycle allows for much higher compression ratios than the Otto cycle used in gasoline engines (which makes for a more efficient engine). In other words, diesel fuel has more energy packed into it per gallon (which is part of why it has higher carbon content), and diesel engines do a better job of converting that chemical energy into mechanical energy used to move the truck.
A valid comparison between gasoline and diesel trucks would be based on equal amounts of work, not equal mpg—this is what really matters to the customer. Consider a potential rental truck customer that has a set amount of stuff that needs to be moved from a specific start location to a specific end location. What we should be comparing is how much CO2 is emitted from a gasoline truck vs. a diesel truck for moving the same amount of stuff along the same route. If you account for the substantially better fuel economy, the diesel truck will emit far less CO2 than the gasoline truck. The U-Haul comparison assumes both diesel and gasoline trucks get 8 mpg. For this to happen, the customer would have to remove some of his load from the gasoline truck to improve its fuel economy so that it equals the fuel economy of the diesel truck (which is carrying the full load). In this case the gasoline truck is doing far less work, and is not moving all of the customer’s stuff. The U-Haul comparison strategy is unrealistic and deceptive. Readers who are unaware of diesel’s inherently better efficiency may be misled into believing that choosing U-Haul would actually reduce carbon emissions.
In the fine print above, U-Haul states that ‘actual gas mileage may vary’. The fact that actual gas mileage does vary, in favor of diesel by a large margin, destroys U-Haul’s claim that gasoline trucks are better with respect to carbon emissions. The ‘various reliable sources’ statement in the fine print should raise another red flag: U-Haul is not the least bit transparent about these distorted claims.
In the fine print you will also find links to articles about new regulations for diesel particulate, sulfur, and NOx emissions, which are unrelated to the comparison of CO2 emissions between diesel and gasoline. Ironically, these articles explain how diesel-powered vehicles will be improved significantly in the near future.
The statement in this advertisement that diesel trucks emit more carbon than gasoline trucks (per gallon) may be deceptive, but it is technically correct given all the stated (but unreasonable) assumptions. The running tally of ‘CO2 emissions kept out of the atmosphere by choosing U-Haul’, however, is flat-out wrong (flying in the face of the Truth in Advertising Act). Whoever did these calculations didn’t do their homework. Correct calculations would result in a negative value here; that is, switching to U-Haul would increase CO2 emissions.
On U-Haul’s Corporate Sustainability page you can read:
Avoid “dirty” diesel
Mile for mile, diesel trucks release more toxic air contaminants, cancer-causing soot, and smog-forming emissions than gasoline-powered trucks. Greenhouse gas emissions from a gallon of diesel are 15 percent higher than those from a gallon of gasoline. That’s why all U-Haul rental trucks use cleaner-burning unleaded fuel.
The first two sentences, taken independently, are technically correct. Diesels do emit more particulates and other toxic gasses than gasoline engines on a mileage basis (at least with current emission control standards). And as I explained before, a gallon of gasoline does emit more CO2 than a gallon of diesel (14.4% more). However, putting these two statements together without clarification may lead people to believe that diesel trucks emit more CO2 on a mileage basis than gasoline, which is an incorrect conclusion. I roll my eyes at the third sentence. If U-Haul truly was concerned about carbon emissions, they would have transitioned their fleet to more efficient diesel trucks.
The financial savings claim in this ad is also incorrect. Not only do diesel trucks burn less fuel, but diesel is now less expensive than gasoline on average in the U.S. (gasoline: $2.691/gal, diesel: $2.616/gal, Source: EIA, June 25, 2009).
U-Haul is working hard to perpetuate incorrect negative stereotypes about diesel fuel and engines. An anti-diesel campaign magnifies their negative impact by delaying diesel adoption in the U.S. market. Switching to diesel-powered passenger cars could be a practical near-term solution to reducing carbon emissions and reducing dependence on foreign oil. We need to encourage the U.S. market to embrace diesel, not shun it. I want to note that diesel-powered transportation is not a long-term solution; we need to develop (as quickly as possible) a fossil-fuel free transportation system as a long-term solution.
What do you think of U-Haul’s CO2 marketing campaign? Why don’t you let them know (1-800-789-3638), and see what they have to say about it. Or, you could let others know (like these folks).
As an aside, if you want the ultimate in ‘green’ moving options, and you are moving locally and are feeling athletic, perhaps you would be interested in getting a few friends together for a ‘bike move‘.
