ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



'Green' teams go for auto race

Posted: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 8:50 PM by Alan Boyle

Thirty-one teams say they’ll line up to compete for at least $10 million by developing a marketable 100-mpg automobile … if the Automotive X Prize program can come up with the cash, that is. The X Prize Foundation says it’s hoping to do that by the end of the year, in time for the big auto shows.

The 31 would-be entrants have sent in letters of intent to participate once the competition is launched, according to today's announcement from the foundation. The best-known teams on the list are Tesla Motors, the Silicon Valley startup that is selling plug-in electric sports cars; and ZAP Motors, which has long been involved in electric-powered vehicles and is now marketing the fuel-sipping Smart Car.

The list serves as a good initial indicator of who's interested in the multimillion-dollar purse - but Donald Foley, executive director of the Automotive X Prize, emphasized that he doesn't expect the list to stop at 31 entries.

"We're certainly not closing the door," he told me today. "We want to get more, including some of the large automakers, I hope. It's fair to say that we're in active discussions with the larger companies."

It's not surprising that the big automakers haven't yet joined in, considering that the prize has yet to be funded and there's no firm time frame for the contest yet. One of the purposes behind releasing the first 31 names now is to attract additional sponsors for what's projected to be a multimillion-dollar purse. Historically, each X Prize reward (for spaceflight and genomics) has amounted to at $10 million, "and we're still aiming for that," Foley said.


FuelVapor Technologies
FuelVapor Technologies' concept car is among the
potential competitors for the Automotive X Prize.

So far, the Automotive X Prize is listing Adobe, Idealab, Ray Sidney of Big George Ventures, the Elbaz Foundation and the Jack D. Hilary Foundation among its early sponsors and donors. But the "title sponsor" has not yet been identified. "We don't know if we will have a single title sponsor or a combination," Foley told me.

He told me that the X Prize Foundation's internal goal is to have the prize funded and the rules finalized later this year, so that the competition can get its official kickoff either at the L.A. Auto Show in mid-November or the Detroit Auto Show in January. "Those are the two most widely attended and most prestigious auto shows in the industry at this time, so if we had our druthers, that's where we would go," Foley said.

If the foundation sticks to its schedule, the competition would lead to an honest-to-goodness race in 2009 or so.

The prize program is aimed at rewarding innovations leading to a marketable motor vehicle that gets the equivalent of 100 miles per gallon. It doesn't matter whether the vehicle actually uses gasoline, or diesel, or plug-in electric power, or compressed air. What does matter is that the technology offers greater energy independence, a radical improvement in fuel economy and a lower greenhouse-gas profile.

"It's our firm belief that the incremental changes that have been debated in Congress lately are not sufficient to meet the global environmental challenge," Foley said.

The X Prize Foundation has fielded hundreds of inquiries about the automotive prize, but each of the 31 teams listed today had to send in a $1,000 fee to signal that they were at least somewhat serious about competing, Foley said. "It's modest, but it's still a fee," he said. The entrants range from student teams to long-established companies, and the technologies span a similarly wide range.

"The plug-in hybrids seem to be more prevalent, but we do have some diesel entries as well," Foley said. "They run from the usual to the exotic."

A closer look confirms that plug-in electric vehicles and hybrids dominate the field. Here's the list of 31, with a brief description of the technology involved and Web links, if I could find them. Let me know in the comments section which technology (or team) looks like a winner:

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

I'll take working FROM HOME for $500, Alex!  Ha-ha!

Don't get me wrong... I love the idea but if we can work "productively" from home it would save us a lot of time, money, hassle, and it avoids environmental impact to boot.  Therefore, lets have a contest to see who can design the most efficient home with the largest sub-industrial-scale shops (able to cast engine parts, make mountain bikes, canoes...) and professionally equipped offices!  

