Post off topic threads here.
#32616 by Neil Blanchard
Tue Feb 05, 2008 12:40 pm
Hello,

Road & Track sez that the Smart car is EPA rated at 33 City and 44 Highway. :(

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=34&article_id=6245

Here's new-but-familiar face; the VW space up! blue:

Image
(click on picture for link)

http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/16/is-the-vw-space-up-interface-developed-by-apple/

This is a hydrogen/electric hybrid concept car -- it has a hydrogen fuel cell and batteries, with electric drive, and some PV solar cells on the roof. Kewl!
#32620 by Greg Blandin
Tue Feb 05, 2008 1:18 pm
Saw a report the other night on smart cars. Seems there are at least 4 of them around the Twin Cites right now and a bunch more back ordered or ready for pick up.

Should be interesting how they fare in this Minnesota winter.
#32702 by Neil Blanchard
Thu Feb 07, 2008 12:32 pm
Hello,

Here's another very interesting concept car, from Toyota called the 1/X:

Image
(click on picture for link)

It has a 926-pound curb weight, gets 125mpg, and seats four -- what's not to like?!
#32703 by Ben at TJB Architects
Thu Feb 07, 2008 12:36 pm
Neil Blanchard wrote:It has a 926-pound curb weight, gets 125mpg, and seats four -- what's not to like?!


...um, that somebody could carry it away? :lol:
#33779 by Neil Blanchard
Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:23 pm
Hello,

This is only slightly off topic:

* A massive switch from coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power plants to solar power plants could supply 69 percent of the U.S.’s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050.
* A vast area of photovoltaic cells would have to be erected in the Southwest. Excess daytime energy would be stored as compressed air in underground caverns to be tapped during nighttime hours.
* Large solar concentrator power plants would be built as well.
* A new direct-current power transmission backbone would deliver solar electricity across the country.
* But $420 billion in subsidies from 2011 to 2050 would be required to fund the infrastructure and make it cost-competitive.



http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan&page=1

Here & Now blurb wrote (the radio news show where I heard about this):
A recent study in Scientific American calls for 30,000 square miles of solar or photovoltaic panels to soak up the sun's rays in the American Southwest to provide America with all its energy needs. The plan would cost $400 billion, create 3 million new "green" jobs and shut down all of the country's coal plants. Ken Zweibel, lead author of the Scientific American study, tells us about his dream to switch America onto solar power.


Image
Image
#33997 by Neil Blanchard
Fri Mar 14, 2008 8:20 am
Hello,

Here are pictures of the two wind generators in Hull MA. The older, smaller one that is out on the very end of the peninsula:
ImageImage
The tower is 165 feet high, and the blades are 150 feet in diameter.

And the newer, larger one that is located near the town line with Hingham:
Image
They both were spinning pretty fast -- the wind was steady and quick strong; you can see how the blades are bent back a bit?

I should add that they are planning to have FOUR more even larger ones: 262 foot diameter blades; to be installed ~2 miles offshore supported on the sea floor. They have apparently gotten the early approvals.
Last edited by Neil Blanchard on Fri Mar 14, 2008 8:51 am, edited 5 times in total.
#33998 by Greg Blandin
Fri Mar 14, 2008 8:23 am
Nice...

We have 2 in the small town I live in. Course my city has 2 college's in it as well.
#34006 by Mark F. Madura
Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:17 am
I came across this site that is maintained jointly by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The site helps fulfill DOE and EPA’s responsibility under the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 1992 to provide accurate MPG information to consumers.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov

FWIW,

MFM
#34042 by Nick Pyner
Sat Mar 15, 2008 12:13 am
Mark F. Madura wrote:I came across this site that is maintained jointly by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov


I see that liquified petroleum gas doesn't rate much of a mention. I thought North America was quite well endowed with the stuff. I suppose the ethanol mafia keep the lid on it........
#34047 by Neil Blanchard
Sat Mar 15, 2008 9:09 am
Hi Mark,

Mark F. Madura wrote:I came across this site that is maintained jointly by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The site helps fulfill DOE and EPA’s responsibility under the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 1992 to provide accurate MPG information to consumers.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov

FWIW,


They have revised my 2005 Scion xA's EPA rating: it was 32 City and 38 Highway (which would be 35mpg Combined?), and supposedly the "more realistic" 2008 method yields a 27 City and 34 Highway = 30mpg Combined. I've posted ALL of my fuel consumption for 133 tankfuls over the nearly 3 years that I have owned it -- my actual Combined mileage is 37mpg.

From my actual experience, even the old method is too low. :?
#34051 by joshhuggins
Sat Mar 15, 2008 11:45 am
Nick Pyner wrote:I see that liquified petroleum gas doesn't rate much of a mention. I thought North America was quite well endowed with the stuff. I suppose the ethanol mafia keep the lid on it........
My current truck was on LPG (Propane) from 1993 about 2004 and it was great for the most part other than I had a huge tank in the bed of my truck. Up until around 2004 Propane was much cheaper as an auto fuel than gasoline, about $1.00 per gallon vs. gas at the time was about $2.20. But when gasoline prices started to climb Propane when into some really weird fluctuations for motor fuel. It jumped up and down and often would be higher than gasoline. By that time I decided to replace my engine and decided I would switch to gasoline because I was moving away from any major propane filling stations. I do miss Propane and still wish I had kept the conversion kit. I could fill up my 80 gal tank 80% and run for about 850-975 miles on a single fill up which was probably one of the best perks. Mileage wasn't so great but the price was for a long time and the emissions were so low most smog stations could not get reading on about 3 of the emissions test. Unfortunately now with the truck converted back to gas the truck registers "normal" (gas hog) on the emissions test, and now almost every morning when I read the forum I feel guilty about just having driven to work because I'm killing baby rabbits with my gross polluter. :cry:
#34128 by Nick Pyner
Mon Mar 17, 2008 6:09 pm
joshhuggins wrote:
Nick Pyner wrote:I see that liquified petroleum gas doesn't rate much of a mention. .
By that time I decided to replace my engine and decided I would switch to gasoline because I was moving away from any major propane filling stations.:


Looks like the national application of LPG is pretty half hearted. Or are you in a remote area and the truck never strays too far from the farm?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

About DataCAD Forum

The DataCAD Forum is a FREE online community we provide to enhance your experience with DataCAD.

We hope you'll visit often to get answers, share ideas, and interact with other DataCAD users around the world.

DataCAD

Software for AEC Professionals Since 1984