Posted: June 25th, 2009 | Filed under: Green FAIL, Transportation | 1 Comment »
Guest blogger Greg Kushmerek continues his series of articles on bike commuting:
Last time I discussed how much something seemingly simple, parking, can have a strong effect on whether people cycle to work. Today I want to argue for the second seemingly simple thing that can make a big difference in whether someone cycles to work: having a convenient place to shower.
If you’re an American reading this, it might seem awfully obvious and almost a given. I say this as an American: people don’t like to smell your stink and you don’t like people smelling yours. On this basis alone, many people put biking as a non-starter. No place to clean up? No bike ride to work.
There are people who go through heroic motions. I read once about a guy who works out in San Francisco and cycle commutes. He’s got his place to park the bike, in a room in the basement of the building, and he also has adult-sized wet wipes to clean up from his ride. It makes for an interesting read, but I doubt that’s inspiring enough to spark a movement.
I’m fortunate: my employer has a gym on-site that includes a locker room with clean showers and towel service. I use this every time I come in. I keep a set of clothes at work that regularly go through a dry cleaning service (that I pay for) and I ride in with my shirt nicely rolled up — rolling helps prevent wrinkles. This makes riding in exceptionally easy from a logistics standpoint. I skip the shower at home and heck I save on hot water too. I consider this arrangement ideal.
So what could we do in designing our workplaces to make this available to more people? Many larger business have on-site gyms; if they provided safe bike parking then it’s easy enough to make the commute workable. It’s the medium and smaller places that are harder to manage.
One idea is to engineer change through the tax code. Businesses could receive tax credits if they provide a parking/shower package for cycle commuters. Sound outlandish? Businesses already receive tax breaks if they close down a building. That’s why some places stay empty for years but don’t get sold (I once worked at a place that redecorated a floor and then moved everyone out to claim the credit). A counterargument that nags at me is that the tax code is already so tortured that it’s become inefficient and costs society in a myriad of other ways.
What else? Well there’s the simple but blunt approach of making car commuting more expensive. The last time I checked, gas taxes didn’t even cover 60% of the cost of maintaining roads meaning that non-drivers are continuously subsidizing the roads that they don’t use. Here again is where I have some sympathy with the Libertarian point of view: if people find the service is worthwhile, then make people pay for it. I don’t want to privatize the Fire Department, but I do think the subsidy to car drivers is ridiculous and they should pay more for the roads they use as well as for the times they use them (look up “congestion charging” for more on this idea).
Whether through congestion charging (design) or market forces (demand as in $4 gas when the world economy was humming), a smart business will see the advantages of putting in more parking and showers to attract tenants. After all, once companies start to hire again, how better to burnish Green credentials than to promote their friendliness to cycle commuters?
Posted: June 24th, 2009 | Filed under: Cycling, Transportation | 1 Comment »
Please welcome the newest Design Impact guest blogger: Sterling Anderson. Sterling is a Ph.D. student at MIT working in the Robotic Mobility Group. In today’s article, Sterling writes about his work in the next generation of vehicle stability and hazard avoidance control, and how it relates to vehicle sustainability.
Today I’d like to briefly discuss exciting new developments in a field not commonly associated with or considered a critical component of vehicle sustainability. That field is vehicle safety. The connection I’d like to draw between safety and sustainability goes as follows: no matter what its energy source (gas, hybrid, electric, etc), a vehicle may be made more efficient by removing or otherwise lightening its structural elements. Many of these elements, however, such as secure seat belt harnesses, large airbag systems, sturdy roll cages, and large crumple zones, cannot be removed without increasing the risk of injury to vehicle occupants in the event of a collision. This limits the degree to which vehicles can be made smaller (which reduces drag), and lighter (less mass) without forfeiting the structural protection provided by larger and more massive vehicles.
Enter driver assistance systems. In recent years, the historical focus on passenger safety in human-controlled motor vehicles has shifted from collision mitigation systems such as seat belts, airbags, roll cages, and crumple zones to collision avoidance systems, which include anti-lock brakes, yaw stability control, roll stability control, and traction control. Whereas collision mitigation systems seek to reduce the effects of collisions on passengers, active collision avoidance systems seek to prepare for and avoid accidents altogether. This accident avoidance reduces – and may one day eliminate – the additional mass and design constraints required by passive safety systems.
But while existing collision avoidance systems are effective at reducing accident frequency, they are still limited in one respect: their avoidance methods are fundamentally “reactive” in nature. In the majority of these systems, controller intervention is based solely on current vehicle conditions, and thus cannot anticipate and prepare for future threats. For example, an anti-lock brake system seeks to help the driver avoid accidents by more intelligently applying his intended braking command – it does not preview the road ahead and decide to apply the brakes of its own accord. Ditto with stability and traction controllers; neither preemptively seeks to avoid hazards – each simply responds to the driver’s command. Thus, a drowsy, distracted, or otherwise inattentive driver receives very little benefit from such a system as it does not engage until he begins his own evasive maneuver.
