One company’s vision of the automobiles of the future. Volkswagen recently launched Volkswagen 2028, a website that explores VW’s perspective on a number of issues and how those issues might manifest themselves through design twenty years from now, a perspective rooted deeply in Volkswagen’s longer term brand strategy (read that as marketing). This is not so much about showing us futuristic concepts as much as demonstrating the response to different needs, constraints, and technologies. Responses that are increasingly important to people. Specifically, Volkswagen provides us with some detail in how, in the near future, they might respond to issues of sustainability, networked mobility, customization and personalization, and accident prevention. All of the concepts offer hypothetical technologies that either replace the traditional human-car interaction, or enhance it by steamlining and focusing the action of driving. It’s a good exercise, and I have no doubt that the issues and ideas addressed by VW here are the beginnings of some pretty sophisticated changes that we will see in automobiles. While I imagine that all automobile manufacturers are digging into these concepts, at least to some degree, it is interesting to see Volkswagen put it out there in such a cohesive and comprehensive way, though this is clearly as much about marketing as it is about showcasing advanced engineering thinking.
I don’t think this is an issue for most of the rest of the world, but for the United States this is a serious design challenge. This is mostly due to our long established culture of valuing big and fast when it comes to our personal transportation. In the U.S., we’re just catching wind of small and efficient, and this is being driven by our pocketbooks at the moment, and not necessarily by doing what is right. Whatever works to achieve change…
Being an absolute gearhead has presented some interesting dilemmas for me, personally, as I reconcile this fact with my work in sustainable design. I love cars, but I do not love the current range of high-mileage fuel efficient vehicles currently on offer. Yes, the Tesla is sexy and it is indeed fast. It is also around $100k and only six or so have been made and delivered (far below the pace for the 650 promised this year). More options are going to be available in the near future from a range of manufacturers, and these options will begin to push into performance territory while also delivering on great design.
The VW One-Liter concept pictured above appears to be one of these options, at least from the perspective of design. A concept car from a couple years ago, and not tentatively scheduled for production until 2012, the One-Liter seems to be getting more attention from VW. There are plans to produce limited numbers of this 282 mpg, two seat microcar (around 1000 vehicles) over the next year or so with planning being done around it being a mainstream production model by 2012. I like this car. I like the influences of mid-century automobile and aircraft design that doesn’t feel too retro. I like that you access it via a pop-up cockpit canopy, and that the passenger sits behind the driver. I especially like the interior, which looks purposeful and performance focused:
Engineers at VW made good use of materials like magnesium, titanium and aluminum to greatly reduce the weight of the One-Liter, down to a third the weight of a Toyota Echo. Carbon fiber also figures prominently in the design of the vehicle, and is actually a big reason VW is considering production much sooner for this car. The cost of carbon fiber has dropped dramatically much faster than VW had expected, making the production of the One-Liter much more viable. I want to drive one very badly.
It’s true. The ice of the North Pole is melting at an exaggerated rate, so much so that we may see the North Pole lose all of its ice in the near future, like this year. While this has been making the rounds in most of the major news outlets as a story, I am somewhat surprised that it is not being reported as a much more serious situation than it seems to be. We are distracted.
Here’s the deal. If this happens, and all Arctic ice is lost, this will be the first time this has occurred in all recorded human history. To be fair, scientists give this a 50/50 chance of happening, but even 50/50 seems to be dangerous odds for something that has not happened in a very, very long time and with as yet unknown implications. If this does happen, it means that you could sail completely across the Arctic and cross the North Pole on the ocean surface, as opposed to having to travel underneath the Arctic ice inside a nuclear powered submarine. This is bad news for the already threatened species of the Arctic. It also means that the nations that border the Arctic will have ready access to exploit the natural resources (oil, minerals, natural gas) that were previously unreachable, and would probably race to do so.
The shrinking Arctic ice is not a new phenomenon, as the sea ice loss has been increasing each year. The thick ice that makes up the Arctic had been built up over many, many years. This ice has been melting, with last year’s melt being especially dramatic, and this year’s already on pace. The problem is that the melted old, thick sea ice is replaced by very thin ice that is built up in only a year. This ice is totally vulnerable, and without the ability to replace the thicker sea ice means that the ice footprint of the Arctic is very precarious. This is attributed to rising ocean temperatures and changing climate patterns.
