Finally an electric car that isn't lame

The Corvette GXE will probably look something like this, only bigger. Kid not included.

Despite all the benefits of electric cars, there is still a pretty sizable stigma against them, especially from car aficionados who like their cars powerful. Electric cars are historically weak, slow, ugly, and all around kind of dorky. Electric cars have names like the Leaf or Volt, which certainly isn't helping their case with car people. Tesla has done a good deal to dissuade some of those preconceptions, but they didn't manage to come up with a name that isn't incredibly lame. Genovation Cars is trying to change this by developing an all-electric Corvette prototype. Dubbed the GXE, the prototype is based on the 2006 Chevy Corvette z06, but instead of its 7.0-liter V8 engine it will have an array of inverters, batteries, and electric motors with the goal of generating 700 horsepower for the car. That promises to deliver a 0-60 mph time of about 3 seconds with the car having a top speed of over 200 miles per hour. These specs would put even the Tesla Model S P85D to shame. The goal is for the Corvette GXE to able to travel for 150 miles on a single charge. The prototype will be debuted at the Electric Vehicle Technology Expo this September in Michigan.

This car would certainly give drivers one less excuse to not drive an electric car. You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who thinks a Corvette is lame, so you could finally drive electric in style once this car hits the market. It's about time companies started making stuff that is not only environmentally friendly, but also cool. You no longer have to be a smelly, Birkenstock-wearing, tree-hugger in order to help the environment. So, why not?

For more details, including the official press release: http://www.autoblog.com/2015/07/14/genovation-cars-electric-corvette-prototype-official/#slide-141683

If you haven't done so already, please take our climate change survey: http://goo.gl/fw6oby

Follow @ecopol_project

Renewable energy is great; still cost prohibitive on large scales

 

One big remaining issue with green technology is that is still very expensive. The chances of green energy overtaking the use of fossil fuels as a primary source of energy throughout the world is not currently not great. It's still simply too expensive and cost prohibitive. Bill Gates has recently announced that he will invest $2 billion in new green technology in the next five years with the intent to "bend the curve" on climate change. He understands that the current renewable energy options come at a "beyond astronomical cost". Bill Gates tends to get things done, so hopefully his investments can help lead to the kinds of "energy miracles" he's called for in the past


While we are still a ways off on using forms renewable energy on a grand scale, everyone can still do what they can to cut down their use of energy that burns fossil fuels in the mean time.

Don't forget to take this term's survey, if you haven't already: https://t.co/pVfu2NoNxu

Some simple ways to help slow down climate change

The Washington Department of Ecology has a helpful list of simple, little things everyone can do to reduce personal use of fossil fuels and to help slow climate change. Most of it is  common sense and practical (turning off unused appliances, changing lights,  driving less), but some of it may be a bit too idealized (low-flow shower heads are nice in theory, but a little iffy in execution).

There are downsides to low-flow shower heads...

What YOU Can Do - Washington Department of Ecology

Stay tuned for information regarding the launch of this term's website.

And don't forget to follow us on twitter:

Follow @ecopol_project

Tax on Polluters Isn't Changing Outlook on Coal

Should polluters pay for the carbon emissions that they put into the air? The answer seems obvious, but big industries continue to fight against government regulations, insisting that the costs to them will be passed on to consumers. Recently Australia joined government agencies like the European Union, certain U.S. states and New Zealand in an effort to tax big polluters. The response from the executive director of the Australian Coal Association was to give figures on the taxes implications of the economic side effects. Ralph Hillman outlined to reporters that the tax is expected to result in the closure of 18 minutes in Queensland and New South Wales states, cost 4,700 jobs and lead to $22 billion in lost revenue. Indeed, these proposals make even the consumers wary of rising costs but the government is responding with a $1.3 billion assistance package to keep jobs within the industry secure. Further the government has promised tax cuts and payments to most Australians, saying that two-thirds of all households will receive enough assistance to cover the entire financial impact of the tax.

