An Ending, or an Ascent? Why Should We Keep Building Performance Cars?

You're sitting stopped at a traffic light, on an ordinary day, making an ordinary journey to the shops. Coming up behind you, you hear it, that low, purring rumble of a high performance V-12 engine. Beside you, in your field of vision, up creeps the most beautiful thing on four wheels you have ever seen. You cannot help but be stunned by the experience, the car is proportioned just right, following the Golden Mean perfectly, and curved in all the right places. The light flicks green, and off it roars, that low purr of the engine suddenly bellowing out into a loud howl, almost a shriek. As you pull away, you realize your hair is standing at end. You cannot help but be jealous of the guy driving such beauty, such engineering perfection.

Unfortunately, many people do not see it like this. To them, such cars are, at best, a waste of space on the road, and at worse, an absolute scourge that the likes of should never be seen coming out of factory doors again. They'd have a point, too. Cars like these, cars such as the Aston Martin DB-9, or the Lamborghini Aventador aren't exactly what one would call friendly to the environment. They drink fuel like a swimmer devours food after a meet, spit lumps of carbon di- and monoxide out their tailpipes in massive excess, and can't carry much more than you, the clothing you're wearing, and maybe a small sandwich for lunch. Critics of these cars just don't see the point to them, not in the slightest. But, they're dead wrong. High-end, expensive cars do serve an honest purpose. On a practical level, safety features are premiered, introduced, and perfected on cars like these. They're a chance for engineering departments to push the boundaries of what is currently held to be possible, they further the ideals of design, both aesthetically, and engineering-wise. On a more subjective level, cars like these, on the right road, at the right time, with the right conditions can offer the most moving, emotional, and pleasurable experience one can feel through ordinary circumstances.

Unfortunately, these cars always have one major Achilles heel: practicality. One of the hallmarks of a supercar, jokingly stated by British car reviewer James May as he paid homage to the classic Mercedes-Benz 300SL Gullwing in an episode of Top Gear, is completely useless trunk space. Many sports car makers do not include methods of transporting luggage, or, if they do, it's typically very small, to the point where it seems like it was an afterthought. Obviously, there are a few exceptions, as Aston Martin does have a tendency to make a car that works well on the road, then turn it into a racer, but Aston's counterparts often do not take into consideration that people want a car that can transport both them and their luggage, or dismiss the idea entirely, saying that luggage will only spoil the handling and acceleration. So, owners of such cars are stuck with woefully inadequate trunk space. Sports cars also fall down in another area of practicality. With their sporty suspensions, tuned to have no give in corners so you go through them flat and neutrally, and their hard tires, and sometimes, their racing seats, they are horrendously uncomfortable on a typical road. Real roads have bumps, cracks, they're uneven and can be riddled with potholes. All of which require a much softer ride than any sports car maker would even want to think of giving. Cars like the Maserati Quattroporte have often been marked down on their ride, Bengt Halvorson, executive editor of High Gear Media's car review publications, remarked that the "Quattroporte's ride quality also might not be to the liking of all luxury buyers; it can be a bit busy on rough pavement surfaces. Comfort isn't really a strong point for the Quattroporte..."

Another point that people love to bring up when arguing against the sports and luxury car is the damage they do to the environment. Again, there is a very strong argument in this point. The Aston Martin DB 9, a British sports coupe, emits around 389 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometer, according to Europe’s Energy Portal, a private organization that reports consumer energy consumption. Compare this to a Ford Focus, something people drive every day to and from work, which emits, at the highest, 167 g/km. The difference is staggering. It is widely believed that this carbon dioxide emission from cars is a major source for the rise of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, causing the average global temperature to rise to the levels it has. Another strike against the environmental impact sports and luxury cars have is their fuel economy. Let's take another look at the Aston Martin DB 9. The US Department of Energy's fuel economy website lists the DB 9 as getting a combined mileage of 15 miles per gallon. Compare this to the Focus's combined mileage of 31, and one starts to wonder.