While reading more about this I came across an EU sponsored program named Damocles that measures the environmental impact on the Arctic. Their site is packed with information and I highly suggest checking it out.
A somewhat comical comparison between the fuel efficiency of a Toyota Prius and BMW’s new M3 sedan. The results are NOT what you might think. I am surrounded by people gushing over the Prius precisely because it is ostensibly so very “economical.” Cue the bucket of cold water.
As evidenced from the graph above (via The Oil Drum), it goes to China. 50% of the cement produced last year was produced and ultimately used by China, which equates to 1.3 gigatons of cement. China only exported 33 million tons of cement out of that 1.3 gigatons. Just as an FYI, a gigaton is one billion tons. India was a distant second at .3 gigatons. With the growth and expansion of the nascent infrastructure that has been underway in China, especially in preparation for the Olympics, this probably is not too surprising, but the enormous gap between China and the entire rest of the world is definitely noteworthy. Additionally, something startling that I learned is that each ton of cement produced also produces a ton of the greenhouse gas CO2. In 2007 cement consumption in China produced 1.3 gigatons of CO2, which I’m guessing is a helluva lot of CO2 to be produced by one industry in one nation.
Putting these numbers into context, and perhaps as an explanation for the relatively small production of cement in the United States, is the reality that we invested in and built up our infrastructure during the 1940’s, 50’s and 60’s. That effort also required massive amounts of cement, tonnages that I am guessing are comparable to China’s recent production totals. With our infrastructure largely in place the requirement for massive quantities of cement in the U.S. just is not there, relative to the demand for cement in support of growth in China. That is, until the escalation in the crumbling of our streets, highways, bridges and interstates begins to necessitate more comprehensive replacement and expansion, something that certainly seems to be gaining more momentum nationwide as our national infrastructure moves into its sixth decade of intense use.
I very highly recommend subscribing to The Oil Drum if you have any interest in energy policy, peak oil, and the social, political, and economic implications of our dependence on foreign oil. The coverage on this blog is comprehensive and the writing is excellent.
Our little family is definitely feeling the pinch of higher gas prices, to the tune of a couple hundred dollars a month more than we were paying about a year ago. Yet, my wife and I are ok with this and are adjusting our lifestyle and schedule to allow us to drive less. We know that these high gas prices may be what it takes to change not only the habits of Americans as individuals, but of society at large. The net of that will be a very good thing. So we are beginning to drive much less, and be much more thoughtful in our destinations. We are clearly not alone.
A Department of Transportation study (via nextautos) has revealed that in April of this year Americans drove 1.4 billion fewer miles on highways than they did in April of 2007, a 1.8% reduction. So far for 2008 Americans have driven 20 billion fewer miles than they did in 2007. What is interesting, though, is that while those numbers may sound large they are not yet a significant percentage reduction over 2007, though the April numbers continue a six month trend in declining miles travelled. I would anticipate that miles driven will continue to decline and while 1.8% may not seem like a large decline it is my guess that this is a trend that will continue for some time to come. If the high gas prices last as long as many are saying they will, those declines in driving may become permanent lifestyle changes.
The graph above and the recent editorial by Thomas Friedman intersect with some grim realities. The steadily rising price of oil has created petro-authoritarian states that no longer see the United States as a nexus of power in the world. In fact, they actively work to counter American interests globally, and do so fairly effectively right now. Huge amounts of money is flowing into states like Venezuela, Russia and Iran, and power and influence follow money. Energy and security expert Gal Luft testified to Congress last week and pointed out that as oil approaches $200 a barrel, OPEC will have amassed the wealth to:
“…potentially buy Bank of America in one month worth of production, Apple computers in a week and General Motors in just three days.”
Gal Luft
In his editorial, Thomas Friedman points out that the really startling issue here is that despite the confluence of so many negative catalysts around oil for our nation, and catalysts that will have long term socio-economic implications for us as individuals AND globally as a nation, we still do not have an effective energy policy in place that moves us past this desperate reliance on oil. What is it going to take?