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA (Sent Wednesday, August 01, 2007 10:20 PM)

...as for vehicles, the one thing that I would ask of any such vehicle competition is to also consider mega disasters which are likely to be more common in the future.  If we are too dependent on electric and there is a mass power outage from some ultra heat wave or a hurricane knocks out power lines in half the state of Mississippi and FL as Katrina and Wilma did, for example, then having a super small back up engine in a car would be needed.  I would also trade a little efficiency if it meant a lot of added flexibility.  For example, Mercedes was experimenting with an ultra small gas turbine engine for cars.  Gas turbines can be exceptionally simple (with as few as one moving part) and yet can run on almost any fuel you stick in the tank: alcohol, diesel, gas, heating oil, hydrogen... whatever is available.

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA (Sent Wednesday, August 01, 2007 10:31 PM)

Chris is right.  We need to have a complete mindset change in a variety of areas, not just automobiles, in order to meet the energy challenges the near future is going to bring us.  I believe the automobile industry will slowly adapt to change, but I doubt if I'll see any major breakthroughs or changes before I retire in about 10 years.  Until then, I'll keep carpooling.  When you think about it, in a 4-person carpool where all four people have vehicles that get over 25 mpg, you have effectively obtained a greater than 100 mpg efficiency rate, compared to each individual driving their own car each day.  So there are things we can do today as individuals that can make a difference.  

Many more telecommuting jobs are feasible but you have to get past the old management paradigms, and that's easier said than done.  And with outsourcing at an all time high, just being able to hang onto a good job is getting harder and harder.  American industry is heading down a dangerous road from where there may be no return.  I just hope that American industry, government, and private businesses will start stepping up and start thinking forward instead of living in the past.  I think we're at a critical pivot point in this country's history and everyone needs to work together and grab the bull by the horns to make sure we steer it in the right direction.  Let's start making our voices heard NOW!  

Wayne, Alamogordo, NM (Sent Thursday, August 02, 2007 9:51 AM)

What happened to hydrogen?

William R. Hill (Sent Thursday, August 02, 2007 12:25 PM)

This is great but whatever happened to the 5 BILLION DOLLARS the government committed (under Clinton) to develop an 80 mpg car???

Doug Brown Jr., Shelby, NC (Sent Thursday, August 02, 2007 12:45 PM)

Here's the problem in my eyes... I think we could have had 80-100mpg cars already out by now, as the standard for all cars right now. Unfortunately, that would make OPEC very unhappy. More fuel-efficient cars means less money that the oil companies would make. It seems to me like the oil companies would just raise their prices sky-high to compensate for fuel-efficient cars. It will not do anything for the consumer except make the planet a little happier.

Carson Baker, Seattle, Wash. (Sent Thursday, August 02, 2007 1:32 PM)

Sorry other contestants, but I see little competition here for Aptera, ZAP, and Phoenix Motorcars (the Tesla is very impressive but doesn't charge in 10 minutes). And BTW, how can ZAP and Phoenix compete when they use the same technologies?

My money is on Aptera for the alternative category, Phoenix for the four-seat category.

Thomas Herber, Everett, WA (Sent Thursday, August 02, 2007 2:09 PM)

If the goal is to discover a marketable vehicle, then Zap Motors' ZAP-X is the undisputed winner.  It looks like a Mazda, would give a Ferrari a run, and holds enough of a charge for 90% of Americans' driving needs.

Adam, New York NY (Sent Thursday, August 02, 2007 2:14 PM)

This is great but whatever happened to the 5 BILLION DOLLARS the government committed (under Clinton) to develop an 80 mpg car???

Doug Brown Jr., Shelby, NC (Sent Thursday, August 02, 2007 2:18 PM)

To win the automotive X prize, the design must be efficient, practical, cost effective, and capable of being mass produced and mass marketed. The goal is to dramatically reduce the use of petroleum for transportation.

Some of the entrants (Disruptech, Dragonfly Technology, Herf Duo, HyKinesis, Michigan Vision, Prometheus Systems, Porteon, Spirit One, X Tracer) can't be judged by me as there is not enough information on their website, or there is no website. As for the rest, some have actual working prototypes, some have well laid out designs, some have just a sketchy notion of what they want.

The auto X prize has two divisions:
1) The "mainstream" division is for 4 wheel 4 passenger conventional cars, and the top contenders are Tesla Motors, Loremo AG, Phoenix Motors, Velozzi, and Cornell University.
2) The "alternative" division is for smaller 2 or 3 passenger, 3 or 4 wheel vehicles of unconventional design, and the top contenders are Commuter Cars, Fuel Vapor Technologies, Aptera Motors, and Delta Motorsports.  