Recent developments in onboard sensing (cameras, radar, laser-based sensing, vehicle-to-vehicle communication, etc.) and drive-by-wire technology have facilitated the development of collision avoidance systems that use information about the vehicle’s surroundings, along with predictive computer models to determine the best course of action to avoid an accident. If needed, such systems intervene and share steering and/or braking control with the driver. These “predictive” systems generally attempt to honor driver intentions, opposing them only when doing otherwise would lead to a collision or loss of control. By constantly monitoring a vehicle’s surroundings and predicting a safe path through them, they may warn the driver and take control of the vehicle steering and/or braking to avoid accidents before it is too late. Much like a copilot or driving instructor, this controller intervention should strike a necessary balance between the level and frequency of intervention: not altering the driver’s steering and braking inputs “too much”, “too soon”, or “too often” while still guaranteeing that the vehicle avoid hazards independent of that driver input.
In my work with MIT’s Robotic Mobility Group, we are currently developing a predictive active safety system that predicts the “best-case” trajectory through the environment, assesses the threat this trajectory poses, and intervenes as necessary to avoid accidents. We’ve tested this system in both simulation and experiment with excellent results. As the patent is still pending, I’ll defer details until my next post. Until then, you can see a demonstration of its performance in a few simulation videos posted here. In the mean time, and before I’ve biased your creativity with our solution, please brainstorm your own possible solutions. We have the technology to identify hazardous conditions and help the driver avoid collisions. What would you think of driving a car with a system like this? How do we know when intervention is “too much” or “too soon”? Feel free to discuss these ideas with others via the comment section below.
Sterling Anderson
MIT Robotic Mobility Group
sterlinganderson.synthasite.com
Posted: June 23rd, 2009 | Filed under: Design, Sustainability, Transportation | 3 Comments »
My earlier post, What Cycling Can Teach us About Better Driving, addressed how spending some time biking can help us become safer and more fuel-efficient drivers. This article prompted some insightful feedback from readers via blog comments, email, and LinkedIn. Here is a summary of what I heard from you:
- Interaction: Cyclists learn to establish communication with motorists around them to ensure drivers are aware of their intentions, and vice versa. Drivers with experience cycling tend to be more vigilant with things like using turn signals, since they appreciate the importance of informing other road users what they plan to do. A motorist failing to use a turn signal can in some cases be a severe hazard to cyclists. One reader suggests always driving with lights on to help cyclists who use mirrors, particularly in foggy conditions. Another reader observed that establishing eye contact is ‘an important mode of communication’ for both cyclists and motorists.
- Awareness: Cyclists develop the habit of being very aware of what’s going on around them. The habit of checking to see who is around you and what they are doing carries over to driving, as well as being extra alert for cyclists. Experience cycling gives drivers some insight into where to look for cyclists and what to expect from them.
- Interpretation: It’s possible to discern much of what a driver is planning to do by paying attention to ‘body’ language, whether the actual behavior or facial expressions of the driver, or vehicle positioning, movement, or even what direction a car’s wheels are pointing. Cyclists develop these skills by necessity; drivers with enhanced anticipation and interpretation skills can drive more defensively and safely.
- Appreciation: Exprience cycling helps motorists understand just how much space cyclists need while being passed, and the wide variation in speeds cyclists can travel at. It’s important for motorists not to assume all cyclists are travelling slowly; underestimating speed can lead to trouble. In addition, minor road hazards that might not mean anything to a motorist (like some road grates) are significant obstacles for cyclists; if driver’s can recognize this they can anticipate cyclist actions better. One reader ‘would like to see laws requiring cycling skills as part of driver’s licensure’ to help drivers gain a deeper appreciation for the dangers and challenges faced by cyclists. Another reader pointed out that drivers in the Netherlands are ‘far more considerate of cyclists’ because so many drivers also cycle.
Posted: June 22nd, 2009 | Filed under: Cycling, Education, Transportation | No Comments »
I spent the last several days at the Second International Engineering Systems Symposium, a conference involving people from a wide variety of disciplines who are working to solve difficult problems using a holistic approach. Many issues we face today are remarkably complex, and if we take a narrow view when addressing them we could run into problems. While we need experts with deep knowledge in very specific topics, we also need people who can think about systems as a whole, and how parts of a system interact with each other (sometimes producing surprising results). Some topics discussed this week include energy, climate change, health care, education, design, and the economy. I could probably write daily posts for months about this conference and still have plenty of material left. I will highlight some themes, projects, and ideas over the course of several posts that I found inspiring or important (in no particular order of importance). Today I want to point your attention to a phenomenal project taking place on a few small islands in the North Atlantic.