I came across the graphic below this morning and found it really interesting, and startlingly revealing of the fragility of freshwater on the planet. It was put together by UNESCO’s World Water Assessment Program, a program that monitors freshwater issues to properly inform decision making and ensure a comprehensive understanding of the status of our planet’s most valuable natural resource. WWAP puts out a report, the World Wide Development Report, that comprehensively reviews the state of freshwater on the planet. This relates to an earlier post here, What is Important, to Scale, that used a compelling image to represent the proportion of air and water to our planet. The graphic below supports the tenuous nature of freshwater on our planet:
Let’s summarize:
Of the total water on the planet, only 2.5% is freshwater
Of that 2.5%, almost 69% is in glaciers
About 30% is groundwater
Only 0.4% is surface and atmospheric freshwater
Of that 0.4%, 67.4% is freshwater lakes
12.2% is made up of soil moisture
9.5% is in the atmosphere
And just over 10% is in wetlands, rivers and plants and animals
It is interesting to realize how overwhelmingly abundant freshwater is in certain areas of the world, so much so as to be taken for granted, while in contrast how overwhelmingly scarce it is in others. The net is that there is just not that much freshwater on the planet.
Coming dangerously close to green washing, Bentley has put together a site to promote their team for the UK’s Greenpower-Electric Car Races For Schools, admittedly a very, very cool initiative. The first thing that got my attention was the minimalist soap-box-derby aesthetic of the Bentley team’s car design. The second thing that got my attention was that there IS actually a program in the UK to create electric racing car teams for schools to focus learning on engineering and technology as careers, the intersection of so many things that I love.
The Greenpower program actually has several categories for students, including both secondary and primary schools, as well as a corporate program. Honestly, this should be an international program and evolve into an entirely new category of motorsports.
This is an absolutely gorgeous rendering of the Federal Building in San Francisco designed by Thom Mayne and his team at Morphosis. Mayne is now navigating the LEED certification process for this project. Originally, the building was on track to obtain a minimum of LEED Silver certification. The interesting thing is that it seems LEED certification, the US Green Building Council, and Thom Mayne are not on the same page as some of the technologies employed for this project are, as Mayne asserts, so absolutely cutting edge they are not actually yet part of the LEED certification process. Upwards of 70% of the building is temperature moderated through natural ventilation, and this was achieved through incredibly complex modeling of the interior environments and how air should naturally move through them, and controlled though a custom window wall that regulates internal air temperature, thermal mass storage, and passive and active sunshading. While LEED addresses items like bicycle racks and construction materials recycling, the thermal comfort and air quality regulated by Mayne’s system do not impact certification in a substantive way.
Like any high profile project, it is not without some controversy. To my mind, this project highlights some of the drawbacks of the USGBC’s point based LEED certification program. It would seem that sometimes designing sustainably and designing “LEED” are not the same thing.
One of the researchers investigating the possibilities of building a space elevator said that. It was an incredibly futuristic idea a decade ago. Not so much today. Getting to space with rockets is incredibly dangerous and increasingly expensive. Each Space Shuttle mission costs NASA (and by extension the American taxpayers) about $500 million, and in these constrained budgetary times that is verging on cost prohibitive. This lends credence to the space elevator concept, which is not by any means a new idea (Arthur C. Clark put forth the idea in his 1978 novel “The Fountains of Paradise” - though he was not the first). Developments in materials technologies, like carbon nanotubes, are giving the space elevator new momentum and urging NASA to perhaps consider it seriously as a future alternative to orbital access.
The concept is exceedingly simple:
- Send up a satellite that maintains a geosynchronous orbit
- Satellite deploys a ribbon or cable back to Earth
- Cable is attached to an offshore station
- Elevator rides the cable from the offshore station up to the orbiting satellite
The elevator could be powered by Earth based lasers or by powerful solar reflectors. Panels on the elevator would receive the light energy from the emitters on the ground and produce the electricity that would power the motors on the elevator. It’s sustainable.
Previously, we had been held back by the material realities of trying to build a several thousand mile (as long as 22,000 miles) elevator cable. The advent of carbon nanotube technology, still in its infancy, could be the lightweight but incredibly strong materials breakthrough that makes this possible. If completed, the space elevator would be the largest structure ever built.
