Recent Comments:
2010 Prius revealed, sneakers still a major design influence {Engadget}
Jul 9th 2008 10:12AM If I run my new home air conditioner with all the windows and doors open on the hottest day of the year, it will run continuously and rack up for me a huge electric bill. Had I done the same with my old air conditioner, the results would be essentially the same, perhaps even better because it had less cooling capacity.
Now, how many people would consider this a fair test?
Used the way an air conditioner is supposed to be used... windows closed, doors closed after use... the new unit runs about a third as much as the old one did, which more than compensates for the additional capacity.
All the Top Gear test did was show that if you are trying to decide which car to pick for your NASCAR career, the Prius shouldn't be your first choice.
2010 Prius revealed, sneakers still a major design influence {Engadget}
Jul 8th 2008 8:43AM I've never agreed with you more, phanbuoy.
2010 Prius revealed, sneakers still a major design influence {Engadget}
Jul 7th 2008 11:13PM Actually, a true nuclear engineer would actually be an actual, true nuclear engineer. Have the degree, work in the industry for a few years or so, that sort of thing.
Otherwise, he is simply a pro-nuclear guy who clearly knows very little about the science involved. Jeez, a guy watches Back to the Future a few times and he thinks he has mastered the neutron transport equation.
2010 Prius revealed, sneakers still a major design influence {Engadget}
Jul 7th 2008 10:43PM Flashpoint,
So what do you say to a nuclear engineer who drives a Prius?
Antro Solo gas-electric hybrid promises 150 mpg {Engadget}
Jun 25th 2008 12:50PM The problem, Josh, with producing a car "that looks like a regular sedan" is that your average sedan is about as aerodynamic as a brick. As far as making one that "is as safe to drive as a normal car," many of the safety features you refer to are only necessary if every other driver is driving a tank, and every one of these safety features adds weight.
Part of the problem is that terms like "regular" and "normal" are entirely subjective. What people think of when they hear such terms can be redefined, and needs to be. And will be, I promise you. Start producing cars with a drag coefficient in the 0.1 range, with the resulting jump in mpg, and boxy sedans will quickly begin to look quaint.
When gas was cheap, efficiency lost the safety vs. efficiency argument before it began. Don't get me wrong... I do safety for a living. But while it is a virtue, it is not the only one.
Honda FCX Clarity set to enter limited production and sale {Engadget}
Jun 16th 2008 12:34PM Going from x to 4x is a 300% increase.
Audi aims to produce electric car within ten years {Engadget}
May 6th 2008 6:09AM BigD145: Empty assertions, and wrong ones at that.
Audi aims to produce electric car within ten years {Engadget}
May 5th 2008 8:03PM Jandalf,
What gets me is that I am almost 42 and I heard "turn off those lights" from the time I was in the womb. My dad was no environmentalist, but he _was_ a penny-pinching Scotsman. We didn't recycle, per se, but we did return the glass Coca-Cola quart bottles for a dime each, which is more like a quarter or so today. So many things one can do that simply spring from not having a lot...
Audi aims to produce electric car within ten years {Engadget}
May 5th 2008 1:39PM Jandalf:
If I may say so, I am impressed that you haven't let the perfect become the enemy of the good. On the various "green" boards, I all too often see people getting slapped down for what some people consider to be half-measures.
Your comments on infrastructure are good ones, IMHO. People don't want to buy cars unless they know that fuel will be available, and companies don't want to build fueling stations unless they know that people will be buying their product. Nothing wrong with incrementalism, say I, provided we are going in the right direction.
Audi aims to produce electric car within ten years {Engadget}
May 5th 2008 1:23PM First of all, fission reactors don't "explode" in any nuclear sense. Chernobyl was a steam explosion.
Second, one cannot compare a fusion reactor to a fission one because, except for that big one in the sky we call the sun, there aren't any production fusion reactors in our solar system. Not a lot of safety data on reactors that don't exist.
Third, going critical is a good thing. Critical means that the reactor has achieved a self-sustaining chain-reaction. What is being touted as a virtue is actually the problem. With fusion, we have only been able to achieve break-even for a few nanoseconds. Not too useful for anything other than research.
Fourth and last, it is unfair to compare fusion products with fission products. The problem with fusion is not the materials produced during the reaction, but neutron activation of the concrete and steel used to house the reaction. Those hang around for a long time, and because neutrons have no charge, no magnetic field in the world will stop them.