I have some comments on some of the "also rans".

DEHyds and Valentin Technology have a remarkably similar IC hydraulic hybrid drive trains, and should seriously consider merging their efforts. Unfortunately, their designs use a hydraulic accumulator for energy storage that is not thermodynamically efficient, and has a poor energy density.

MDI/Zero Pollution has a unique compressed air engine, but it is unknown whether they will be able to meet the minimum requirements for the X prize. The high pressures required for reasonable range insure high thermodynamic energy losses.

Roan Inventions has an innovative highly streamlined electric car/monorail design, but it has some serious design flaws that make it impractical, and it may not be able to meet the minimum X prize requirements.

Society for Sustainable Mobility is yet another "open source" car project, and I predict the group will end up falling apart with internal squabbling over what type of components will be used. The only things settled on is a serial hybrid drive train and SUV like size.

Some of the contenders appear to have more enthusiasm than skill, a few really don't know what they are doing. I predict several will drop out early, as they won't be able to meet minimum requirements.

In spite of the billions spent by the government, hydrogen continues to be a very poor automotive fuel, plagued with high prices, low efficiency, and major storage problems. Not suprising that the X prize contenders are ignoring H2 fuel.

As for the billions spent for the Partnership for Next Generation Vehicles, it lined the pockets of GM, Ford, and Chrysler. All 3 made a prototype or two, none were sold, and the whole thing was canceled by Bush. It did spur Toyota and Honda to mass produce practical hybrids.

CM, Modesto (Sent Thursday, August 02, 2007 7:20 PM)

I'm gonna wait for someone to invent a way to make vehicles move without internal combustion engines.  eliminating gasoline as a fuel for such engines will clean up our atmosphere.  Electricity will do the trick, and will serve the purpose nicely once we figure out how to get batteries re-charged quickly so the vehicle can move from home to work to 're-charge station' to the mall, to home again, as fast as cars do the same thing now.

OPEC really couldn't care about 100mpg cars because any reduction in gasoline use now would be compensated for by the time extension they would enjoy before oil  finally runs out.  Only turning our backs on Big Oil  would have any effect on them at all.  

Des Emery, St. Thomas, ON, Canada (Sent Friday, August 03, 2007 1:03 AM)

Two words-europe, diesel. VW Lupo got close to 100mpg years ago (with conservative driving habits).

JE, Germantown, WI (Sent Friday, August 03, 2007 2:08 AM)

I like the gas turbine idea. Turbine engines are usually lightweight and efficient, which is why most helicopters use them. A big downside is they are slow to get to high rpm's. No "kick" if you will. Still, you could design in an electric motor to compensate for that.

Tim, Kansas City (Sent Friday, August 03, 2007 12:49 PM)

Tim, yes!  The turbine would be used to charge batteries and drive an electic motor which would provide all the kick you need. Toyota used electric wheelrim motors which saves the weight of the drive axle.  wheelrim electric motors are used extensively in the mining industry.  

Chris Eldridge (Sent Friday, August 03, 2007 2:25 PM)

"To create a need" - YES - Sometimes is the mother of Invention. 40 years ago I had the need to fix my carburator on my car. I redesigned the apparatus only from my intitial need to make it work. Consequently I designed a vapour lock syatem that used mainly fumes for ingnition. I suddenly reaised that I got approximately a 500 % boost in gas mileage saving. No one believed me. But! With that I was able to travel anywhere and everywhere I desired to drive. It worked great. It may have been happenstance that I put together the components in their proper perspective.But! I enjoyed driving 200 miles for a dollar.... BUT - Hence! ... NO ONE BELEIVED ME .... SO! ... What can i say ... Re-designing ... and improvision comes with a pains taking legacy. Say What! ... I on the outset did notice that the Industry at large responded more favourably to the electric car innovation. I drove one. And, I didn't see anything wrong with them either. LOL  So! I pretend - All good things come to those who wait!  Have a nice day! ....  