 What these taxes are on industry are, aside from the economics, is the governmental push toward cleaner energy. Rather than developing new innovations, opponents to any governmental tax appeal to the consumer by touting that they are fighting for them. But taking into account the environmental impacts of coal, are they really? Australia is one of the worst greenhouse gas polluters in the world due to their extensive reliance on coal for power. In addition to coal providing 85 percent of their electricity production, they export nearly 75 percent of their coal mined. The new Australian tax has not shied companies away from what may be the largest takeover bid in Australian history for a coal company. U.S. coal company Peabody Energy Corp and steelmaker ArcelorMIttal’s joint bid for Queensland State’s Macarthur Coal Ltd. is an indication that lucrative coal production in Australia is, unfortunately, not waning.


Peter Browning

EPA Under Attack by King Coal

As we strive to move toward sustainability and limit green house gas we would like to think the nation is behind the movement. 

In 1972 the Clean Water Act was a direct response to industries lack of regulation and rampant pollution into the nation’s waterways. At the time two-thirds of the country’s lakes, rivers and coastal waters had become unsafe for fishing or swimming. Fast forward to today where a bipartisan effort is moving through the U.S. House of Representatives to restrict the power of EPA rules covering mountaintop mining, waterways and wetlands. It should surprise no one that Rep. Nick Rahall (D-West Virginia) is pushing this bill along with 35 other co-sponsors. West Virginia has long been touted as an area where mining is king. The bill will give power back to the state by allowing them to create their own water quality standards and undermine a land mark bill in the Clean Water Act. The legislation is geared toward coal mining, where EPA permits the process of surface mining through the CWA. Even if the bill passes through the House, it is not expected to make it through the Senate. The issue of loose regulation does raise concerns as allegations are surfacing that the Massey Energy Co. and the Mine Safety and Health Administration did not report safety issues that led to the explosion and killing of 29 coal miners in West Virginia last year. 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/29/idUS101062184020110629

Keep it Simple Stupid

As we look for alternative fuels to power our world there seems to be many alternatives, some more promising then others. The use of Aluminum may prove to be the best and simplest way we have found yet. The reaction using Aluminum, Gallium, and water may prove to be the cleanest fuel source we currently know of... when the reaction is over the only thing left is water! This amazing and promising discovery is a few years from being completely realized for powering cars and trucks, but as we ween ourselves off of fossil fuels there is hope in Hydrogen fuel cells. The greatest thing about news like this is there is hope! We have not explored all of our options and as our future may seem grim at times, ideas and discoveries such as this one helps us all look at the glass half full!

Read more about the article here
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/42012/story.htm

EarthTrends: Fossil Fuel Consumption

Energy is required for growth and development. We need energy to fulfill our most basic needs- from producing food to generating heat, energy is required on a daily basis. However, fossil fuels make up 80 percent of the world’s energy consumption, and this is problematic at best. Fossil fuels are unsustainable. They are “formed from the decay of plants and animals over millions of years, [and] our planet has a finite number of deposits.” (EarthTrends) In October of 2006, EarthTrends estimated that at the current consumption rates, about 155 years of coal, 65 years f natural gas, and 40 years of oil were left.

We also have to worry about the effects these fossil fuels are having on our environment. The “emission of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse’ gases from the combustion of these fuels is rapidly warming the planet, altering our climate system, and jeopardizing the well-being of both people and ecosystems. Fossil fuel combustion currently accounts for 61 percent of greenhouse gas emissions.” (EarthTrends)

Despite these disturbing facts, EarthTrends believes that we can reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Most importantly, we need to “develop fossil fuel energy alternatives, increase energy efficiency, and reduce energy consumption.” (EarthTrends) Various fossil fuel alternatives, such as solar power, hydropower, and biofuels are currently capable of providing sustainable energy. Also, EarthTrends emphasizes the importance of individual actions. Simple things, such as replacing incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescent lamps or using public transport, help to use much less energy. Even turning off lights and electronics in your homes and offices reduces the amount of energy you consume.

EarthTrends stresses the importance of reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. On a larger scale, it asks countries to consider using alternative forms of energy and to increase energy efficiency by using technology and market mechanisms. It also offers us hope, and reminds each of us that there are simple things we can do to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.

All information provided by EarthTrends. To view the article, visit: http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/100

Post by Alexandra West

Works Cited: EarthTrends. October 2006 Monthly Update: Fossil Fuel Consumption and its Implications. The World Resources Institute, 3 Nov. 2006. Web. 12 Oct. 2009.