The Air Car!

I came across this article on The Oil Drum where Big Gav was quickly recapping many of the habitual changes I've proposed as a means by which to conserve oil and eliminate fossil fuel use. Observe:

"These [solutions] include expanding mass transit systems, redesigning cities and towns to make them easier to walk or cycle around (or combining both of these approaches in "transit oriented development"), making greater use of electric cycles (or mopeds), using lightweight materials in vehicle construction, and - most commonly - switching to electric vehicles (particularly, in the medium term, plug-in hybrids)."

An emerging alternative, as the article goes on to reveal, is this concept of air-driven cars. I know, I first thought, "Say what?! Flying cars!?", too. No... what this concept proposes is cars driven by compressed air!

To make compressed air, though, requires fossil fuels because, well, how else is the electricity that needs to do the compressing going to get made? This is the same problem as with making hydrogen fuel for cars. It still requires, at this point in time, fossil fuels to make these alternative forms of energy holders. I say energy holders because, like Big says, "it is an energy storage medium, not an energy source." Fossil fuels are the energy source.

The article says that a company is currently building a plant to market and sell a compressed-air driven car. Many question the legitimacy of this company and/or its vehicle. Even if they are able to get cars rolling off the assembly line, a source of compressed air (perhaps one that can presently pump air into tires, etc.) would need to be within 150 km (93 miles) of every location in the US for everyone to be able to use one. So, as with hydrogen, it looks like California shall lead, and other major cities shall follow. Eventually the mountains and deserts will have their compressed air providing utilities as well.

Now if you're a city dweller, driving a compressed-air vehicle shouldn't cause you any problems because you most likely don't drive long distances (or at least no often), and probably aren't too far from a gas station. The cars are slated to be slightly cheaper than gas-powered cars, coming in at about half the price. But, do you get what you pay for?

Apparently these vehicles will begin to be produced in the near future in India, with several emerging countries like Colombia and Thailand following suit. What I failed to previously mention is that these Air Cars can also use gasoline with an apparent range now of 1240+ miles.

This figure boasts "claimed efficiencies of up to 70%."* Whether or not this concept actually comes to fruition is separate from the fact that compressed air is a much safer propellant than gasoline, and as such driving would become a much less hazardous task. Something to think about.

Buy a Car, Gain Weight; It's That Simple

Lynn Sloman, in her book "Car Sick," mentions a study performed by Colin Bell, Keyou Ge, and Barry Popkin in China, which analyzed correlations in obesity paired with car ownership.

The study included 4,700 adults, all who previously hadn't owned vehicles. What Sloman mentions is the findings of the study: "If you buy a car, you will put on weight. You will be twice as likely to become clinically obese, and this will lead inexorably to poorer health."

I've always had mixed feelings about car use. Whilst living in Japan, I would think about the places I needed to go. Because the public transportation infrastructure in Japan is so developed, I could get to literally anywhere via public transportation. Time was a consideration, however. I could drive, spending money on gas, or I could spend my money on the train and/or bus.

I would most always take the public transportation route because, even if it took me longer to reach my destination, I saved carbon emissions and never had to worry about parking. Because of parking costs, I almost always saved money by taking the train/bus.

Back to weight gain, though. I knew that by not driving, I would need to walk between train stations and/or bus stops, to/from my departure/destination places from/to the train stations or bus stops. Let me make this clearer by illustrating a typical journey:

By Car:
Drive for 20 minutes to my destination, pay only for gas, no parking.

Time: 20 minutes
Calories Burned: 10
Cost: $1.50 (¥170)

By Train:
Walk to train station for 20 minutes. Wait for train avg. of 5 minutes. Pay train fare and ride train for 13 minutes. Walk to destination for 20 minutes.

Time: 58 minutes
Calories Burned: 210
Cost: $1.05 (¥120)

Obviously a lot more sweat is exerted by the latter means of transport. As you can see, driving cost more, but required far less effort. Essentially, you're paying for the luxury to drive. But, clearly you'll be hanging on to much more weight by driving. How about the much more sensible solution of bike riding:

By Bicycle:
Ride 25 minutes to destination, pay no parking.

Time: 25 minutes
Calories Burned: 150
Cost: $0.00 (¥0)

This is ideal. Don't pay a penny for gas, parking, tolls, or otherwise. And, you still burn the calories. A bicycle is a much smaller investment than a car; at least you're not going to have to take out a mortgage. Because this scenario took place in Japan, between small towns where you cannot drive too fast, bicycling was almost as fast as driving. In this case, bicycles actually have the upper-hand on cars because they can quickly travel back roads and navigate shortcuts.

Clearly there are much more sensible alternatives to transportation than driving a car. In this case, mass transportation could even be avoided. So why don't more people ride bikes or take the train? Apathy. Not driving means moving more than just your arms for a brief period of time, a task which seems to too many overly burdensome. Hence, the weight gain.

I'm not one to enjoy paying for gas, or even for public transportation on occasion, but calories? That's a price I can pay. Rather, a price I'd prefer to pay.