[Image Credit: azoresweb.com]
MIT Portugal is collaborating with numerous partners to develop and implement new energy systems for islands in the Azores, a Portuguese archipelago. What a challenging and amazing opportunity! These islands are becoming, in effect, a laboratory for researchers studying technology, public policy, economic, and other aspects of a next-generation energy system. Instead of putting a laboratory in a University, they are putting the University in the laboratory. While the needs and resources of these islands are certainly unique, they are serving as a testbed and example for the rest of the world regarding renewable energy, energy efficiency, and a holistic approach to redesigning how a society creates and uses energy. You can learn more about the Green Islands Project here, here or here.
So what is so exciting about focusing on a complete island? Think about trying to do the same thing with a city in the middle of the U.S. It is tightly interconnected with other cities through roads, power lines, rivers, etc. Numerous interactions with the world outside the city would make research results more difficult to interpret. An island has limited interactions, so in some ways it is close to being a closed system. This makes it easier for researchers to make conclusions about the changes to the energy system and the influence of these changes on the rest of the island. This research may lead to a better fundamental understanding of the next generation of energy systems, along with the socio-technical complexities that exist because of the interface between energy, social, political, economic, and environmental systems.
Posted: June 18th, 2009 | Filed under: Education, Energy, Policy, Sustainability | 2 Comments »
In the second installment of this series on ultra-efficient vehicle design, I cover briefly the aerodynamic design of solar cars and the related opportunity for significant improvement of production passenger cars.
[Image Credit: energy.gov]
Air resistance is very important consideration for solar cars, or any vehicle that travels at high speeds, since the power to overcome air drag increases cubically with speed. In other words, if you double your speed, the power required to overcome air resistance increases by a factor of EIGHT.
I’m going to jump right into an equation that will help illustrate some of the main concepts in this article. The force of air pushing back on a moving car, the aerodynamic drag force (
), can be approximated by this formula:
where 
is the density of air, 
is the drag coefficient, 
is the car’s frontal area, and 
is the car’s velocity (speed). This equation is a simple engineering model (see my ongoing series of articles on modeling) that helps us understand how changing vehicle design and operating conditions affects aerodynamic drag force. Looking at this equation, we can see that drag force increases quadratically with speed (that is, doubling your speed increases drag force by a factor of four), and increases proportionately with frontal area and drag coefficient. Based on this equation, what can we do to reduce drag force? Obviously the most effective thing to do is reduce speed. This is why freeway speed limits were reduced to 55 mph years ago to save fuel. Let’s assume for now that the speed we want to drive our car at is fixed. What else can we do to reduce drag force? We can’t do much about reducing air density (), but we can control frontal area () and drag coefficient (). In my last post on solar car design, I explained that solar cars must make do with very limited amounts of power (less than what a hairdrier consumes). Reducing frontal area and the drag coefficient can bring solar car designers one step closer to building a car that can travel at highway speeds with only the power from the sun.
In the past, solar car racing rules allowed drivers to pretty much lie down in the car, making it possible to design cars with a very small frontal area. This really helps reduce air resistance (cyclists understand very well the importance of keeping a small profile), but makes getting in and out of the car fairly challenging. Current solar racing rules now require a more upright driver position, resulting cars that are a little closer to what commuters might consider driving. Some teams have even built two-person solar cars. While somewhat more practical, solar cars with upright seating have increased frontal area and increased air resistance.
So what about the drag coefficient? Vehicle designers can adjust the shape of the car so that air flows around it smoothly, requiring less force to push the car through the air. Solar cars are perhaps the most streamlined road going vehicles. They have smooth surfaces that taper toward the rear, ensuring that air flows over them in a smooth, laminar way. The blunt rear edge of most cars leads to a lot more air resistance, as opposed to the trailing edge of a solar car or the the Aptera 2e. Have a look at these simulation results that show how air flows smoothly over the University of Waterloo solar car without much disturbance:
The streamlined shape slices through the air without generating a turbulent wake at its tapered rear edge, in contrast to many production vehicle with blunt rear ends. Solar cars have acheived drag coefficients as low as 0.10, while the Prius sports a much larger and less efficient drag coefficient of 0.26 (which is actually the lowest of any production car). Referring to our drag equation above, that means if a Prius and a solar car had the same frontal area, the Prius would take 2.6 times as much force to overcome air resistance as the solar car at a given speed. Most production cars have noticeably higher drag coefficients; a Civic’s is 0.36, and a Hummer H2’s is 0.57. The image below illustrates how other vehicle shapes can lead to turbulent wakes, which increases a car’s drag coefficient:
While reducing drag coefficient is a paramount consideration in solar car design, it is not the only consideration. Goro Tamai, a past MIT solar car team member, discusses in his book, The Leading Edge, that aerodynamic design must be considered as a component as the overall vehicle system.