More on space elevators in an excellent entry at Wikipedia, at NASA, and a short video from PBS’s NOVA.
Solar power generation offers amazing potential, but is hampered by the impracticality of being used effectively in urban settings. This is because the scale of solar power generation required for urban areas requires appropriately large solar power generators, and these require huge amounts of open and unfettered access to the sun. In many urban areas there just is no empty space left, and acquiring contiguous space to create large-scale urban solar power generation is cost prohibitive.
Not to be hampered by this, Sanyo, has offered up an innovative and beautiful solution that allows a large, effective solar power facility to coexist with the Japanese need for esthetic harmony, and fit into many urban and sub-urban situations. They call it the Solar Ark, for visually obvious reasons, and it is located in the Gifu prefecture in central Japan. It can be appreciated from the JR Tokaido bullet train as it jets past at 300 km/hr on an adjacent railway track. It is visually unique, impressive and memorable, and beyond being a highly effective solar photovoltaic power generation facility (collecting over 630 kW from over 5,000 solar panels generating upwards of 500,000 kWh of energy per year) it also serves as an ambassador to increasing awareness around the value of solar energy serving as a center for activities related to solar energy, ecology and science. Interestingly, the majority of the monocrystalline modules used were production rejects headed to the scrap pile. More images:
I orginanally came across the Solar Ark at Inhabitat.
We’re all bad for the environment. We know this, and while a great many of us acknowledge this reality, the norm is still inaction. Sometimes, outside of knowing what NOT to do (like driving a car) it is hard to understand more proactive things that you CAN do to lessen your personal impact. My family did the Secret Santa thing this year and my father gave my wife the coolest gift I have yet seen. He took action and purchased carbon offsets for her car for the next year from TerraPass. I had read about TerraPass previously at TreeHugger in an interview with one of the founders. Both my wife and I agreed that this was an exceptionally creative and thoughtful gift. It motivated both of us to learn more.
TerraPass is the brainchild of Dr. Karl Ulrich at the University of Pennsylvania. Along with 41 of his students, Karl launched TerraPass in October, 2004 as a way to help everyday people reduce their climate impact. Within its first year, TerraPass registered over 2,400 members, reduced 36 million pounds of CO2, and earned countless national press and blog articles. To date those numbers are more in the range of 75,000 members with CO2 reduction now nearly 703 million pounds.
The TerraPass website offers a nifty calculator for tabulating the carbon footprint of your driving, air travel, home ownership, dorm room… even your wedding. Using the calculator, you can purchase carbon offsets to balance your lifestyle and work towards the ultimate goal of living carbon neutral. We are going to purchase offsets for my car as well (about $33/year), as well as offsetting the carbon footprint of our home (about $195/year). While this is a small thing in the greater scheme of global warming and climate change, it is very definitely a step in the right direction and is important in terms of making us aware as much as offering the opportunity to purchase carbon offsets.
One of the most comprehensive and significant ways in which we can positively enhance the health of individuals, and society, in relation to their interactions with the built environments that we create is through the applied concept of building performance. Building performance is a broad organization of how these environments affect us. This occurs on both a micro, or personal, level as well as a macro, or broader societal level. At the micro-ergonomic level it has to do with the ways buildings balance human factors and provide basic environmental elements and systems that support health and well-being. This includes lighting and daylighting, thermal comfort, air quality, acoustics and privacy. While these all seem like logical qualitative elements of a healthy environment, we all know that they still go largely disregarded. With this is the macro-environment of a building, or how it performs in relation to the whole and in relation to the greater community. Ideally, a building that adheres to certified standards of building performance has been designed with a sustainable agenda and incorporates not only energy savings, but also schema for rain water runoff, waste and recycling, materials life-cycle, and systems that minimize the need for natural resources.
Historically, the science of building performance has done much to honor the perspective and experience of the individual, to ensure that the design of these environments is not in conflict with the health of those who will ultimately inhabit them. More recently, and in line with the larger sustainable movement within design, is how the inclusion of building performance analysis as it impacts the greater environment, and how it exists within this greater context. Taken as a whole this is a sensitive approach to building design, one that embraces constraints that ensure that architecture design is indeed doing no harm. This might sound trivial, but it is a growing movement. Sustainability and human factors are gaining ground within the design of products and services, and those early to this holistic approach are seeing the first financial and productivity based results.