**If you live rurally, then you're a special case, to which special transportation alternatives apply.

The Geriatric Economy

Someone said to me today, "Old people don't benefit the economy; they should all be shipped to an island."

Shipped to an island to do what? Rot? I think that a lot of industries rely on the older population to be successful. Many drug companies, and cruise line companies, I think would miss a huge percentage of their business if they didn't have customers over the age of 55. So in this sense, the economy is helped. More businesses are able to do more business. Older persons who have saved a lot of money over the course of their life are able to spend it on health care and leisure.

Even today we all save money that we'll spend in our old age. So, psychologically, if there was no old age to look forward to, then we'd all spend our money now rather than later. We save for the days when we're too old to work. Then our life's savings will help us survive. If we have no old age to save for, then we're more likely to spend our money on leisurely pursuits, earlier in our lives, for example on travel, computers, cars, and better housing. So, while different sectors would have greater cash inflow, the economy overall wouldn't necessarily change that much, would it?

Tell me what you think.

Green Shuttles at American University

The American University, with regards to its efforts to become a greener institution and lessen its environmental impact, has begun to address the needs of its shuttle program. Shuttles typically run upwards of 17 hours per day, and multiple shuttles may run at a time. While these buses travel efficient routes and generally move many passengers at once, they do burn a lot of fuel over time.

According to the on-campus newspaper, The Eagle, the University has been exploring the option of biodiesel. Purchasing the shuttles, while an issue of funding, that would have been the main issue should the University have adopted this route, but rather it is the fuel. Because of the demand for the biodeisel fuel, a special, on-campus facility (i.e. a tank) would need to be built especially for shuttle use. Apparently some sort of liability would have been formed, had this facility been created. When people think biodiesel, I think many stereotypically think 'gasoline mixed with vegetable oil.' In a sense, this isn't too far off, however this particular concoction would have been 20% soy, 80% diesel.

So, while the biodiesel option is out, hybrid is not. The University, in fact, recently explored a hybrid shuttle option. A typical AU shuttle costs $320,000, while a new, hybrid shuttle would cost about $500,000. Obviously the extra cost would need to be recouped by savings in fuel costs or an extension in the usable life of the shuttle. A hybrid shuttle boasts the ability to save up to 40% in fuel costs. The University will explore this option, and hopefully they will adopt it as a good first start toward going greener. What's more, the hybrid shuttles can also run biodiesel fuel! So biodiesel is still a viable option, should the University ever choose to revert back to it, or adopt it in tandem with the hybrid format.

I applaud American University's efforts and initiative in going green. Sustainability is what the University promotes, and sustainability it continues to practice. High-five.

The Win-Win: Mass Transportation To/From Major Cities

True, buses use a lot of gas, but they save just as much gas. 45 bus riders save 45 cars' worth of gasoline, and the trade-off? Just one bus worth of gas.

So here's a dilemma that is interesting because of its myriad solutions: traffic congestion. How do you get cars moving again? Well, the simple solution is to build more lanes, right? More lanes decongest the traffic. But... in a few years the same problem will be back. It seems like highways are always being widened because they're never large enough.

Instead of making more lanes, what we need to do is make more public transportation. Now, while this concept is not ideal for long distances, say across the country, think about the places where you really are likely to hit the most traffic: around cities. People commute into and out of cities the most. What most cities don't have, but need, is effective public transportation systems. To the suburbs and back, trains and buses need to run on efficient routes where usage is likely to be high. If effective public transportation systems are implemented, people will be enticed to take them. Assuming they're clean, cheap, efficient, and on-time, there's nothing not to like.

So, as Lynn Sloman, in her book "Car Sick" suggests, why not dedicate a lane, or build a lane, on major roads into and out of cities that are reserved specifically for buses? If a bus can peel 45+ cars off the road, then there's no need to build more lanes for traffic. Less cars will be used, and remaining traffic congestion will encourage people to ride the buses. Not only are there monetary savings, but the dedicated lanes will actually make bus transportation just as fast as it would take for people to drive their own cars into the city for work. What's more, commuters who opt for the public transportation option never have to worry about finding, or paying for, a parking space. Throw in the reduced carbon emissions and, therefore, less pollution, and it's clearly a win-win for everyone involved.

Save Something... i.e. Yourself, Earth, Money

We're addicted to cars and oil in the United States. I say "we," however there are many of us, while a minority, that do not follow the rest of the country's consumption habits.

Essentially, part of the problem that is 'natural resource overconsumption' includes a lack of public transportation infrastructure. Likewise, the spread-out nature of our cities, towns, and suburbs promote the use of individual cars as modes of transportation. For many people, there is no option but to drive your own car. How about those that live in cities, or suburbs that have public transportation available into the city?

