War in Iraq? Old news. Lead laden toys from china? Big deal. Peak Oil? Puhleez! Global warming? Pffft.
What we really ought to be worried about is the Writers Guild Strike!!
Now, you may already be clicking the comments link to remind me about my rant about our much adored entertainment. Yeah, I know a bit ironic and hypocritical but I'm really starting to take this strike personally!
I don't think I'm prepared to start watching re-runs of Big Bang Theory and Chuck. Not to mention the inevitable delay of the return of Notes From The Underbelly.
I'm still enjoying my made-for-television story telling high from November sweeps week, and I don't think I'll be able to survive the long and arduous drought which lies ahead. Please, networks, give the writers what they want, and avert a potential national catastrophe! Well, maybe it's not that bad, but the recent crop of great shows has renewed my faith in entertaining television, I don't think I'm ready to go back!
Friday, November 16, 2007
Controversial Kinetic Sculpture
It's been entirely too long since I've made a blog entry, and I've got a lot of stuff lined up when I finally get a few free minutes.
In the meantime, this was sent to me, and I found it very interesting, if only from a technical and art perspective. There is a lot of controversy over the inventor/artists use of the analogy of "life" and "evolution". I'm not willing to throw my hat into that circle, and I'm looking at this as a purely academic and scientific pursuit. You're welcome to feel differently.
I submit for your consideration "The art of creating creatures".
In the meantime, this was sent to me, and I found it very interesting, if only from a technical and art perspective. There is a lot of controversy over the inventor/artists use of the analogy of "life" and "evolution". I'm not willing to throw my hat into that circle, and I'm looking at this as a purely academic and scientific pursuit. You're welcome to feel differently.
I submit for your consideration "The art of creating creatures".
Monday, October 29, 2007
An Ob-NOx-ious truth
In a recent post I extolled the benefits of running even a large vehicle on biodiesel. I focused mostly on the CO2 emissions, since that is the big buzz word, and the commonly known greenhouse gas.
I failed to discuss other emissions from such an engine and fuel combination. I'd like to talk about that now.
First, the good news. For all emissions excepting NOx, biodiesel burns cleaner than petroleum diesel, and in many cases cleaner than gasoline. You can see exactly how much so in this summary from the biodiesel board, which uses the EPA's own research as it's source.
Now, the bad news. Burning biodiesel does not help mitigate it's high NOx emissions. Actually, the research has yet to prove if biodiesel noticeably changes NOx emissions either for better or for worse as compared to petroleum diesel. However, the fact remains that NOx emissions for a diesel engine is drastically higher than that of a similar output gasoline engine.
Why? Well, I'm not a scientist, and I can't present my own measurements and findings, but I can tell you is that my research has told me that NOx is more-or-less a byproduct of heat, and compression in the context of an internal combustion engine. Unfortunately, I can't find any single resource to link you to that summarizes it elegantly and succinctly (except maybe this), so you'll have to take me at my word, or do the research yourself.
With that said, it becomes readily apparent why diesel engines, regardless of the fuel they are consuming, would have a higher NOx emission. A diesel engine depends upon heat and compression to ignite the fuel, so it is by nature going to have higher NOx emissions. Using biodiesel should not significantly change this, since it's still being ignited in the same way.
Now, not all is lost the Tier 2 Emissions standard that the EPA is imposing in 2009 addresses NOx emissions, and NOx is in-fact one of the primary reasons for the new standard. In order to meet these standards manufacturers are using all sorts of different strategies. Some of them are new and innovative like urea injection and "self cleaning" particulate filters. Others have been around for years in gasoline vehicles, like exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) and Catalytic Converters. While these new emissions standards and equipment do pose a bit of a challenge for those manufacturing performance and aftermarket equipment for these vehicles, overall I think it's a step in the right direction. Besides, many companies already have performance tuners and exhaust systems for the 6.7L Cummins diesel, and the 6.4L Ford Power Stroke, both of which meet the stringent new Tier 2 emissions standards.
I failed to discuss other emissions from such an engine and fuel combination. I'd like to talk about that now.
First, the good news. For all emissions excepting NOx, biodiesel burns cleaner than petroleum diesel, and in many cases cleaner than gasoline. You can see exactly how much so in this summary from the biodiesel board, which uses the EPA's own research as it's source.
