Moving Like Water

Well, right on the heels of the ultra-cool Tesla Model S announcement the other day comes word that Detroit Electric had made a strategic partnership to mass produce full electric cars. The very plain-looking sedan may look boring, but according to the spec sheet, it does 0-60 in 8 seconds and boasts a top speed of 112 mph.

The battery pack will come in two options: a short-range and longer range. The short range should get you about 112 miles (which you could do in one hour at top speed – heh!) . The long range version can make it nearly 200 miles on a charge.

The price is much more reasonable than the $50,000 Tesla. It’ll start at $23,000, which is a price for a product launch. Launch is planned for early 2010 in Europe, with the U.S. market hopefully to follow very soon after. 2010 may indeed be the Year of the Electric Car.

Sounds sweet, right? So what’s the downside? Just this: Don’t be fooled by the name. This isn’t an American company (although it does have a long and storied American history) and the cars won’t be built here. So. Incredibly. Frustrating. Still, that’s no reason to boycott since it puts it in the same boat as just about every other car right now, but it sure feels like a big lost opportunity.

I’ve long been struggling with my light bulbs. And the bulbs have been winning. I think it’s critical we get off standard incandescent bulbs, yet widely available alternative of CFLs leaves me cold. And yellow. I’ve hated the weird color they give off and the delay when switching them on. Plus in my old house (I just moved) the CFLs would last half the time of my standard bulbs (admittedly could be related to the older wiring in that house or the quality of the brand I’d purchased). And they contain loads of poisonous mercury.

Now I have to admit, CFLs have been making big strides lately and I’ve been swapping out standard bulbs in the new house with CFLs. I’m experimenting with whether I can put a 75-Watt level CFL into an fixture labeled as maximum 60 watt. My theory is that the CFLs burn cooler and therefore are not a fire hazard. Plus Mr. Tight-Watt agrees!

I tried it recently in a three-bulb fixture, being careful to purchase “instant-on” bulbs with an Energy Star label. These were manufactured by GE. A little more money, but sooo worth it! I’d say the light from these new bulbs is just as good in terms of quality as incandescent and the instant-on feature neutralizes one of the most annoying things about florescent lighting.

So I’m actually pretty happy with light bulb situation when, what’s this? An LED bulb is finally hitting the market that is as bright as a 60-Watt bulb. And only consumes 8 Watts? Yes, the Geobulb is now for sale.

Given that the bulb retails for $115, it’s being marketed as a long-lasting (10 years) replacement bulb for hard-to-reach areas. While I may buy one as an experiment, it obviously makes no sense to buy a bulb at that price. But it’s one to watch and a sign that our path to a clean energy future may be closer than we think!

Oh, and since we all need to get a lot smarter in buying bulbs instead of buying for fire safety (max 60 Watt, etc.) we need to start buying in Lumens. The Energy Star Web site has a handy table for comparing different products on a Lumen basis.

I’ve been beyond busy lately which has naturally affected my blogging frequency. But this just couldn’t wait: The Tesla Model S pictures and specs are out. And it’s sweet. Oh, so sweet. I must have one.

For those of you who haven’t been waiting anxiously for the Tesla sedan to be announced, here are the basics:

• 100% electric
• 300 mile range
• 0-60 in 5.6 seconds
• Seats 7 (this I have to see)
• Plug into any normal outlet
• Looks sweet

Drool, drool, drool.

Regular readers know I believe that a fully electric car is a key building block to a sustainable society and, particularly, to solving the global warming catastrophe. We have an existing road infrastructure that’s not going away any time soon and a generally car-dependent lifestyle. I’d love and prefer to see a move to mass transit but it’s just not realistic in the near-term. With a 300 mile range, the Tesla Model S could become the commuter car of choice. The range will give you the confidence to drive it to work or on a short trip without worry. Drive to work, drive home and plug in for the night. Now if I could just pop a windmill on the roof to provide the free power, I’d have my freedom, baby!

I’d be remiss to not point out the bad news: $50,000 price tag (yikes!) and not available until 2011. Oh well, gives me some time to save up.

Recently I was stopped late at night at a Seattle intersection. It was dark out, not a car around except for mine. And the light stayed red and stayed red. Then, almost as if the stoplight could read my mind, I was about to give up and go anyway when it finally changed to green.

There’s something programmed in us from when we first started driving that freezes us in place if that little red circle is showing. We sit there. And sometimes sit and sit. And now we need to fear photo-based traffic tickets.