Alex - Prestonsburg, Kentucky (Sent Friday, August 03, 2007 6:34 PM)

I suggest that everyone watch the documentary Who Killed The Electric Car. It is available on DVD and is an eye opener when it comes to big oil and the auto manufacturers. We could split the atom in a year or two and make a bomb and we can't make an energy efficient car? Time for regime change.

Dave Weed, Jacksonville, Fl. (Sent Saturday, August 04, 2007 10:14 AM)

BTW, I love the photo of the three-wheeled vehicle in this article.  At one point in time I very much thought this three-wheeled concept was the way to go environmentally and I even got permission to use photos of the Mercedes Bens Lifejet:

http://www.gdtm.ru/MBimages/F300LifeJet.jpg

After thinking about it however, it may be very efficient to have a safe, tandem, two-passenger car that is perfect for general commuting, but it would not be ideal for bad weather and does not have the flexibility of a small hatchback like the Mercedes A-Class micro-car:

http://www.carpages.co.uk/guide/@images/mercedes-benz/mercedes-benz-a-class.jpg

So, although I believe we must chose the right designs for the job at hand (such as ultra small two-passenger cars for general commuting), I also believe we should chose designs that offer greater flexibility. Both vehicles are very small and efficient but the A-class is far more flexible

Chris E (Sent Saturday, August 04, 2007 1:18 PM)

Gasoline and oxygen injected
into a high pressure tank to
create fumes and and the fumes
injected directly into a
combustion chamber my be a way
to increase mileage and energy
on a gallon of gasoline or any other combustible liquid.
There is probably a lot more
energy in a gallon of gas than what we are extracting out of it with our present systems.




Bob Johnston (Sent Saturday, August 04, 2007 9:30 PM)

Turbines become effcient at 600 PLUS hp. It is easier and CHEAPER to get piston engines to do the work at that level. Hydrogen is not very effcient either. The ONLY chance we have is for technology to make the PHASER power pack from Star Trek days.

Power storage is the new technology we need to focus upon. Storing MOVING electrons in a "BOTTLE" much like a capacitor does. Lithium Poly cells are lately the best we got (FOR NOW), alas these are again a chemical exchange.

My step son is a graduate of Chico state and went to a meeting of teachers and instructors and THEY came to terms of the idea of NEW technology will not happen for about an other 65 years or so. Maybe we will have the Phaser power pack before or by then.

I do like the idea of Financial incentives for compitition. Let the X race begin.

calif (Sent Sunday, August 05, 2007 12:47 AM)

What happened to the car that's powered by H2O ? All they had to do was figure out how to keep the engine from corroding. Anyone. Anyone?

S. Gray, Louisville, Kentucky (Sent Sunday, August 05, 2007 4:48 AM)

calif, Gas turbines are planned as nano engines so I'm not sure why 600 hp is such a benchmark.  With only one moving part (in some) I think they'd be less expensive if mass produced and easier to repair.

Chris E (Sent Sunday, August 05, 2007 1:52 PM)

The 600 hp benchmark is for COST/hp. Turbines need exotic materials. The cost of an engine is a major factor in cost of producing a vehicle. There are a few 20/hp turbines available for modelers. THESE suck major amounts of fuel for the power they produce. The power developed by a smaller PISTON engine needs a smaller amount of fuel to produce the same amount of power. A 600/hp piston engine becomes TOO heavy and TOO costly to make when you start to look at the turbine engine. As far as the H20 engine, just make it out of 17-4 or some Stainless.  We had one of the Chrysler TURBINE cars down the street when I grew up,
it ran on almost anything. Every other week or so they brought over a 55 gallon drum of Diesel, paint thinner, fingernail polish remover (etc, etc). The car ran great, but the fuel lines were the size of your Pinky and it gobbled fuel. I believe it had 600/hp which ment it could do well over 250/hr......
doubt it was ever drove that fast.

densell, LA calif (Sent Monday, August 06, 2007 12:19 AM)

Thanks for the feedback Densell!  I'll have to keep my eye out for more information on this.  My memory isn't always the greatest but abut ten years ago a magazine article (pop-sci/pop-mech?) mentioned how a turbine (probably smaller than a quarter-inch-long) might be used one day to power laptop computers and they indicated it would be far more efficient than present day batteries.  Maybe this was more of just broad speculation on thier part as it is very common for researchers to have a stab at what their products may lead to one day... especially in the computer sciences.