Both of these arguments stand strong against the luxury and the super/sports car. However, technology is always advancing, and over time, at the very least, the ecological argument will fade away as engineers find solutions to getting more distance out of every drop of fuel without sacrificing performance. Even with these arguments against them still standing, we must remember the tradeoff: these cars are often the birthplace of automotive technology. Features such as traction control, or anti-lock brakes, or even technology we consider to be standard, such as disc brakes, all first appeared on higher-end luxury and sports cars. Safety Research & Strategies, an independent safety research center, lists traction control as being found first on BMWs in the 1980s. Anti-lock brakes, a technology invented by the aeronautics industry, found its way into the automotive world through Cadillac in the 1970s. Even something as basic and simple as disc brakes first found their way into the automotive world by high-end cars, being found on Lanchester cars in the early 1900s. Without these cars, we wouldn’t have this technology on our cars today. Can you imagine what it would be like, to have to deal with drum brakes while driving quickly on a track, or not have the assistance of a traction control system when things start to go sideways? It would all end in tears.

Sports cars are not meant to be your basic, utilitarian runaround. They are designed primarily for one job: enjoyment. They are designed to enhance the pleasure of getting from point A to point B, a task that is entirely required for living. If you need to haul things, then find something better suited for the job and use the right tool for the need. If all you need to do is get yourself, and maybe a small amount of personal accessories somewhere, then yes, a small, two-seat sports car is perfect for you. If you need to get a garden archway and some mulch home from the nursery, then you should probably look elsewhere. This specialization can seem a bit daft and outdated, but it makes sense. Most people just need to get from one place to another, they don’t need to haul heavy machinery to the job site. This is where sports cars shine. Sports cars break the drudgery of the journey. The simplicity of their design helps you focus during that brief moment where everyone is moving along, life is good, and you can have some fun while on your way to work.

This is their essence. Sports and supercars are all about the experience of driving. Forget the destination, you’ll get there eventually. It’s how you get there that matters. In achieving this goal, their engineers do something absolutely fantastic. They push the boundaries of what is possible. In a way, supercars are very much the same as superstructures, structures like the Millau Viaduct in southern France, or the Burj Khalifa, the tallest building in the world. The Millau Viaduct is currently the tallest bridge in the world, standing at 1,125 feet tall. Jeremy Clarkson, a professional car reviewer for Top Gear, makes the point that "they could have built it lower down with some RSJs and some planks of wood..." It could have been done so much simpler, without investing in such a massive structure. Clarkson goes on to say, "They didn't. They built something amazing, something astonishing, something wonderful. They went berserk." The same sort of thinking lies in performance cars. Both the bridge and the cars are "an example of humans doing what humans do: pushing boundaries, pushing ourselves, taking what can't be done, and then doing it.” Without the thinking behind these cars, without that mentality of, "I wonder if I can do that... let's find out if I can," we wouldn't have the progress that we do. Without that thinking, we, the human race, would stagnate.

Even with these arguments, however, I have to agree with Jeremy Clarkson again, when he states in his review of the Aston Martin Vantage V 12, "I just can't help but thinking, thanks to all sorts of things...cars like these will soon be consigned to the history books." These beacons of progress are being attacked from all sorts of angles, from an environmental aspect, from a utility aspect, from those who wage their wars on speed. These cars are very much necessary. Sure, they can be a bit daft, being impractical when you need to move something more than just yourself, some personal items, and maybe one passenger. Yes, they can be damaging to the environment right now. But that's the beauty of progress. Technology can solve the environmental problems, and impracticality is purely a matter of taste. To many, there is no better feeling than whisking along an open country road, with the sound of a powerful engine providing the soundtrack to a glorious experience. These cars are an inspiration; they are proof that we, the human race, are progressing. Are these cars something that we should keep building? Absolutely. Our future depends on it.

Future Investment: Dump the Fossil Power

Electricity is probably the most important concept to modern society. Think about it, how many things do you use on a daily basis that require electricity to work? Any computer, and let's face it, computers are in an astonishing amount of things these days, cars, our methods of food preparation, even something as basic as lighting all require electricity to function. It's absolutely fantastic progress. But, this electricity has to be generated somehow. Thanks to demand, these generation means must be high output. Unfortunately for us, we have become reliant on means that are not sustainable, their fuels are not renewable: methods such as coal, natural gas, and oil. The problem with relying purely on these methods is that they rely on resources that we only have a finite amount of. At some point, we will run out. Another problem with the methods is the amount of pollution they emit. Each one releases large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, as well as other various harmful and toxic elements, such as mercury.