Now, the bad news. Burning biodiesel does not help mitigate it's high NOx emissions. Actually, the research has yet to prove if biodiesel noticeably changes NOx emissions either for better or for worse as compared to petroleum diesel. However, the fact remains that NOx emissions for a diesel engine is drastically higher than that of a similar output gasoline engine.
Why? Well, I'm not a scientist, and I can't present my own measurements and findings, but I can tell you is that my research has told me that NOx is more-or-less a byproduct of heat, and compression in the context of an internal combustion engine. Unfortunately, I can't find any single resource to link you to that summarizes it elegantly and succinctly (except maybe this), so you'll have to take me at my word, or do the research yourself.
With that said, it becomes readily apparent why diesel engines, regardless of the fuel they are consuming, would have a higher NOx emission. A diesel engine depends upon heat and compression to ignite the fuel, so it is by nature going to have higher NOx emissions. Using biodiesel should not significantly change this, since it's still being ignited in the same way.
Now, not all is lost the Tier 2 Emissions standard that the EPA is imposing in 2009 addresses NOx emissions, and NOx is in-fact one of the primary reasons for the new standard. In order to meet these standards manufacturers are using all sorts of different strategies. Some of them are new and innovative like urea injection and "self cleaning" particulate filters. Others have been around for years in gasoline vehicles, like exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) and Catalytic Converters. While these new emissions standards and equipment do pose a bit of a challenge for those manufacturing performance and aftermarket equipment for these vehicles, overall I think it's a step in the right direction. Besides, many companies already have performance tuners and exhaust systems for the 6.7L Cummins diesel, and the 6.4L Ford Power Stroke, both of which meet the stringent new Tier 2 emissions standards.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Love the wheels you're with
My wife and I have interesting personalities, we both make BIG decisions with fairly little hesitancy and generally don't regret the outcome. However, on the little stuff, like where we eat for dinner, what color blankets to buy, and (for me especially) what we drive and how it's modified/maintained, we agonize and flip-flop constantly.
See, I grew up in a family with a pretty strong "car culture", and we generally bought used cars and modified them, or drove them until they gave up, and replaced them. As a result, we owned A LOT of cars. I personally went through about six (6) until I got my most recent, and newest vehicle. For S&G's, here's the list.
1967 Ford Thunderbird "Fordor" & matching parts car
1980's Dodge Ram D50 Pickup 4x4
1953 Dodge M37 Military Vehicle w/ 318cuid engine conversion
1988-89 Suzuki Samurai 4x4 "soft top"
1989 Honda CRX Si
I now drive a 1999 Ford Explorer Eddie Bauer, which is a car I lusted after for several years before I was finally able to purchase the one I have. I've also been in a position to do more custom work, and add more aftermarket parts to this vehicle than any other in my past. It's also been the most reliable.
However, even though there is still custom stuff I'd like to do with my truck, I find myself thinking "how cool" it would be to own X Y or Z instead, even though I'd want to customize that as well. It's a sort of addiction I think.
With that said, I've had a couple of epiphany moments. The first came from the December edition of Hot Rod magazine, where one of the editors described how he used to only consider buying and restoring/modifying classic and muscle cars which were coupes, and usually only those that were factory hot rods. But more recently, he's started to buy off models, and sedans and realizing that they are just as satisfying (and much cheaper) to own and wrench on.
The second, was while watching the latest installment of the "Street Customs" TV series. A (fairly affluent) customer brought in an early 90's Camero convertible for customization. I found myself thinking "why in the WORLD would you be interested in modifying, much less owning and driving that boring car?". Then it occurred to me, it's the vehicle they had, and they wanted to make it special, personalized, and something they could be proud of.
So, here I am with my "dream car" of about 6-7 years ago, and I can't just focus on enjoying it? Is it because I think it isn't "cool enough" because it's not a sports car, or something else rare and desirable? Maybe.... Maybe it's just my addiction to cars that prevents me from being satisfied, but I'm starting to appreciate the philosophy of "Love the one you're with" as it applies to the car(s) I own.