Thanks also for the example of the turbine powered Chrysler and all those extra fuels it could burn.  I'm sure such non-standard fuels would be bad for the environment, but for emergency use in a pinch I'm sure if that is all you had it would be good to be able to use it.

My proposal for an ultra-small gas turbine was based on the idea that we need a super-small backup to power electric cars in the event of a massive power outage.  I'm sure there are many types of engines that can do this (something about the size of a one-piston lawnmower engine for example would be fine) so I deffinitely would not rule out the best choice for the job.  Since non-standarf fuels are not as abundent as say gas or diesel, it brings to question how much added versitility would be added if indeed it ever got to that.  

P.S. Another reason I mentioned a turbine is that is the backup engine the French have on their Leclearc Main Battle Tank so they don't have to keep running the 1,500 hp diesel engine all the time just to keep the computers, air-conditioners etc. running... something that always struck me as a good idea!

Chris Eldridge, HBG PA (Sent Monday, August 06, 2007 2:00 PM)

Here in Calif the Edison power company uses "PEAKERS" which are actually Turbine engines to add power to the grid in HIGH drain situations. (ie hot summer day)
YES you get alot of power in a small package (the HUEY engine is turbine and you can carry the damn thing just about)Large jets gobble fuel but they also go fast. Inverse square law....... to go twice as fast you need 4 times the power basiclly. I am an avid bicyclist, the air we drive thru is a major factor in power requirements for speed. By theory the bicylist gives up about 1/6 hp to propel themselves. A small nito-methane engine (model airplane fame) produces about 3hp. ALL rpm and very little torque. This is a turbine engine, all rpm and low torque. Diesel as a prime mover is TORQUE. A small block V8 has more horsepower for 350/inches. A dieselthe same size will produce more torque and lower hp but....... it will do more work, that is the reason we use diesel for moving freight and digging up the earth. WORK

If we understand that we will make a comprimise for ET and allow time to get to speed then a small diesel will hands down most likely be a major player in HIGH distances/gallon of fuel. WE do not have to have a vehicle that can do over 140mph. 75 max is PLENTY. A 140 Mercedes diesel will do about 90 flat out and that gets WAY alot of mileage, yes it will slow down going up a stiff grade. Again we must look at comprimise and decide what we wish to accomplish in a High Mileage vehicle. Add air-conditioning, heater, electric windows, and at least ONE ice chest and we add weight to the system. Defrost is a must.

anyways......... I am begining to digress to a degree
I am designing and planning to build a Diesel engine for a Motorcycle. A 3 speed should be enough if I can get the torque curve wide enough.

anybody wish to get onboard??????
eyeforeplay@gmail.com

densell (Sent Monday, August 06, 2007 11:40 PM)

What about an electric car with a combination of steam turbine that will power a generator to charge the car batteries. The turbine can be relatively small?

Roni s. (Sent Tuesday, August 07, 2007 9:45 AM)

Using diesel for a motorcycle sounds interesting.  One of the reasons I love the idea of having NASCAR like shops for light manufacturing at a very local level is the diversity it could create as well as other benefits.

As the long time owner of two toyota Corollas (Chevy Novas), I firmly agree that top speed is quite irrelevant.  My car had 72hp when it was new and "I" was the one passing and pulling away from the latest sports cars that most everyone tends to only drive "casually" anyway.  They drive like my grandfather.  Most people do.  0-60 in 12 seconds is all you need IF YOU USE IT.  

Author Chris Eldridge, HBG PA (Sent Tuesday, August 07, 2007 1:51 PM)

100 MPG is not hard.  The Toyota Prius and Honda Insight have both hit that two years running.  The hard part is getting a car that gets 100 MPG tooling along on the interstate at 90 MPH.

If people would just slow down a bit, 100 MPG is not that hard to hit.