However, all is not lost. There are other options available to us. Options such as wind power, solar power, even hydroelectric power do not pollute at the point of generation, and don't cause much pollution in construction, either. Also, each are capable of generating the power that we need, in the quantities that we need it in. The best part? Even with our current technology, it is entirely possible to cut our power generation from non-renewable resources by at least 75% within the next ten years, maybe even more.

As with every idea or plan, however, there are critics. Those who oppose the idea of the switch decry it as being too expensive. When just the bottom line is looked at, in the short term, yes, it is a very costly proposal. The technology is unfortunately young, and with young technology comes a high price. For the entire world to switch to renewable generation by 2030, the cost is right around $100 trillion. Sounds like a hefty bill, right? Obviously, the US's bill is going to be considerably less, but still a staggering number. There is no denying, then, that the short term costs are staggering. But, what about the long term costs? What if we were to stay with fossil fuel powered generation? Giles Parkinson reckons that the cost of staying will be double that. The costs of the fuels itself will only rise, as we use more and more of the planet's reserves. This can be seen already in the cost of gasoline, which is, at the time of this writing, is already spiraling well above the $4 a gallon mark. In comparison, the cost of renewable generation technology is going down as the technology ages and gets more advanced.

The costs are going down for production, but what about demand? Is the idea of switching feasable at this level? Yes, when implemented correctly. There is enough space in the US alone to generate at least 40 terrawatts (tW) from wind generation alone, and enough space to generate 580 tW from solar! Compare this to the current demand of 1.8 tW in the US, and is projected to rise to 16.9 tW. Even when just wind is considered, there is more than enough generation potential. When combined, utilizing the roof space we already have and the empty space so common in the country, solar and wind generation is able to generate power far in excess of our current and projected needs. A recent re-study by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) collated data regarding atmospheric conditions across the US. From this data, NOAA was able to conclude what option was best for each region across the US.

This is still going to be a large project, no matter how it's broken down. But, it's not so big that it's impossible. In this need, there is also an opportunity. Such a massive project is going to need a large amount of humanpower to undertake. Where are we going to get it? Unfortunately for us currently, but fortunately for this problem, there is no denying that there is an alarming unemployment rate in the country. There is a huge amount of Americans who are unemployed, and cannot find jobs, which means the talent pool is massive. This is a prime opportunity for the US to take a lesson from history. This project is a wonderful way to put the thousands of Americans to work, we need humanpower to make the machinery, install it, and maintain it. A mobilization of skill such as this is nothing new to American history. We've done it before, and it's entirely possible to do it again. Take a look at World War II. During that period, the US managed to completely retool automobile factories and churn out 300,000 aircraft in the period of a few short years. Other countries managed about 486,000 more. Another great example of what the US is capable of is the US Interstate System. Over a span of 35 years, starting in 1956, over 47,000 miles of roadway was laid, costing several billion dollars. The humanpower talent is there. It just needs to be harnessed.

The feasability is there, but say, for whatever reason, we decide to stay with our current generation methods. What would happen to us? What options do we have available to us? The most obvious is what powers us right now: coal and oil. The costs of both of these fuels is rising. At some point, possibly within the next 20, maybe 30 years, the cost of staying with those two will exceed that of fronting the cost for wind and solar energy. But, ignoring that, say we still stick to coal. At some point, we'd need to address the pollution problem better than it is now. One suggestion addressing the problem is carbon capturing. This technology removes carbon dioxide from the exhaust gasses of, say, a power plant or a petroleum refinery, purifies it, compresses it, and then pumps it a mile or so underground, from whence it came. Sounds like a neat idea, but unfortunately, there are problems with it. One such issue has to do with the sheer amount of pressure the carbon dioxide is under when they inject it into the ground. Even underground, it will want to expand, pushing into saline aquifers which, in turn, pushes the salt water into freshwater aquifers. This essentially renders them unsuable for our purposes. Another problem with this solution is the amount of energy required to do it. A coal plant equipped with carbon capturing facilities burns up to 36% more coal while treating its emissions, according to an article written by Andrew Nikiforuk, in the Alternatives Journal. This means they need to buy more coal, costing them more money. Money consumers wind up paying through their rates. A final issue is one of scale. Nikiforuk points out that it's not going to be the one thing that solves our coal generation problems. In order to capture, compress, and bury just 25% of the carbon made by the generation process, we would need to build twice the petroleum infrastructure that we have now.