In many ways stoplights have been an amazing invention. They’ve certainly saved many lives and keep traffic generally moving. In fact, long streets with a series of traffic lights are often better bets in heavy traffic compared to freeways that typically suffer complete system collapse once volumes pass the levels they were designed to handle. That’s why certain freeways are absolutely guaranteed to come to a near halt at certain times each day.

Which brings us back to the classic American traffic light. First used in narrow downtown cores where space was limited, the traffic light has spread to every suburb and has become a point of pride for small towns rolling out their first traffic light to great fanfare.

But as I sat alone at that intersection getting zero miles per gallon, the dark side of traffic lights became quite apparent. Multiply the minutes I spent sitting there across the other drivers sitting across the country and you’ve got a heck of a lot of carbon being produced unnecessarily. Fortunately there’s a solution: The Traffic Circle or Roundabout.

It can be amusing watching an American encounter one of these for the first time. They’ll sometimes freeze, panic or make an erratic move as they try to figure it out. It’s understandable, really. They’re relatively rare and often not signed well. And if you’ve ever gone through one in another country, you know the locals don’t slow down or tolerate unexpected movements. I had quite the experience on a Vespa in Rome trying to get to the outside lane so I could jump out at the street I wanted.

That said, roundabouts are remarkably efficient, really just a circle with a road wrapped around it. They do take more space so it could be problematic converting some intersections to this solution. But, best part? No stopping and no idling. And they’ve got to be cheaper to create. Maybe not ideal for every situation, but it’d be great to see city planners embrace this solution wherever possible.

Throughout the presidential election campaign, we endured endless ads from two unusual sources. One was the endless loop of “Pickens Plan” ads and other other was the heavy rotation of nonsensical “We” ads.

If you’ve been near a TV at all during the last few months, you’ve seen both of these ads. In some ways the similarities are more telling than the differences with these ads. Both are focused on sustainability in their own way, both claim to be demanding renewable energy and both at least seem to be aimed at moving opinion leaders toward their approach.

But what are these plans and organizations all about? You certainly can’t tell from these 30 second ads. I decided to take a look.

The We campaign is being run by the WeCanSolveIt.org group, founded by Al Gore (full disclosure: big Al Gore fan here and I joined the group when it was first organized). The We group’s goal is to get the U.S. to 100% clean electricity in 10 years. The goal is so aggressive that you could be forgiven for assuming that their position is nothing more than a clever use of the Overton window. I, however, think it is an attainable goal. And, like Al Gore would probably say, it’s a goal that we can’t afford to miss. Sadly it is an expensive goal as well; although we could certainly use some infrastructure spending in America to kick-start our economy.

I’m excited about We because it puts our focus where it should be: moving to electricity for energy wherever possible and creating that energy with clean, renewable sources. And for those of you who are regular readers will note, that means you’re not burning anything. The technology is here today, but it’s not the cheapest energy in most cases. For example, let’s say you wanted to move your house to solar. You would probably pay something above $20,000 on panels and an inverter. Plus you’ll likely need a new furnace if you live in a colder part of the country. With an electric bill of, say, $100ish per month, you’re looking an incredibly long payback. There’s no way to move massive numbers of people to these solutions with those economics. This is why RE<C is such an important concept. In fact it’s the entire basis of this Web site.

Which brings us to the Pickens Plan.

Now I’m doing my best to give the plan an honest look, but readers should note that I’ll never forgive this sleazeball for financing the Swiftboat ads against John Kerry in 2004. Simply disgusting and immoral.

So with that bad taste in my mouth ignored, let’s look at Pickens. T. Boone PIckens rightly highlights the fact that our foreign oil consumption has risen for decades now under both political parties. He doesn’t mention how much money he made off that oil importation, however. His plan calls for a bold move to renewable energy, such as wind. But, as you’ve seen in his commercials, he notes the “technology isn’t there yet. We need a bridge.”

His bridge? Natural gas, or as he calls it, CNG. CNG stands for compressed natural gas (don’t kind yourself into thinking the C stands for clean. It doesn’t. Now natural gas does work in cars. Governments and taxis have used it for years. Now, what you may not know is that Pickens is the largest shareholder in Clean Energy Inc., a natural gas distribution company. Stations are already popping up around the country.