My Explorer meets all my needs, fits my 6' 4" frame and does a reasonable job of going around turns, looking good, and accelerating. My biggest complaint is fuel economy. I'm hoping/planning to eventually swap a diesel motor into this vehicle for fuel economy and performance, probably some time after several of the "medium duty" diesels become available in 2010. Specifically, the 4.5L Duramax GM has announced for it's 1/2 ton trucks.
Compared to spending $25k - $30k on another vehicle that I'd still want to modify and customize, spending a few thousand on a motor swap, and a few other "touches" on my existing vehicle seems reasonable.
Meanwhile, I need to relax, and realize that I'm driving something I thought was unobtainable only a few years ago. And, that I've customized it in ways I had never thought I could afford either.
See, I grew up in a family with a pretty strong "car culture", and we generally bought used cars and modified them, or drove them until they gave up, and replaced them. As a result, we owned A LOT of cars. I personally went through about six (6) until I got my most recent, and newest vehicle. For S&G's, here's the list.
1967 Ford Thunderbird "Fordor" & matching parts car
1980's Dodge Ram D50 Pickup 4x4
1953 Dodge M37 Military Vehicle w/ 318cuid engine conversion
1988-89 Suzuki Samurai 4x4 "soft top"
1989 Honda CRX Si
I now drive a 1999 Ford Explorer Eddie Bauer, which is a car I lusted after for several years before I was finally able to purchase the one I have. I've also been in a position to do more custom work, and add more aftermarket parts to this vehicle than any other in my past. It's also been the most reliable.
However, even though there is still custom stuff I'd like to do with my truck, I find myself thinking "how cool" it would be to own X Y or Z instead, even though I'd want to customize that as well. It's a sort of addiction I think.
With that said, I've had a couple of epiphany moments. The first came from the December edition of Hot Rod magazine, where one of the editors described how he used to only consider buying and restoring/modifying classic and muscle cars which were coupes, and usually only those that were factory hot rods. But more recently, he's started to buy off models, and sedans and realizing that they are just as satisfying (and much cheaper) to own and wrench on.
The second, was while watching the latest installment of the "Street Customs" TV series. A (fairly affluent) customer brought in an early 90's Camero convertible for customization. I found myself thinking "why in the WORLD would you be interested in modifying, much less owning and driving that boring car?". Then it occurred to me, it's the vehicle they had, and they wanted to make it special, personalized, and something they could be proud of.
So, here I am with my "dream car" of about 6-7 years ago, and I can't just focus on enjoying it? Is it because I think it isn't "cool enough" because it's not a sports car, or something else rare and desirable? Maybe.... Maybe it's just my addiction to cars that prevents me from being satisfied, but I'm starting to appreciate the philosophy of "Love the one you're with" as it applies to the car(s) I own.
My Explorer meets all my needs, fits my 6' 4" frame and does a reasonable job of going around turns, looking good, and accelerating. My biggest complaint is fuel economy. I'm hoping/planning to eventually swap a diesel motor into this vehicle for fuel economy and performance, probably some time after several of the "medium duty" diesels become available in 2010. Specifically, the 4.5L Duramax GM has announced for it's 1/2 ton trucks.
Compared to spending $25k - $30k on another vehicle that I'd still want to modify and customize, spending a few thousand on a motor swap, and a few other "touches" on my existing vehicle seems reasonable.
Meanwhile, I need to relax, and realize that I'm driving something I thought was unobtainable only a few years ago. And, that I've customized it in ways I had never thought I could afford either.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Apples? Sure, sign me up!
I grew up with computers. I used a TRS-80, and probably one of every family of macintoshes. However, I eventually defected to IBM Compatible PC's, and Microsoft Windows around the age of 14-ish. I've been a "PC" guy ever since. Usually running Windows, but preferring to run a lot of my personal hardware on various flavors of Linux.
Welp, the time has come for me to reconsider Apple Mac's. In particular, I really want a 15" MacBook Pro. It's got intel hardware and processors, a sexy case, every built-in technology I could want including BlueTooth, and a BSD based OS. What more could a geek want?
With the OS being BSD based, I can run all the good stuff I've become familiar with on Linux, plus be able to run the built-in software, and stuff designed specifically for the Mac. On top of all of that, using Parallels Desktop I can run any remaining Windows apps I can't live without.