2006: http://www.hybridfest.com/2006HF.htm
2007: http://www.hybridfest.com/MPG.htm

11011011

Dan Bryant, Cypress, Texas (Sent Tuesday, August 07, 2007 2:33 PM)

I believe few know about the fact that BEFORE a viable diesel engine most shipping in the Chicago area before then was ELECTRIC vehicles. WHO killed the electric car???? OIL. Diesel (the man) disappeared on an ocean vessel (tossed overboard) he got on but never seemed to WALK off. A NEW form of battery (maybe anti-matter?) is what we need. Electric motors are WAY better at converting energy to work. Drop any form of oil. Turbines are about 30ish percent. Pistons are even less>>>>>>>>>>Steam is about 30ish. Electic motors 80plus. Heat loss, mechanical loss, frictional loss, little lone imcomplete combustion loss. Some form of battery storage and electric motor will be the direction we need to go. OH and make the vehicle safe to be in an accident with??????? (d'oh)

densell (Sent Tuesday, August 07, 2007 10:32 PM)

I agree with the first chap.  Working from home solves so many problems: no energy to move me, less energy or space needed for an office, less impact on infrastructure - like bridges, less chance of dying in an accident, much less carbon expelled, less dry cleaning, less mortgage (since I can live farther away from the office), etc.  Typical office work is easily done at home with the internet, it is a shame that we must continue to schlepp to the office every day because of the current mindset that thinks telecommuting means not working or is not secure somehow.

I'll take working FROM HOME for $500, Alex!  Ha-ha!

Peter, NOVA/DC (Sent Wednesday, August 08, 2007 12:09 PM)

There is no car perfect for everyone. We need 2-3 seaters, 4-5 seaters, 7-8 seaters (for the soccer mom). The fleet mpg will improve if we use technology that we already have. Chrysler built a racing car with turbine heat engine, flywheel energy storage, and (i think) electric motors. Too expensive. But the Aptera is a well thought out 2 seater to sell at 20K. There have been 1, 2, 4, and even 7 person human powered vehicles, but that's for when the oil really runs out. Today, no one but cycle nuts will buy them. We are really lazy. Now, how about a four passenger electric car with a small, efficient backup engine? Chevy volt.

Richard Easton, Costa Mesa, Calif. (Sent Friday, August 10, 2007 3:59 AM)

I think the contest is really kind of a joke. At 100Mpg,with the way they have setup the contest,a plug in hybrid made from a standard small car like a mini cooper can probably get that,without much trouble. There is one that already gets 80mpg. For that matter,take a look at the concept car pictured in the article. They are supposed to be cars people would buy,can you imagine a dealer trying to sell that thing.

Michael (Sent Tuesday, August 21, 2007 10:16 PM)

--Draft XPRIZE competition guidelines exclude most of the listed alternative car entrants. A requirement for "--side by side seating--", page 8, eliminates about five of those listed.  Can they read?
--This is an important issue, because it rejects an approach to car design that is critical to efficient vehicles.
--Narrow cars potentially offer a single point answer to global warming. 200 MPGe at high speeds is achievable if we can give up the right front seat.  For those limited occasions where a car holds more than one person, I am hoping that people will be able to accept riding in tandem if this simple change will enable continuation of the American life style.
--X Prize would do great harm if it enforces the continued waste of resources caused by the right front seat.
--All else being equal, seating people in single file reduces energy consumption by 50%.  Less apparent is the fact that a narrow vehicle dimension enables aerodynamic advances that yield a further substantial reduction in energy waste.  In combination, these measures enable travel at high speeds where energy needed is about 10% of that used by typical American cars.
--Of course such a vehicle does not look much like a Hummer or even a Taurus, but it is a solution to global warming that seems far more attractive than most other proposals.  Such efficient cars could enable us to accomplish most of the objectives that America should have, and I am hoping that when a majority of people in China and India get cars, they will be similarly efficient.

Jim Bullis

Jim Bullis, Sunnyvale, CA (Sent Thursday, August 23, 2007 1:02 PM)

There is another major problem with the XPRIZE guidelines, especially relevant to electric vehicle such as the TESLA.  I added appropriate clarification to the Wikipedia definition. I hope the XPRIZE people will read it.