Fossil fuels just are not a good idea for a future power generation solution. Sticking with alternatives to the alternative, what about nuclear power? It's clean. The only thing it releases into the atmosphere under normal, day to day use is steam. It produces a huge amount of power, and France at one point in time generated a large majority of its power from nuclear energy. Japan generated most of its power from nuclear energy up until early 2011. But again, there are downsides. Japan's biggest reason as to why they stopped generating their power by nuclear energy is just the most recent example of the most often cited argument against nuclear power. Things don't often go wrong, but when they do, they go horribly, horribly wrong. An even better example is the one found near a deserted village in Ukraine, the Chernobyl nuclear power station. Even today, some 26 years after the fact, the land around the station and the village itself is completely unuseable. A final example, one that hits closer to home, can be seen in Three Mile Island, a nuclear power station in Pennsylvania. Three Mile Island still to this day paints a very good picture of the general opinion in the US towards nuclear power generation. Although the meltdown was very minor, and nonlethal to humans, there was still a massive outcry against nuclear power, one that lasted for decades. Until the US can get over its fears of nuclear power, it is just not a forseeable option.

This brings us back to the option initially studied here: renewable resource-generated electricity. Although the initial investment cost is high, the alternatives are even more expensive. The installation of the technology will open up a very large market for unemployment, giving job opportunities to thousands upon thousands of unemployed Americans. Another good thing about the technology is that it will free up fossil fuel resources for applications better suited for them, things like transportation, where alternative means either are in their infancy, or just plain don't exist. It is entirely possible for Ameica to make the switch. Now we just need to have the bravery and willingness to do it.

Oh, the Beemanity! What is Causing Colony Collapse Disorder?

 

Imagine a world without bees. Can you? Unfortunately, not many Americans can, as we are not aware of how much we rely on their existence. However, the stark reality is that 70 of the 100 crops that make 90% of our world food supply rely on their services. Starting to get a picture? Put simply, we would not have anywhere near enough food to survive, and the famed physicist Albert Einstein once predicted that in a world without bees, humankind would have a mere four years left to live. Sounds shocking, doesn't it? It seems like a horrendous dystopian alternate reality. Unfortunately, it could become ours, provided we do nothing to stop a phenomenon entomologists have termed "colony collapse disorder." What causes it? What can we do about it? Right now, the scientific community is still very much a long way from pinpointing the cause. There are several theories, but so far, there is no agreement as to which one is most likely the cause. What to do about the problem is also confusing. There are a number of suggestions, but none of them address the problem as a whole. At the present, we need to drastically scale back the amount of neonicotinoids we use, perhaps abandon their use altogether, find alternate means of pest control, educate ourselves about the causes, and put more research into the phenomenon.

The first step in overcoming an issue such as this is to figure out just what exactly is going on. Some, including the head of the United States Department of Agriculture's Bee Research Lab, Dr. Jeffery Pettis, think they have found a likely cause. According to a study led by Dr. Pettis, the cause is actually a combination of a widely used insecticide called imidacloprid, and pathogens. In the process of his study, Dr. Pettis gave ten hives a protein food that had been spiked with imidacloprid to levels of five parts per billion. Then, he gave another ten hives food that had been spiked to levels of 20 parts per billion with the same pesticide. A further ten hives were given food with absolutely no pesticides at all, as a control. After the hives had emerged a new generation of bees, he collected the bees, and exposed them to a fungal parasite called Nosema. Twelve days after the exposure, he killed the bees and studied the extent of their infection. What he found is certainly noteworthy: "Both of the groups that had been exposed to imidacloprid harbored an average of 700,000 parasite spores in each bee. Bees from the control colonies, by contrast, harbored fewer than 200,000 spores in their bodies".