Plus, since my day job is as a software engineer, it'll give me the chance to see what developing on a mac is all about.
The funny thing is, my decision to change seems to be coming at an interesting time in Apple history. With the introduction of the iPhone, then the subsequent price drop, and "update" which apparently removed some features of the phone, previously loyal Mac zealots are preparing to launch a jihad against Steve Jobs and Apple.
Apparently, the Apple community is up in arms over the the way Apple has handled things with the iPhone, and are accusing Steve Jobs of becoming just like Bill Gates *gasp*.
Ahh well, I still want my MacBook Pro. I just never seem to be into trends when they're still "in style".
Welp, the time has come for me to reconsider Apple Mac's. In particular, I really want a 15" MacBook Pro. It's got intel hardware and processors, a sexy case, every built-in technology I could want including BlueTooth, and a BSD based OS. What more could a geek want?
With the OS being BSD based, I can run all the good stuff I've become familiar with on Linux, plus be able to run the built-in software, and stuff designed specifically for the Mac. On top of all of that, using Parallels Desktop I can run any remaining Windows apps I can't live without.
Plus, since my day job is as a software engineer, it'll give me the chance to see what developing on a mac is all about.
The funny thing is, my decision to change seems to be coming at an interesting time in Apple history. With the introduction of the iPhone, then the subsequent price drop, and "update" which apparently removed some features of the phone, previously loyal Mac zealots are preparing to launch a jihad against Steve Jobs and Apple.
Apparently, the Apple community is up in arms over the the way Apple has handled things with the iPhone, and are accusing Steve Jobs of becoming just like Bill Gates *gasp*.
Ahh well, I still want my MacBook Pro. I just never seem to be into trends when they're still "in style".
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Where's the music?
My wife and I recently visited a Starbucks in town, and I noticed that in place of the usual CD's featuring the music they're currently subjecting us to, instead I noticed a plastic card, in the height and width of a CD, but only about as thick as a credit card.
I picked the up the odd foreign object, and read the text on it. Turns out this is a "digital only release" of the music currently being played. $14.99 if I recall correctly. So for $14.99 I get a large plastic card, and a copy of this music in my iTunes directory. No physical media containing the music. Nothing to put in my CD case, no jewel case, and no liner notes. Creepy.
While I think I could embrace this channel of media delivery, I have to say that I felt a little uncomfortable with it. For one, I don't own an iPod, or other mobile MP3 player, unless you count my PDA/Phone. But I grew up with CD's. Hell, I grew up having been introduced first to records, you know those huge vinyl discs with visible and tactile grooves and bumps in them. You know, they were the same size as a laserdisc. Then I graduated to cassette tapes, then eventually to CD's which have been the defacto standard ever since. Hell, I even dabbled in 8 tracks and reel-to-reel tapes, since both were superior formats at the time.
But this concept of buying music, and not getting any physical media. Seems a bit too ethereal to me. I must be getting old. :-(
Linkage
Another Blog
Rolling stone article
I picked the up the odd foreign object, and read the text on it. Turns out this is a "digital only release" of the music currently being played. $14.99 if I recall correctly. So for $14.99 I get a large plastic card, and a copy of this music in my iTunes directory. No physical media containing the music. Nothing to put in my CD case, no jewel case, and no liner notes. Creepy.
While I think I could embrace this channel of media delivery, I have to say that I felt a little uncomfortable with it. For one, I don't own an iPod, or other mobile MP3 player, unless you count my PDA/Phone. But I grew up with CD's. Hell, I grew up having been introduced first to records, you know those huge vinyl discs with visible and tactile grooves and bumps in them. You know, they were the same size as a laserdisc. Then I graduated to cassette tapes, then eventually to CD's which have been the defacto standard ever since. Hell, I even dabbled in 8 tracks and reel-to-reel tapes, since both were superior formats at the time.
But this concept of buying music, and not getting any physical media. Seems a bit too ethereal to me. I must be getting old. :-(
Linkage
Another Blog
Rolling stone article
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Oh Holy Entertainment!
When I still lived with my parents, and didn't pay rent, a large portion of my income went toward entertainment related electronics. Specifically home theater components.