The last paragraph of the previous Wikipedia definition stated  ---- MPGe allows you to compare the energy efficiency and carbon emissions of to two vehicles using different fuels. For example, the [[Tesla Roadster]] electric car will travel 137.7 kilometers for every 33.56 kilowatt hours of electricity used compared to the [[Honda Civic VX]] which travels 82.08 kilometers for every 1 gallon of gas used ([http://www.teslamotors.com/learn_more/energy_efficiency.php Tesla Roadster efficiency])---

--- My addition---  However, this is misleading, since the equivalence is true for generation of heat, and nothing more.  In general, it takes far more than 114,100 BTUs to generate that 33.56 kilowatt hours and deliver it to the wall outlet.  The efficiency of this process is not simple to determine, since it highly dependent on how the generation is done.  A fair estimate for now and for many years to come, of power generation efficiency, on average, is 20% to 33% (refined numbers needed). On this basis, a factor of 3 to 5 must be applied in the Tesla example provided.  Thus, the Tesla travel distance of 137.7 kilometers on 114,100 BTU will actually be 28 - 47 kilometers, or about 18 - 29 MPGe.  This is roughly the correct number that should relate to global warming concerns, since it more closely ties to tons of carbon.

For global warming issues, this is even further complicated by the fact that carbon dioxide for generating BTUs from one fuel are quite different for another.  The big difference is between cheap coal that produces more carbon dioxide and expensive natural gas that produces less.  

Cost comparisons where electricity is involved are even more confusing, since the cost of electricity as a national commodity is substantially related to the cost of coal.  This is certain to go up significantly where regulations are applied where coal is either banned or the carbon dioxide produced is captured.  'Significant' here means double or triple the cost.

It seems clear that we are headed for a lot of trouble.  Efforts to solve the problem should not be waylaid by an inappropriate measure of comparison such as MPGe.
----end of my addition to Wikipedia

The problem with the XPRIZE guidelines is that they base the competition on MPGe.  Under an appropriate entry requirement, cars such as the TESLA would not qualify.  Is this the car that Diamandis refers to as "sexy"?  18-29 MPGe does not sound so sexy.

I am campaigning on this because I believe there are real solutions to global warming, but the most promising solutins require some some public adaptation.  The more acceptable life style changes need to be selected and adjustments made.  Bogus diversions are very damaging to expedient action to rapidly apply such real solutions.  

Jim Bullis (Sent Saturday, August 25, 2007 3:40 PM)

Since I sent the previous message I found the data sheet from the Tesla web site, and from this I was able to make sense of the Wikipedia definition of MPGe.  The Tesla example given there is valid.  Accordingly, I modified my edit that commented on the Wikipedia definition.
Now realizing that the MPGe system of comparison includes an efficiency factor for generation and transmission, I agree with the XPRIZE people that it is an appropriate measure of vehicle performance.
Given my present understanding, I must acknowledge that my reaction was overreaching.  I apologize for that.  I wish to also thank the XPRIZE staff for being responsive to my concerns.

Jim Bullis (Sent Sunday, August 26, 2007 3:45 AM)

I think I agree with Adam from New York; the Zap Motors' ZAP-X is off the charts followed by the Telsa.

When the co,bustion engine first appeared on the market some hundred years ago, they were inefficient, roads were not designed for them, more often than not horses were required to pull them out of a tight spot and they were extremely expensive.

So really the obstacles of today for alternative technologies from the petrol and diesel engine are not that much different than it was for the combustion engine a hundred years ago.

If there was just the kind of mentality that exists today yesteryear then we would never have had such issues today with our environment.
Imagine a world of no BP, Mobil or Shell blah blah.

BY the way has anyone got an idea about how science went with using Aerogel to store hydrogen at all?

Adrian, Doha Qatar (Sent Tuesday, September 04, 2007 5:01 PM)

Work from home via remote connection ie: Citrix Metaframe or webbased apps.

Remove: the cost of office space, save on petrol, travel time and stress from traffic jams.

That is the ultimate solution, it works, I set this kind of environment up for a number of companies and they adopted it and created a work from home policy, where the employees spent three days out of the office and only went in two days a week for moral support, meetings and the odd team building exercises.