However, a large number of researchers, such as Dr. Julian Little, a spokesperson for Bayer CropScience, are not convinced by Dr. Pettis's findings, and debate the cause and accuracy of the study. Dr. Little dismisses the study's conclusion, saying that the research isn't strictly accurate, citing the fact that "'the key issue here is that Jeff Pettis's studies were carried out in the laboratory and not the open air.' He added, 'Bee health is really important, but focusing on pesticides diverts attention away from the very real issues of bee parasites and diseases – that is where Bayer is focusing its effort'". Dr. Little has a valid point in that the direct cause of the mass deaths is likely parasite related; however, Pettis's study indicates that, while not a direct cause, the pesticides are responsible for weakening the bees' ability to fight it off.

But, it's not just the pesticide and the nosema alone that's causing the die-offs. Many beekeepers, including beekeeper and writer Ian Douglas, feel that disease, or to be more specific, a certain group of disease called the invertebrate iridescent viruses (IIV) has to be present alongside the fungal infection. Douglas reports that while IIV was found in 100% of colony collapse disorder cases, it has also been found in strong colonies. At the same time, a high correlation between nosema and IIV has been found in collapsed hives, but just nosema alone is not an indicator of a sick or collapsing hive.

Now that the world's beekeepers have this information at hand, what shall we do with it? The fact of the matter is, the cause is still very much under debate in the scientific community. Thankfully, there are a handful of options available to us. We could, of course, do nothing. However, doing nothing ends in worldwide food shortages, so that option goes flying out the window. Those questioning the validity of Pettis's study call for more research into the causes of colony collapse. Certainly, more research will not hurt, the more we know the better. But, what can we do right now, to hopefully stem the tide of bee losses? The most widely supported option on the table is find another method of pest control. Some groups, such as the National Honey Bee Advisory Board and the Beekeeping Federation, go so far as to demand an outright ban on the neonicotinoids most widely used by farmers: imidacloprid and clothianidin.

Certainly, there are a number of strong reasons for discontinuing their use, but all of the reasons for doing so should be considered as a whole. No one reason should stand out over another. Douglas has another proposal, one that the British have implemented: "The approach being taken in UK beekeeping is to raise the profile of integrated bee health management, in other words, identifying and trying to eliminate factors which reduce the health status of a colony.” Douglas decides that a far more holistic approach is necessary, stemming habitat loss, raising awareness of bee illnesses, and more research into such. Alternative methods into pest control should be implemented as a replacement to neonicotinoid-based pesticides, more effective disease management should be implemented, and more awareness be raised about what we already know about bee husbandry.

A life without bees will be a short and painful one. Inaction on finding the causes of colony collapse disorder, and inaction on taking steps to stem the losses will certainly make sure that we head towards this life. However, not all is lost, not yet. Cutting back, possibly even eradication of the use of neonicotinoids and introducing widespread use of non-chemical pest controls on agricultural fields is certainly a step in the right direction. Another step in the right direction involves more research into the phenomenon, and education of the disease aspect of colony collapse disorder, finding out what we can do to combat the spread of the diseases and fungi responsible. More research done into the project only furthers our knowledge and aids our fight against the losses. Until that day comes, however, taking the aforementioned steps is our best recourse in the battle for our bees.

Are Electric Cars Really Worth It?

So this blog has some material in it while I work on getting content written for it, I'll be cleaning up a few argumentative essays I wrote for a class over the past few semesters. About the only change I'm making is getting rid of the parenthetical citations relevant to the class so that the essays read better in blog format. If you're curious about my sources, ask, and I'll be more than happy to share the relevant sources.
--

So, the world is warming up, the ice caps are melting, and we're using up the once abundant supply of fuel we have. As a result, people, and I am one of them, are starting to realise that we are going to need to find alternative methods of powering the way we move around, since the major fuel we use now just isn't going to last us. Enter the electric motor. Its proponents claim that it wil revolutionize the way we move from point A to point B, causing zero emissions, and as a whole, just being generally better than gasoline or diesel. Or will they? Some people aren't sure. They claim that the batteries just cannot hold enough of a charge to be of any practical use, they're too heavy, and take way, way too long to recharge, among a growing list of complaints. Depending on personal circumstances, electric cars work on a practical level for the average American.