I also worked for a while at a high end audio/video shop that sold and provided custom installation services for obscenely expensive gear. At the time, I was quite passionate about it, and read a lot of the industry news and and publications which elevated the experience of listening to music to an almost mystic and quasi-religious status.
Years have past, I've sold a lot of the high end gear I owned (used to have a full blow surround system with preamp and power amplifier separates), and gotten married and I'm now starting a family. I still very much enjoy music, and watching movies but at the moment I'm fairly satisfied with the "Home-Theater-In-A-Box" (HTIAB) which I currently own for sound and video reproduction.
I recently started shopping for a new Flat Panel TV considering the government mandated change to HD for all broadcast TV. As part of my exercise of researching TV's and making a purchasing decision, I recently subscribed to Home Theater Magazine one of the industry publications I had previously studied carefully.
Where I used to completely agree with their assertions, and at times even look down my nose at the authors as "posers", I now find myself offended by the haughty and elitist attitude which permeates the articles I read. I feel as though, rather than being my peers and people that "get me" I'm reading material from authors who would label me a heretic for putting "real life" ahead of the pursuit of excruciatingly expensive electronic equipment for the sole purpose of reproducing sound waves.
Now, don't get me wrong, if I could afford it, I'd still probably be "one of them" and own the most esoteric and temperamental gear in pursuit of the perfect movie or music experience. But as it is, I can't. I can afford my "high end" HTIAB and for the most part I'm happy with it. I also don't need to worry about the neighbors banging on the door because I'm playing it too loud. I don't need to worry that my rooms acoustics aren't doing my $10,000 a pair main monitors justice. I don't need to worry that my baby son will put peanut butter in the tray of my fancy new BluRay and HD-DVD player, destroying a $2500 investment.
Perhaps I've lost perspective on the passion and experience I so eagerly pursued in the past. But then, have I really lost that much?
I also worked for a while at a high end audio/video shop that sold and provided custom installation services for obscenely expensive gear. At the time, I was quite passionate about it, and read a lot of the industry news and and publications which elevated the experience of listening to music to an almost mystic and quasi-religious status.
Years have past, I've sold a lot of the high end gear I owned (used to have a full blow surround system with preamp and power amplifier separates), and gotten married and I'm now starting a family. I still very much enjoy music, and watching movies but at the moment I'm fairly satisfied with the "Home-Theater-In-A-Box" (HTIAB) which I currently own for sound and video reproduction.
I recently started shopping for a new Flat Panel TV considering the government mandated change to HD for all broadcast TV. As part of my exercise of researching TV's and making a purchasing decision, I recently subscribed to Home Theater Magazine one of the industry publications I had previously studied carefully.
Where I used to completely agree with their assertions, and at times even look down my nose at the authors as "posers", I now find myself offended by the haughty and elitist attitude which permeates the articles I read. I feel as though, rather than being my peers and people that "get me" I'm reading material from authors who would label me a heretic for putting "real life" ahead of the pursuit of excruciatingly expensive electronic equipment for the sole purpose of reproducing sound waves.
Now, don't get me wrong, if I could afford it, I'd still probably be "one of them" and own the most esoteric and temperamental gear in pursuit of the perfect movie or music experience. But as it is, I can't. I can afford my "high end" HTIAB and for the most part I'm happy with it. I also don't need to worry about the neighbors banging on the door because I'm playing it too loud. I don't need to worry that my rooms acoustics aren't doing my $10,000 a pair main monitors justice. I don't need to worry that my baby son will put peanut butter in the tray of my fancy new BluRay and HD-DVD player, destroying a $2500 investment.
Perhaps I've lost perspective on the passion and experience I so eagerly pursued in the past. But then, have I really lost that much?
Friday, October 19, 2007
I see your Prius, and raise you an Excursion.
So, for probably the past 8 or 9 years, I've been infatuated with diesel engines. Ever since I was introduced to an early 90's Dodge Ram 2500 with the 12 valve Cummins motor. I was impressed with the sound of the motor, the apparent torrent of torque and horsepower, and the remarkable fuel economy considering it's size.