It’s the weekend and that means I have set aside the hammer and the bullhorn, if only for now, and seek the distraction of cosmology and astrophysics. Good times. This is not so much an update as more the sharing of sun facts recently found in the latest issue of Good magazine. If you don’t read Good, you should. Good is really, really good. One of the things that Good does in each issue is provide informational graphics on a number of interesting topics. In the latest issue they offered up some detail on our very own sun, which I add to my post on the sun of some weeks ago:
- In 1 second the sun produces energy to meet the needs of our planet for 500,000 years
- It takes eight minutes for light from the sun to reach the Earth
- Solar energy hitting the Earth every second is equivalent to 4 trillion 100 watt light bulbs
- Solar energy hitting one square mile each year is equivalent to 4 million barrels of oil
- Only 1% of the electricity generated in the United States is from solar power… 1%!
These facts are nothing new, and yet we still struggle to create momentum behind solar energy in this country. Old habits die hard.
That’s a quote from Bruce Sterling’s presentation last week at Connecting ‘07. I am going to try to quickly tie together three prescient ideas for you, and Bruce Sterling is the rope I will use. His talk last week covered two paradigmatic concepts, that of spimes, and “the internet of things.” There is much discussion around the concept of “connectedness” and “interconnectedness,” and the realization that in a complex intertwining of relationships, everything really is connected to everything else. These two ideas, spimes and the internet of things, take interconnectedness to an entirely new level. The concept of spimes was initially introduced by Bruce Sterling at SIGGRAPH Los Angeles in 2004. A spime is a still theoretical object that can be tracked through space and time for its entire lifetime. There are six existing technologies whose convergence will allow a spime to happen:
1. Small means of remotely and uniquely identifying objects over short ranges, like radio-frequency identification.
2. A mechanism to precisely fix object location, such as a GPS.
3. The ability to mine large amounts of data that match criteria, like internet search engines.
4. Tools, such as computer-aided design, that enable the virtual construction of nearly any kind of object.
5. The rapid prototyping of virtual objects into real ones by means of sophisticated, automated fabrication of a specification for an object, through 3D printers.
6. “Cradle-to-cradle” life-spans for objects when combined with cheap, effective recycling.
The second concept, referred to as “the internet of things,” is the expansion of the internet to encompass real objects as they exist in space and time. This “object hyperlinking” is the success of the internet in tagging, searching and relating information in the virtual world applied to the real world. The internet of things will be made possible by the creation of spimes, one begets the other, and this is where things begin to get really, really interesting.
The third concept, the one that makes the relationship between spimes and the internet of things really sing… is sustainability. When everything can be tracked at every point in its life cycle, you begin to understand patterns of material flow, manufacturing, material use, object use, object termination, and ultimately object material recycling and reuse. The whole thing starts over again. Knowing that you can track the material and process of object creation, that you can track that object’s life, and track the harvesting of the materials used to make it… you’re tracking everything, and the ability to reclaim that material means that you can find a use for all of it. That’s very powerful, and ultimately led to the quote that is the title for this post. When you have an ability to understand and monitor the context of materials and resources you have the potential to see patterns of use and patterns of need. Sustainability aligns those two and completes the circle. As Bruce Sterling put it last week, sustainability is the killer app.
I love it when categories intersect. Like design and astrophysics, or as in this instance… robots and the workplace of the future. It makes for such fertile subject matter.
We’ve all imagined being able to work without physically having to be at work. Different from telecommuting or working from a home office, I mean having a presence at work that is not actually you. I believe that I actually think about this every day. Perhaps you’ve imagined a virtual avatar, or maybe thought about having yourself cloned. Both may be viable options at some point in the future (and Herman Miller is probably already researching both), but a software programmer in Canada has beaten everyone to reality. Ivan Bowman works from home, which is 800 miles from his office. Previously, he telecommuted and would be the disembodied voice sitting on the conference table. In some ways, this worked well, but not having an ability to interact properly with his coworkers, to look them in the eye and see their facial expressions, was making it difficult to understand nuance, and sometimes intent.