The “best” body shape for solar cars, HPVs, or Electrathoners is not the body of absolute lowest drag. The vehicle system, including the driver, chassis, and energy/drive system must work in concert to produce the maximum output.
In addition to minimizing drag, designers must ensure vehicle stability and safety, and that aerodynamic design works in concert with powertrain and power production systems to acheive the best overall vehicle performance. In the case of a solar racer, the measure of ‘best performance’ is how fast the car can safely travel a set route, powered only by the sun. I’ll explore the importance of systems engineering in vehicle design in a later article in this series.
So how do these ideas transfer to production vehicle design? First of all, the low drag coefficient of solar cars compared to production cars is astounding. Clearly low drag is not a top priority in production vehicles; there is tremendous room for improvement. Solar cars illustrate what is possible, and give some insights into how to do it (smaller frontal area, tapered rear edge, smooth undersides, and wheels covered by fairings, for example). Spencer Quong, a senior vehicle analyst with the Union of Concerned Scientists, has explained that solar car development “opens the industry’s eyes to how to build a more efficient vehicle.”
A recent article from allcarselectric.com claims that the new Honda Insight looks so much like the Prius because when you optimize a vehicle for aerodynamics, you converge on something that looks like the Prius. Considering our discussion above, the shape of the Prius clearly is not aerodynamically optimal. It’s good, but it’s possible to do much better. I suspect that marketing and visual cues are much bigger factors here than truly slippery shapes. Prius styling is becoming a symbol of ‘green’, its shape now spark thoughts of energy efficiency. If the objective was to minimize drag, I contend that designers would arrive at a vehicle shape closer to the Aptera 2e.
An auto manufacturer obviously needs to build cars that people want to buy. They need to perform well and look good. We have the ability to improve performance and energy efficiency of production cars by moving toward more streamlined shapes, but would many people buy these cars? What do you think could be done to shift public perception and preference such that genuinely low-drag vehicles could become marketable? This is an important question; developing demand for vehicles with dramatically lower drag would have considerable impact on energy consumption.
Posted: June 14th, 2009 | Filed under: Design, Energy, Sustainability, Transportation | 1 Comment »
Yesterday, NPR’s On Point addressed benefits (and challenges) of attending college, or even high school, abroad:
Stay home studying for SATs and taking on college debt, and you’re guaranteed nothing in this topsy-turvy economy. Go abroad — as early as high school, especially for college, they say — and you’ll find low tuitions, big adventures, and the future.
You can listen to the full show, Global Students, here. On Point’s guests are not just talking about study abroad programs, but actually enrolling in universities outside the U.S. In some circles studying abroad may be a normal endeavor, but the show’s guests, who are parents with four children who studied outside the U.S., emphasized that the ‘vast majority’ of high school students could really benefit from an international study experience, and that there are scholarships and programs to help keep costs within reach of many.
What do you think of this proposal? How could it benefit the next generation? Imagine a new wave of graduates with real global experience. This show reminded me some of the post Renaissance Scientists, Renaissance Engineers, Renaissance People. These kinds of global experiences would help develop the kind of broad thinking we need to fuel innovation and competitiveness in a global economy.
Posted: June 12th, 2009 | Filed under: Education | 2 Comments »
[Image Credit: ecocarchallenge.com]
A team of students from Ohio State University took first place at the 2009 EcoCAR Challenge today. Here is an excerpt from the press release:
The Ohio State University took first place out of 17 universities in the U.S. and Canada that competed in the first major milestone of this three-year competition which is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy, General Motors, and many others including the Government of Canada. The competition challenges university engineering students across North America to re-engineer a 2009 Saturn VUE to improve fuel efficiency and reduce emissions while retaining the vehicle’s performance and consumer appeal. …
The winning team’s EREV provides a practical solution that will increase energy efficiency and reduce environmental impacts. The Ohio State’s design was powered by a 1.8 litre engine and fueled by E85 ethanol. The next-generation design predicts a 300 per cent increase in fuel economy over the production 4 cylinder vehicle.
You can also read more and view videos at the Inside the Green Garage blog.
Posted: June 12th, 2009 | Filed under: Energy, Sustainability, Transportation | No Comments »