Ever since, I've lusted after vehicles with diesel engines. However, I'm also a bit of a "gear head" and have a bit of an addiction to performance, particularly the kind associated with small, light vehicles with a reasonable amount of horsepower, and excellent handling. I've also never really had a "need" for one of the vehicles that usually have optional diesel motors as they are usually very large and meant to do serious industrial type work.
So what does all of this have to do with a Prius? Well, for nearly as long as I've been interested in diesel I've had a desire to own a Ford Excursion with a diesel power plant. If you're one of the increasing number of people who are trying to live "green" you're probably clutching your chest and gasping. If so, consider this.
A Toyota Prius is considered to be the ultimate "green" automotive conveyance. So let's use that as our baseline.
2007 Toyota Prius
MPG 60(city)/51(hwy) -- Assume 55.5 as average fuel economy 60+51/2=55.5
10,000 Miles Per year
10000/55.5=180 gallons of gasoline
180*19.4=3492 lbs of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere annually
2005 Ford Excursion (Diesel)
MPG 15(city)/18(hwy) -- Assume 16.5 as average fuel economy 15+18/2=16.5
10,000 Miles Per Year
10000/16.5=606 gallons of diesel
606*22.2=13453 lbs of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere annually
If you're curious my MPG numbers for the Prius comes from its EPA rating, and my MPG numbers for the Excursion come from estimates based on average mileage people have reported on various forums, so there is a little room for interpretation there. My CO2 emissions per gallon of fuel is based off the EPA's own findings.
So, already there is an obvious difference, the Prius dumps almost 10,000 fewer pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere than the Excursion. Take that earth destroying consumerist, you say? What if that same Excursion were fueled by 100% biodiesel?
According to The National Biodiesel Board, biodiesel emits 78% less CO2 than petroleum diesel. That changes our equation considerably.
22.2*.22=4.884 lbs of CO2 per gallon of biodiesel.
606*4.884=2959.704 lbs of CO2 annually for the same Excursion driven 10,000 miles a year on biodiesel!
That's over 500 FEWER lbs of CO2 than the Prius! Now I can already hear you saying.. But the Excursion has to burn over 3 times as much fuel as the Prius, what about refining and transporting all that fuel? True, that will increase the Excursion's carbon footprint again, probably to a point where the Prius is again the "greener" option. But, consider this.
Say you put together a small biodiesel refinery. Now, say you mounted said refinery to a suitable trailer chassis. Now, say that you put a couple solar panels, batteries, and pumping/heating equipment on the trailer as well. Why, all of a sudden, you have a mobile biodiesel refinery that is self sustained, and can be pulled by the aforementioned Excursion to your local fast-food joint to pick up oil. I suspect a system like this would cost less than $5,000 and would easily supply one or two diesel powered vehicles in a household. That should mitigate the carbon footprint of getting the fuel!
Also, consider that biodiesel is "carbon neutral", meaning that the only carbon it emits is carbon that was absorbed by the plants from which it is made. Good stuff.
Starts to look pretty compelling vs the Prius which likely won't last the 300-600k miles a diesel motor would. Nor could a Prius haul 8 people, luggage, and a trailer someplace.
Now, I'm not saying that it's the perfect choice for everyone, but it should make the point that blindly accepting that any one "green" solution is the silver bullet is foolish. I also hope I helped to demonstrate that not all things are as they appear. So next time you see a diesel powered large truck, consider that it may not be "killing the planet" but might be coming awful close to the emissions of a vehicle designed to be "green". That is, if it's running biodiesel.
Ever since, I've lusted after vehicles with diesel engines. However, I'm also a bit of a "gear head" and have a bit of an addiction to performance, particularly the kind associated with small, light vehicles with a reasonable amount of horsepower, and excellent handling. I've also never really had a "need" for one of the vehicles that usually have optional diesel motors as they are usually very large and meant to do serious industrial type work.
So what does all of this have to do with a Prius? Well, for nearly as long as I've been interested in diesel I've had a desire to own a Ford Excursion with a diesel power plant. If you're one of the increasing number of people who are trying to live "green" you're probably clutching your chest and gasping. If so, consider this.
A Toyota Prius is considered to be the ultimate "green" automotive conveyance. So let's use that as our baseline.