Ivan now uses a “telepresence” robot, a creative combination of technologies, that allows him to be present at meetings, engage in discussion, and “move” around the office environment physically. All of this occurs while Ivan sits in his underwear on his couch hundreds of miles of away. The robot, built by co-worker Ian McHardy, is made from a wireless webcam, microphone, flat panel monitor, speakers mounted on an armature at about eye level and attached to a four-wheeled chassis. He controls it from home, and moves the robot about the office almost as if he were there in person. The robot is him. Ivan could be a brain in a jar somewhere, as far as his co-workers are concerned. He can cruise the halls, visit people in their offices, and look people in the eye. Sort of. To date, this solution appears to be working very, very well for all involved… and has brought much attention to Ivan. Actually, it has brought attention to the virtual Ivan, named “IvanAnywhere”.
This robot represents an important direction in the future of work, in the ways we work, and how we interact. Having a dynamic, mobile virtual presence in the workplace can create all sorts of opportunities for both employees and employers. Think about the difficulty in attracting talent in a particular office due to geographical location. That would be a non-issue. Think about the challenges, due to changed immigration laws and regulations, in company’s abilities to retain foreign residents as staff. They can now work from their home country. Think about the efficiencies this could yield in the physical space that makes up the office environments we work in. If even a small number of people work via telepresence robotics there is a savings in the needed square feet for an office space. That alone has benefits to company overhead, energy usage, waste, and pollution. Could this technology actually be categorized as sustainable? I would argue that it can.
Naturally, this all is a long way off, but is it important that an individual at one company took such an interesting and innovative approach to addressing issues that matter in the workplace. That the potential scale of this approach has so many additional benefits is only supporting of our work realities moving more in this direction over time.
The image above is of a typical big-box style retail construction site. These sites are typically a mess, both in terms of waste and in terms of their impact on the environment.
We’re still surrounded by waste and energy inefficiencies in the building industry, and this is in the face of knowing better. There has been tremendous research into more efficient, less wasteful, environmentally sensitive building techniques and methodologies. These improved techniques are being used, but on a much smaller scale than really needs to be required. This is due, in large part, to the mistaken belief that new and innovative building practicers, those that are better for us and for the environment, are also much more expensive. A few years ago, this was the case, as many of the building technologies were very new and had not yet been properly tested nor had the opportunity to scale for efficient and cost effective implementation. That is no longer the case.
The report is premised on the reality that people tend to overestimate the true cost of sustainable building methodologies. It bases this premise on an expansive survey of building industry professionals which exposed the still prevalent misconception that the added cost of sustainable construction is as much as 300% higher than reality, equating to as much as 17% above conventional construction. This misconception, and its commonality of belief, is enough to turn developers, contractors, end users, and the public at large away from sustainable options and opportunities in building construction. The kicker, and this really hurts given the consequences, is that added cost of building sustainably is typically less than 5%, and often close to parity with traditional legacy building techniques. How can such a huge, prolific, and pervasive industry be so wrong?
But wait, there’s more. The report also looks at the other side of this equation… at these professional’s perception of the impact of the buildings they construct. The survey found that most tend to misunderstand the environmental impact of legacy building practices and greatly underestimate the greenhouse emissions put out by buildings being constructed. The reality… buildings contribute over 40% of total emissions. Again, how can they be so wrong?
The answer is education and increased awareness. But that is only the start. Industries are powerful, and they fund well-armed lobbies to protect their interests. If the misconception is that sustainable building practices are expensive, that is being communicated to the end-user… who is most likely being held to very tight project cost accountability. The result is the impetus for an incredibly effective lobby to prevent legislation mandating improved efficiencies and lessened impact on the environment in the building industry. Ultimately, the answer is in the rest of us agitating for change, requiring the building industry and end user audience to adopt a sustainable building practices (as WalMart seems to have done), and to effectively articulate the importance of this reality to the people we put in office.
A colleague of mine has launched his blog at knowlesystem. His focus is honed and specific to the forces changing and shaping the world of architecture and design. Cool stuff. We have had an infinite number of incredible discussions and brainstorms on this topic, and this was suggested as a way to begin capturing this content, and involve others in the conversation. I highly suggest subscribing as there will be a proliferation of compelling content coming forthwith.