It is the responsibility of people who have the ability to go green, by commuting to work via public or shared means, to do so. The world's oil supply is running dry and growing demand from India and China are not going to make the supply any more abundant. Rather than 45 people driving their cars to work, think about the effort, gasoline, frustration, and lack of productivity that those 45 people could save by taking a bus. Think about how much more productive our society could be, given the functionality that Blackberry and PDA devices provide nowadays. By the time you get to work in the morning, there are probably a dozen e-mails awaiting your immediate response. Why not see to them all during your commute, and relieve the stress placed on the rest of your day?

If you can take public transportation, dump your car. There are means of getting around not having a car. Live near a public transportation station, either rail or bus, that can get you to work. Carpool with a friend to work, or drive to the nearest bus/train station and commute from there. When you think about it, you'll definitely save money because public transportation is much cheaper than each gallon of gasoline that you must pump into your car to make it get you to work every day. It is a luxury to drive a car.

If you're not seeing the light yet, consider this: you'll be proactively saving your own life by not driving. The benefits here are multifaceted. Going green by taking public transportation saves gasoline and, therefore, carbon emissions, sure, but do you have any idea the ridiculous number of car accidents that occur each year? It's not a matter of whether or not you will be in an accident, it's a matter of when. A car accident can cost you your life, and in two different ways. Firstly, an accident can be perilous. Secondly, if you're at fault, then you may have committed a serious crime. Therefore, your life is, in a sense, comparably over. Accidents happen, sure, but why take the risk of being in one? A fender-bender is a lot of hassle... especially if someone is injured.

So do yourself and society a favor: take public transportation if/when you can. If you're in a bus and it gets rear-ended, you don't have to worry about being at fault. You can rest assured that all the problems associated with an accident rest with the drivers of the vehicle-i.e. not you.

Take the money you save on gasoline by not driving your own car, and get a Blackberry or an iPhone. Then, during your commute on public transportation, use the device to get work done! You can be very productive! It may get you out of the door earlier at the end of the day, and back home where you [hopefully] want to be. Help yourself take back your life and the planet at the same time. Kiss your long drives goodbye and know that you're saving money, saving the planet, and saving yourself.

*muah*

W00t! Let's Ruin English...

I was just writing today on Tim's blog my true feelings about l337 speak and netspeak.

Well honestly, after stumbling upon "Merriam-Webster name w00t 2007 Word of the Year - English Teachers Weep," my compliment to society's word banks for keeping netspeak at bay, may just have to be revoked. I find it atrocious that, if letting the word "Woot" into the dictionary, it would be spelled with two zeros. Seriously? w00t?

Methinks not.

Associated Content, referring to l337 or "leet" speak, says "This new language, or jargon, was a way for social semi-outcasts to identify with each other and became the secret handshake of the new millenia." They call l337 speak the pig-latin of the typed, digital age.

Kevin Chen takes a more mild-mannered approach when he says, "The internet is, in one sense, a natural destruction and creation of modern language. It has developed its own lexicon, filled with a multitude of words and acronyms."

Kevin's approach is definitely the way most people look at it. I think those people who classify themselves as independents would prefer to assume this position. True, each age is filled with its influences that alter modern language, yet thinking to historical contexts, change in the English language has taken place relatively slowly over the past several hundred years, compared with the revolution that netspeak and the Internet of today are provoking.

Just because Webster's dictionary has decided to accept w00t as a word, doesn't suggest that other dictionaries will also accept the "word." Personally, I don't foresee the Oxford English Dictionary jumping on the "w00t" bandwagon, at least not with two zeros, any time soon.

"Fact or Crap?"

This is a follow-up to my Nov. 16 post, "User Generated Flubb," in which I expressed skepticism toward the validity, verity, and usefulness of user generated content.

In scouring digg just now, I've come across several very interestingly-titled articles:

Is There Really Such a Thing as Time Travel? Creepy! watch!

Burger Kings's Condom Whopper Lands New Lawsuit

Huckabee called homosexuality "dangerous public health risk"

I am not suggesting that any of these articles are not fact-based, credible, and/or a benefit to society.
_____

In considering UGC as a whole, how much is our society benefited by its creation? I wouldn't say that it makes us smarter off... By reading digg rather than a non-fiction book, we end up learning a little about a lot, rather than the other way around. In my opinion, so long as you know a lot altogether and are able to use that knowledge, you're smart. Citizen journalism, micro-blogging, and social networking sites like digg, del.icio.us, and technorati impart on users information. In general, you're going to be informed, but not educated.

A lot of information is no good if there isn't any glue to hold together the pieces. Linking pieces of information together is what creates knowledge. Books link information and impart knowledge, hence my preference for them. However, perhaps the lack of knowledge is what excites readers of digg. The random bits of information are entertaining, and really not much thinking is involved because there's no need to remember anything that's read.

What baffles me is simply why so many people have such a fixation on collecting information in this fashion. I wish there was a way that they could do more than just learn a few facts in an article, but rather actually be smarter off afterwards for having read an article. When citizen journalism and UGC are guaranteed to impart knowledge and even wisdom, then I'll lose much of the skepticism that I have for it.