Post from Taazie's blog:
The future is efficient
Bad? Brilliant?
You can rate this post.
Register or login now and
tell us what you think.

Once again, today's youth loudly proclaimed that the answer to our problems lies in efficiency, not ethanol.

A group of High Schoolers beat out over 250 college students in a Shell competition to build the most efficient car. 

This competition is yet another example that we already have all the technologies we need to fix much of our little 'carbon problem'. If a bunch of high schoolers can build a 2,843 mpg car, I'm pretty sure giant corporate car manufacturers can figure out how to reach 30 mpg by 2020 (our current fuel efficiency goal and Europe's present standard). 

 The government needs to stop lavishing Archer Daniel Midland, Cargill, Peabody, Massey, Ford, GM, Chrysler and other traditional corporate overlords with research money for ethanol, advanced coal, and nuclear waste disposal. It is time that the government invest in technology deployment and forcing corporations to stop wining and adopt the most recent efficient technologies. 

 This switch from R&D to technology deployment will have widespread effects, from drastically and quickly reducing our Greenhouse Gasses to reducing the financial burden on low income families due to increases in energy prices.

 So-called "Generation Q" is leading, will our predecessors follow our leadership and enthusiasm or will they continue in their own path leading to our doom?


Reader Comments
  
Vehicles have gotten up to...
By Superduperficial Apr 15th 2008 at 10:45 pm EDT
...12,000 MPG at some of these contests - given the design constraints involved (which are very different than production automobiles), 2,843 MPG actually isn't very impressive at all, and they didn't break any new ground in terms of technology.

You want something actually meaningful? Check out the Progressive Automotive X Prize Link

Oh, and your using this competition (the parameters of which you don't quite seem to understand) as a basis for arguing that we should not to be investing in cleaner, safer nuclear power technology is silly at best.
Re: Vehicles have gotten up to...
By Tommaso Apr 17th 2008 at 4:58 pm EDT
Arguing that Nuclear power (the climate impacts of which you don't quite seem to understand) should be an investment priority is one of the fundamental misunderstandings of the climate debate.

Recent studies keep on showing that GHG reductions are negligible, it is not cost competitive, takes too long too deploy and regardless of how safe, will always be a security threat.

So how can we motivate a gamble on the future of the planet to continue favoring wealthy proponents of this failed technology?

Oooh, was almost forgetting, as most people do, all the indigenous populations that are seeing their ancestral lands and future assets devastated by one of the most toxic forms of mining in our planet (topped only by Mountaintop Removal). Yeah, lets go for nuclear and perpetuate this system of environmental racism and economic disparity.

Won't even respond to your car points that totally miss the point of the article.
Re: Vehicles have gotten up to...
By Dr. Robert Polliver Apr 21st 2008 at 12:48 am EDT
Obviously, someone else is not understanding the importance and necessity of moving forward. Because Nuclear Power is far more efficient and proficient, it is seen as the epitome of evil. That is not so. All that is needed is a method to harness this incredible energy under the hood of a transportation device, and our immense environmental and energy crises.

As to the ensuing ignorant comment on the failures of the abovementioned technology, Thomas Alva Edison, arguably the greatest inventor of the modern age, claimed "I haven't failed, I've found 10,000 ways that don't work”.
  
Campus Progress

Please remember that Campus Progress' terms of use do not allow promoting or endorsing any particular political party or candidate for office. Posts or comments that do this will be deleted.

Campus Progress