Congrats on the site, Stephen.
Another colleague introduced acmesiren a couple weeks ago, and I wanted to offer a more formal welcome and congrats to Nick as well. His blog is focused on finding and revealing what is new, cool and interesting in the world of experimental music. Also, very cool stuff. And a terrific resource.
Both blogs are featured in the schneiderism blogroll in the right column, which is naturally an incredibly high honor.
“At the beginning of the 21st century, architecture can be the most effective instrument for reconstructing the relations between our species and the earth”
A friend of mine built a Sonex in his garage (see image below). It took over a year, maybe two. He’s old school, for real. He actually flies the thing, and apparently very well. He’ll admit to being amazed every time he lands safely, though.
Sonex, in partnership with AeroConversions, has announced an electric engine powered version of the two-person sport aircraft my friend built in his garage. He also drives a Prius, so this new offering from Sonex has got to drive him nuts. Anyway, Sonex president John Monnett revealed at a press conference in late July that the plane was part of a company plan to offer electrically powered, sustainable aircraft. This plane uses lightweight proprietary electric engine technology powered by ten “safe boxes” that house eight lithium-polymer batteries each. The company hopes to extend the current flight time of 45 minutes to an hour by using more efficient versions of these batteries, and says it will be exploring ethanol fuel options as well.
Really, this is cool from several angles. First, anything with an electric engine gets the nod. Second, owning your own aircraft is not for the faint of heart, and handling the expenses of ownership, especially the fuel costs, can be challenging. An electric engine mitigates the need for expensive aircraft gas. Third, small aircraft are usually powered by engines that are seemingly lifted from lawnmowers. That means they are noisy and tend to kick out a fair amount of pollution. An electric engine will be much more quiet, and obviously much more friendly to the environment.
Just for fun, here is an image of a Sonex kit similar to the one built by my friend:
I would not ride a bicycle that I built myself, let alone fly an airplane that I had anything to do with assembling. I always have leftover parts.
At the expense of being preachy, I offer the following. As of late, the innocuous plastic shopping bag is getting loads of media attention. No surprise, we use millions of these things each day. No surprise, they are clogging our landfills, waterways, and generally making a mess of our environment. They are incredibly dangerous to wildlife, too. The problem is so serious that cities are beginning to ban their use, as evidenced by the recent developments in San Francisco. What is odd is how easy it would be to eliminate totally their use by simply not using them. At the grocery store, opt for paper. Shop with reusable bags. Figure out alternatives.
This is one of those small things that we can all opt to change, and collectively begin to have a significant impact on the environment. NO MORE PLASTIC SHOPPING BAGS. Opt for paper bags and either reuse or recycle them.
My wife likes to joke that she has never seen me look at another woman, but if a certain engine note comes into range I start whipping around like a maniac. This happens anytime I hear an Italian V-twin motorcycle, a helicopter, certain fixed-wing aircraft and generally anything that sounds remotely like a rear-engined sports car. I am a devoted gearhead.
This is in direct conflict with another passion of mine, the determination to lighten my impact on this planet and in all things try to be sustainable. Personally, I have had mixed success with this, but our family remains devoted to changing things when we can and keeping this top of mind. Professionally, sustainability is a driver for my organization and is the blood that runs through our design.
So, it was with child-like, wide-eyed excitement that I saw on Winding Road that Brammo Motorsports of Oregon is creating an electric supercar based on the Ariel Atom. This is unbelievably cool. To understand why, and perhaps get a window into what makes me tick… check out this video. Imagine this car as an electric, sustainable, environmentally friendly transport option.
Perhaps a sign that I am becoming more cynical with age, but I was amazed and very pleased to read that the United States House of Representatives has committed to a plan to become carbon neutral by the end of its current term. Not only that, but legislation has been proffered that will make all of the buildings in the Capital complex (23 of them!) sustainable by 2020. Definitely a sign of changed leadership in Congress, but also an indication that the environmental agenda has finally made its way onto the House’s docket. The challenge now is to ensure it is a priority measure, and that we deliver on these commitments.
RSS Feed
