Roughly half the energy from sunlight is in the infrared potion of the spectrum. There are commercially available IR reflective black coatings that absorb less energy than some lighter pigments that are absorptive in the infrared. Visual blackness is an artifact of human vision, which is only sensitive to part of the energy in daylight. White paint will generally perform best, but visual brightness is not always a good indication of total reflectance (particularly since the human eye is far more sensitive to greens and yellows than blues or reds). I think that establishing minimal reflectance standards for paints is not without merit, especially since it need not exclude black.

However, it's a bit of a red herring. The real gains are to be made with reflective roof coatings for buildings. The total square area of roofs is far larger than all the cars out in the sun. There's a decent argument for dark roofs in colder climates, but in warmer locales an IR reflective roof is a really cheap way to save a lot of money on air conditioning. We painted the roof at my workplace last summer, and the change in interior temperature was immediately noticeable.

With these things, generally the power electronics is the weak link. The LEDs themselves will keep putting out light for 50K hours. However, light output declines over that lifetime, as LEDs are generally specified for a junction temperature of 20C and it's nearly impossible to achieve that in practice without active cooling. In addition, the phosphor that converts the UV light starts wearing out. That said, I would be much more inclined to buy LED lights from Philips or Cree versus the Chinese made ones, because they have no doubt taken lifetime issues into account. If 50K hours is really achievable, then total cost of ownership favors LEDs over incandescent bulbs, since 40W * 50K hours * 10 cents per KWh is something like $200 when the LED bulb will have used about $50 in electricity. Even if the incandescent bulbs were free, they still would be more expensive!

There's a matte black Rolls Royce Phantom that I've seen multiple times here in Los Angeles. Sometimes it looks really cool, other times it looks like it's been primered. It depends on the light. My understanding, though, is that the finish is relatively fragile.

I saw an Aptera prototype on the road last week. It looked like something right out of the future. Personally, I love the looks. If they really sell them for $25-30K, I may get one. As for safety considerations, I ride a motorcycle part of the time, and the Aptera will be a hell of a lot safer.

Actually, I was thinking that 2 or more 30Gb drives in RAID 0 would be perfect as an OS/apps drive. Assuming that they scale reasonable well (I'd have to see a test before taking the plunge), the read/write speeds could be astonishing and would combine with the ultra low latency for very high system performance. A couple of fast terabyte hard drives in RAID 1 would then be used for data and backup of the boot drive. You could have it all for $500 or so. Holy crap!

It all depends on pricing. When I saw the original Euro Focus in 1998, I said I'd buy that car if it came to the US. I bought a 2000 ZX3 shortly after they came out and was very pleased. I still drive the Focus, and unlike it's reputation, my one has been utterly reliable. It's long in the tooth, though, so I've been vagueing looking for a replacement for the last couple of years. I'm in no hurry, because the Focus is going strong and driving like new after I replaced the shocks and struts.

Anyway, to get to my point, I was pretty interested by the Saturn Astra. I had seen the Vauxhall version while visiting my family, and read favorable things in the Brit car mags. However, when it came here and I priced out a 3-door manual, it was $20k with options. And Saturn doesn't haggle. Sorry, but that's Mini Cooper territory, but without the style and fuel economy. For $3-4k less, I would go for it, but I think they priced themselves out of the market.

Anyway, I'd buy a Fiesta or a Mazda2, but only if the price is right. They need to be $11k or so.

Adding stop-start makes the car even more attractive for me. I'm already part of the intended market. I drive almost entirely on surface streets in stop and go traffic. I park on the street on a crowded block (especially on street cleaning days). I rarely have a passenger, and even more rarely have more than one. I have a high performance motorcycle, so I don't need a sporty car. I can drive my girlfriend's car if I need more space or seats. If there wasn't a waiting list at the moment, I would be seriously considering one.

More importantly, though, on the theory that men who drive giant SUVs are compensating for certain shortcomings, I figure I should be driving as small a car as possible.

This application may be silly, but there are some reasonable applications for something like this. Circular LCDs would be useful for a clock face or automotive instrument that needs to be addressable. One can just put a round opening over a rectangular display, but that wouldn't work for a wristwatch that has a round case. It opens up a lot of design possibilities for displays in irregular objects.

Funny, I thought they were on sale already, since I saw a 5-door on the road the other day. I didn't see if it had manufacturer plates, though.

I have a Ford Focus with the 2 liter and a manual. I get about 27 mpg, which is exactly the EPA estimate. With some tweaks and low rolling resistance tires, let's say 30mpg. That amounts to a savings of about $540/year at $3/gallon. That's also assuming gas doesn't become more expensive. Math doesn't do much for you when your assumptions are off. A 54 mpg diesel would pay for itself in less than four years, even if fuel stayed the same price. And, believe it or not, some people would prefer to use less fuel, even if it doesn't save them money.