The office was a simple extended room built onto the bosses house. The bonus was that it was tax deductable for all employees and the boss as they were able to allocate some of the space in the house as an office and therefore made savings from home.

Together with performance monitoring, it created quite a positive outcome and emplyees were alot happier, they had more time with the family and they could do work at any time day or night as long as their projects were on schedule and completed on time.

THE ULTIMATE SOLUTION!!!!
A much recommended solution for any small to medium sized business that in essence don't require an office to do business.

Adrian, Doha, Qatar (Sent Tuesday, September 04, 2007 5:21 PM)

Lightweight Sports Car Sets World Record at 103.7 MPG!
Imagine a fast, fun-to-drive sports car setting the world record for fuel economy. Lightweight and aerodynamic, a prototype Avion automobile - built by two engineers in Bellingham, WA - holds the Guinness world record for fuel economy at 103.7 mpg!
Yes it is true and we did it 22years ago. You can see it at www.100mpgplus.com  and we entered the auto X prize.I hope we win!

Yours
Craig Henderson

Craig Henderson, Bellingham Wash (Sent Monday, September 10, 2007 8:37 PM)

Looking at the data, I'd give Loremo a clear winner. It's not just a fancy stylsh idea or an ivory tower project, but rather focues on available core technology and day to day usability - and best of all, they sam to plan real production for 2009, not just an inteded business plan.

H.P.Franke, Livermore, Ca (Sent Tuesday, September 18, 2007 4:48 AM)

The same folks who came up with the Lunar X prize and who awarded  also have an Automotive X Prize.  $10 million dollar prize offered for earth saving automotive designs, with say, 100 mpg bonafides.
People love their cars. They are vital links to our

All In One Boat (Sent Friday, September 21, 2007 8:05 PM)

We are honored to be accepted by the Automotive X PRIZE.  The TriTrack full sized street version will be in the race and the good news is the race will determine the winner and physics and math will prevail over speculation.  The worst thing we can do is nothing, and it is fantastic that the Automotive X PRIZE has been generously provided to put the focus on technology and actual performance.  Our Cd of .07 (wheels retracted) will shock some people at the speeds this race will see.  Although it is not the full guideway version it still will make the race worth watching as the sparks fly so to speak. ;-)

Jerry Roane (Sent Saturday, September 22, 2007 2:34 PM)

electric cars...nope: fossel fuels make the electricity that charges the car of course.  hydrogen cars...nope..95 percent of all hydrogen is created using natural gas.  the biproduct of hydrogen creation is carbon dioxide.  hydrogen is 7 bucks a kg (equiv to a gallon of gas).  hydrogen is only cool cause water comes out the back of the pipe.  all these alternatives are just taking the pollution from the car and moving it to another source. i have read that in some cases, electric cars are responsible for more fossil fuel emissions than a 30mpg gas car....unless of course the electricity was produced by solar or hydro power.

the best article i have seen on the subject is in popular mechanics. "plug in cars" may 2007 issue covers this area in great detail.

if you havent read the issue, your missing out on some very good info...and many of the questions above would not have been asked.  I agree with the diesel electric setup. i think that will be the winner.  but then i would hate to be punted by a dually that ran a red light...."he shoots he scores!!!!"

if you are not carpooling you are a hypocrite.

Ride a bike to work, then shower.

James

James, Miramar, Florida (Sent Thursday, September 27, 2007 11:25 AM)

UNIQUE CONSORTIUM OPPORTUNITY: Dear X Prize Community,

I was made aware of the Automotive X Prize recently and want to announce a joint venture opportunity for the best complementing partners to join us. Together we can win this competition. US: We have the Engine that could power the winning entry. Our concept is real, proven, and now patented. We are building the refined prototype now. We will partner with the right school and Collaborative Parties that want to build the car around our Extremely Simple Power Source...with a Passion. Only accepting serious qualified partners. I like much of what I see posted already...who's interested?

Thank You,
Pat.

Patrick, North Carolina (Sent Thursday, November 29, 2007 11:40 AM)



SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.): 

 Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private)

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=300979

More Cosmic Log

Recent Posts:

Archives:

Categories:

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google

Links

MSNBC Weblogs