So is this “bridge” really just a bridge from your wallet to Pickens’ bank account? Hard to say, but it’s clear Pickens stands to make a fortune. Not that I mind someone making money from their ideas. I’m a proud capitalist and nothing would make me happier than making money by driving greater sustainability. But is there something else going on here? This Business Week article seems to show that there is. It seems Pickens is snatching up midwest land and driving toward a pipeline pointed toward Texas. For oil? No, this time water. Could Pickens be getting ready to step on the drinking water hose? Yikes! Could the plan to build a massive wind farm in the midwest actually be a water rights grab? I’m sure I’m not qualified to say, but the speed at which Pickens’ wind power plans were shelved puts quite a bit of weight on the wrong side of the scale.

From a marketing perspective, kudos to Pickens for a very clear, powerful marketing campaign. I’m a member of We, have seen dozens of their ads and still can’t figure out what their core message is. Do they want volunteers? Investors? Donations? I can’t tell! Weak! Pickens also shows how shooting some video of yourself in front of spinning windmills can’t help but make you look like an environmental hero. It’s a lesson John McCain used quite a bit during the campaign.

So the bottom line? Pretty simple, really. They just have different goals. Al Gore’s We group is 100% about climate change issues. He wants us to drop the carbon output of this country and fast. And rebuild our economy in the process. Pickens, if taken at face value, is focused on escaping the clutches of middle eastern dictators. An admirable goal, but one that is also solved with the We approach. Unfortunately, if Pickens’ plan were to work, it would actually extend the climate change challenges by extending the timeframe that our economy is based on burning a natural resource. Add in the worries over water issues and with Pickens you have the exact opposite of sustainability. Just more short-term corporate thinking from a billionaire.

Decision: We.

Wow, that was a long vacation from blogging. Looking forward to life slowing down next year. Hopefully I can squeeze in a few more posts now that the election is almost past…

I haven’t seen a ton written about this yet, so I may be overstating things, but if this pans out it’ll be huge.

MIT is reporting a breakthrough that solves the biggest problem in solar and wind power production: a steady supply of power. Wind power works great — when the wind is blowing. Solar power is great during the daytime. Until now, the best solution is to either have batteries store your power over night or combine wind and solar to hopefully balance the system. Even then, you’d realistically need a grid-tied system to ensure you were never without power.

In this discovery, a process is created that splits water into hydrogen and oxygen. Once the two are separated, you can store the hydrogen in a fuel cell, which is a very reliable storage system. The big problem with fuel cells, from what I’ve read, is that you generally need a robust source of power to create large quantities of hydrogen, so fossil fuels are often used.

This process in effect acts like a planet, taking in solar energy, sucking up water and giving back hydrogen and oxygen — artificial photosynthesis.

From the article:

“This is a major discovery with enormous implications for the future prosperity of humankind,” said Barber, the Ernst Chain Professor of Biochemistry at Imperial College London. “The importance of their discovery cannot be overstated since it opens up the door for developing new technologies for energy production thus reducing our dependence for fossil fuels and addressing the global climate change problem.”

Let’s just hope there’s enough water…

OK, the last post on Japan, I promise. But since I alluded to this earlier, I should close the loop.

Japan’s reputation as a technology crazy country seems pretty accurate quite often, until you see something like this:

Yep, that’s a “Japanese-style” toilet. (pic stolen from the Internet) Before heading over there, I’d thought this was mainly a holdover from the old days found mainly in rural areas, but sadly no. These things are still everywhere there, particularly in public restrooms. Often, however, they have a choice of one “western-style” toilet and several of these holes in the ground. On the bullet train, I actually saw an old lady choose the Japanese style restroom, which involved climbing up on a platform and holding onto some handrails for balance. Maybe it has something to do with their seemingly innate fear of touching things that could have germs.

On the other hand, in all the hotels we stayed in and even in public restrooms, you also found these:

Where sushi goes to die

Yes, the famous Japanese high-tech toilet. Toilet techonology is the cutting edge here. Packed with gizmos and buttons, I’m not even sure how everything was supposed to operate. Seats are pre-warmed so your buns never have to touch cold plastic and the buttons include a bidet as well as a butt-cleaner that sprays warm water. Did I try it? The answer is yes. What does it feel like? Um, like a small hose being sprayed on your cornhole. I’m not sure if I felt cleaner afterward or just a little bit naughty. I definitely felt wet.

It’s certainly not a feature I felt like I need at home, but here’s my point: there’s definitely a disparity in toilet technology in Japan. Here’s what I propose: No one gets a gizmo on their toilet until everyone has a Western-style version first. So what’s it going to be Japan? Third-world holes in the ground or space-age butt cleaners? Make a decision, we’re at war!