One of the biggest practical issues with the electric car is milage. How far can I go on one charge? Obviously, if the owner works 50 miles away, and for whatever reason, the car can only make it 49 miles before needing a recharge, then no, it just will not work. However, the average American only commutes 32 miles a day between work and home. Meanwhile, the projected ideal milage from the three most prominent commercially available electric vehicles are all over 100 miles. Again the critics cry out, fixating on the "ideal" part of milage estimates. Nissan, at the very least, has an answer. They subjected their Leaf to a handful of different scenarios possible in the daily life of a car, to see how each situation would affect the charge milage. So, could one get to work and back without running out of charge before even making it to work in the morning? Well, unless you're of a small minority of Americans who commute long inter-city distances to work daily, yes. If you're one of those Americans who do commute long distances into work, you'd be better off looking at other options. Unfortunately, long trips in electric vehicles still do not work as well as one would hope.

Weight is always crucial in designing a car. The heavier a car is, the harder it is to get it going, stopped, and to keep it in control while in motion. Another downside to weight: the milage of the car decreases, sometimes rapidly. Back to the Leaf, since it is the most advanced and refined of the electric vehicles currently on the market. The curb weight of the Leaf is 3,354 pounds. Compare that to a similarily sized Nissan, the Sentra, which has a curb weight of 2,875 pounds, it is heavier by 500 pounds, most of which is due to the electric drive system. However, compare it to Nissan's flagship sedan, the Altima, and suddenly the weight doesn't seem so bad.

The one area where electric cars get crucified the most, even over their milage, is how long it takes to charge the batteries to full. Critics claim that the sheer amount of time it takes to return the batteries to a full charge state is ludicriously long, that they're just not practical. If you're charging your electric vehicle from a 110 volt circuit, then you'd have a point, charge times sail well beyond the 12 hour mark, some are even past the 24 hour mark. However, it must be asked, would you buy a Ferrari 485 Italia, and then run it on Regular Unleaded? It certainly would be cheaper. But, I wouldn't, I'd be filling it up with Premium to keep it running better, and get the maxiumum performance out of that V-12 engine. It's similar with charging the battery. A 110 volt circuit is to Regular Unleaded, as a 220 volt circuit is to Premium. Yeah, putting in a 220 volt circuit (let's face it, very few Americans have more than one 220 volt circuit in their home) can be costly, but if you're going to invest in electric, then you need to be willing to make the investment in the proper infrastructure to power your vehicle as well.

The fact of the matter is, the practicality of electric vehicles depends purely on the person. When compared to the average, they do start to make a lot of sense. Given the average commute distance of 16 miles one way, cars like the Nissan Leaf, the BMW Mini E, and even the Tesla Model S start to become rather enticing. The Nissan's ideal average range of 100 miles, or the Mini E's 109 miles (for some reason they couldn't get it to go the last mile and make it an even 110...), are plenty for your average American to go to work, get back home, and grab the kids and dinner along the way. Even some longer, inter-city commutes are possible, provided you live within 95 miles of your desk, and that you have a charge point with a 220 volt circuit available where you park your car while you're at work.

Having the crucial 220 volt circuit available both at work and at home is key. It drastically reduces charge time, and is actually reccomended by the manufacturers themselves. Looking up charge figures, there are multiple times, two 220 volt charge times with different amperages, and one 110 volt charge time. Take the Mini's for example. Official figures suggest that the Mini E can be charged in as little as 3 hours on a 220 volt circuit. Charge it on a 110 volt circuit, however, and the charge time skyrockets to 26.5 hours.

Making the decision to buy an electric vehicle is not an easy one. However, when all you look at is practicality, it starts to make sense, when you live within the car's range of your work. So long as we can live without making long journeys, or are able to afford an alternate method of making the journey, the electric car is indeed a viable replacement to gasoline. It's when long trips are required that the cars start to fall apart. The bottom line is, electric cars are wonderful for daily commuters, to and from work.