2007 Toyota Prius
MPG 60(city)/51(hwy) -- Assume 55.5 as average fuel economy 60+51/2=55.5
10,000 Miles Per year
10000/55.5=180 gallons of gasoline
180*19.4=3492 lbs of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere annually
2005 Ford Excursion (Diesel)
MPG 15(city)/18(hwy) -- Assume 16.5 as average fuel economy 15+18/2=16.5
10,000 Miles Per Year
10000/16.5=606 gallons of diesel
606*22.2=13453 lbs of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere annually
If you're curious my MPG numbers for the Prius comes from its EPA rating, and my MPG numbers for the Excursion come from estimates based on average mileage people have reported on various forums, so there is a little room for interpretation there. My CO2 emissions per gallon of fuel is based off the EPA's own findings.
So, already there is an obvious difference, the Prius dumps almost 10,000 fewer pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere than the Excursion. Take that earth destroying consumerist, you say? What if that same Excursion were fueled by 100% biodiesel?
According to The National Biodiesel Board, biodiesel emits 78% less CO2 than petroleum diesel. That changes our equation considerably.
22.2*.22=4.884 lbs of CO2 per gallon of biodiesel.
606*4.884=2959.704 lbs of CO2 annually for the same Excursion driven 10,000 miles a year on biodiesel!
That's over 500 FEWER lbs of CO2 than the Prius! Now I can already hear you saying.. But the Excursion has to burn over 3 times as much fuel as the Prius, what about refining and transporting all that fuel? True, that will increase the Excursion's carbon footprint again, probably to a point where the Prius is again the "greener" option. But, consider this.
Say you put together a small biodiesel refinery. Now, say you mounted said refinery to a suitable trailer chassis. Now, say that you put a couple solar panels, batteries, and pumping/heating equipment on the trailer as well. Why, all of a sudden, you have a mobile biodiesel refinery that is self sustained, and can be pulled by the aforementioned Excursion to your local fast-food joint to pick up oil. I suspect a system like this would cost less than $5,000 and would easily supply one or two diesel powered vehicles in a household. That should mitigate the carbon footprint of getting the fuel!
Also, consider that biodiesel is "carbon neutral", meaning that the only carbon it emits is carbon that was absorbed by the plants from which it is made. Good stuff.
Starts to look pretty compelling vs the Prius which likely won't last the 300-600k miles a diesel motor would. Nor could a Prius haul 8 people, luggage, and a trailer someplace.
Now, I'm not saying that it's the perfect choice for everyone, but it should make the point that blindly accepting that any one "green" solution is the silver bullet is foolish. I also hope I helped to demonstrate that not all things are as they appear. So next time you see a diesel powered large truck, consider that it may not be "killing the planet" but might be coming awful close to the emissions of a vehicle designed to be "green". That is, if it's running biodiesel.
Everyone has a blog, why not me?
So, it seems like everyone I know has a blog and/or a set of accounts on a myriad of social networking sites. In most cases, I don't think they have anything interesting to say.
For that matter, I don't think I have anything interesting to say. However, I do have random thoughts, and epiphanies which I'd like to document, even if no one is interested in reading them.
I'll likely talk about just about anything that interests me here. Things like computer hardware/software and software engineering stuff, automobiles, electronics, being "green", and my family.
I'm also hoping to improve my skills with the written word in the wonderfully complex english language. Maybe I'll be able to convey information more easily in emails and such.
At any rate, read and enjoy if you like or totally ignore my random thoughts and rants, it's up to you. Besides I'm not even sure who (you) are, and I'll probably have to actively link people here in order for anyone to read it. ;-)
For that matter, I don't think I have anything interesting to say. However, I do have random thoughts, and epiphanies which I'd like to document, even if no one is interested in reading them.
I'll likely talk about just about anything that interests me here. Things like computer hardware/software and software engineering stuff, automobiles, electronics, being "green", and my family.
I'm also hoping to improve my skills with the written word in the wonderfully complex english language. Maybe I'll be able to convey information more easily in emails and such.
At any rate, read and enjoy if you like or totally ignore my random thoughts and rants, it's up to you. Besides I'm not even sure who (you) are, and I'll probably have to actively link people here in order for anyone to read it. ;-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)