Photo Credit: recyclethis.co.ukThe search for opportunities for recycling stretches beyond individual desires to be able to recycle more, as Jennifer discussed earlier this week in our Q & A feature.
While Jennifer discussed some ways of increasing the amount of recycling that individual households participate in, there are websites that are engaging with the ideas of finding new uses for materials that will otherwise end up as waste adding to the volume in our landfills.
Sources of material with a potential to be recycled are posted and discussed at Superuse. "Superuse is an online community of designers, architects and everybody else who is interested in inventive ways of recycling."
Some of the entries are simply documenting materials that are in need of recycling, such as tires, container ship cargo bags (huge nylon bags with a capacity of more than a ton that are used to load materials on board cargo ships rather than using the ubiquitous shipping container), and discarded wind turbine blades (which are unusable for their primary purpose due to cracks).
Sometimes, recycling ideas are documented, as with the "Trashforma 04" project which took 166 stainless steel sinks and created a cubic volume 3.5 meters (11.5 feet) on a side for a beachside installation. This installation is as much about art as it is about a practical form of shelter, but it engages with the idea of transforamtive use.
Superuse encourages designers who are looking for creative applications where existing materials, that would otherwise add to the waste stream, become the raw materials for other products that extend their usefulness.
At a more consumer level (but no less interesting), How Can I Recycle This? addresses questions about recycling consumer materials. Rather than dealing with industrial scale materials, the questions here tend to be more about ubiquitous household items and consumer goods. It's based in the UK, so some materials/uses may be a bit unfamiliar. The format is a very ordinary blog, with single issue entries addressing questions about how to recycle (or more often, to re-use) various unusual materials. Suggestions are found in the coments following each post.
The headline image for this article comes from a post with a question about reusing or recycling inflatable toys that have gone flat or gotten torn and are no longer workable toys. As a parent of two boys, I have already had a couple of inflatable pool toys that we have thrown away after they were punctured or torn. I'll watch this to see if someone comes up with a good suggestion on this one.
A more typical question asked "How can I reuse or recycle…an old wire waste paper bin?" and elicited suggestions including using it to collect recylable bottles, using it as a planter, using it as a sieve for rinsing root vegetables, as well as cleaning and repainting it.
Comments about these seem to come mostly from other users, rather than from designers, but the suggestions are no less creative or interesting.
Both sites are full of examples of the approaches people are taking to find more opportunities to re-use and recycle materials. Even packaging and"disposable" products can find new uses with some creativity. And these sites have plenty of creative solutions to offer and other opportunities awaiting discovery.
netCorps is accepting applications from Southeastern U.S. environmental organizations wishing to build their technology capacity.
According to netCorps’ Executive Director, Matthew Latterell, this project, supported by the Mott Foundation’s Conservation of Freshwater Ecosystems in North America program area, will provide selected organizations with comprehensive technology plans, assistance and funds to implement key technology priorities. Priority items funded in the past include websites, database, computers, servers and more.
Twenty organizations from across the Southeast have participated in this project since 2005. netCorp will be selecting up to ten more participating groups this time around.
“netCorps helps groups find funding and in-kind support, implement technology solutions appropriate to their mission, programs and organizational resources, and help groups with budgeting, training, support, consultant selection and all the other aspects of sustaining their technology investment.”
To obtain the application materials, send an email to techproject@netcorps.org and you will receive an automated reply with links to the application materials. Applications must be emailed or postmarked by June 8th, 2007 to be considered.
Yes, I am looking forward to the live-action Transformers movie. I too was a child of the ’80s, watched all the shows and had all the toys. My brother and I must have watched the cartoon movie a hundred times at home. Am I worried about the new movie? Will Michael Bay mess with a good thing? Maybe, but I am definitely going to see it on opening day anyway. Perhaps even the midnight showing, depending on who I can get to go with me. Perhaps you have followed the coverage of the Transformers movie on Autoblog. Have you secretly been yearning to do the same on AutoblogGreen? Good news then! We love to talk about scooters around here, and Vespa apparently has some tie-in with the movie. According to this page on Vespa’s site, you can get a free ticket to see the movie if you test ride a Vespa. Well worth looking into, if you ask me.
On May 15, 2007 General Motors conducted what is believed to be the longest continuous drive ever with hydrogen fuel cell vehicles on public roads. We started the day off at GM’s fuel cell research and development facility in Honeoye Falls New York with much of the staff of the facility on hand to send off the fleet of two Chevy Sequels and assorted support vehicles. Six members of the media were invited to participate in what was planned as a 300 mile drive starting at the facility near Rochester NY and finishing up at Lyndhurst Castle in Tarrytown.
The Sequel is a fuel concept that GM unveiled in mid-2006. It’s a crossover utility built on top of a skateboard type chassis that includes the fuel storage tanks, batteries, fuel cell stack, wheel motors and assorted control electronics. The original skateboard chassis concept in the form of the Autonomy concept several years ago was developed by a team led by Christopher Borroni-Bird who is the Director of Advanced Technology Vehicle Concepts for General Motors. Since the vehicles where first shown last year the control system has remained under continuous development by engineers trying to optimize the powertrain control strategy to maximize the range.
Continue reading about our Sequel adventure after the jump.
The team set out from the research center shortly after 7:00am on a predefined route with a mix of driving conditions through upstate New York including about 55 miles of freeway driving. The route carried us past the Finger Lakes, through the Catskills including many small towns and included lots of hill climbing. The plan called for each of the six journalists to spend about 100 miles behind the wheel of one of the two vehicles to get a feel for how they work in real world conditions.
Both Sequels were filled with hydrogen that had been generated not far from Rochester in Niagara Falls using hydro-electric power from the falls so no fossil fuels were used to power them that day. Things mostly went according to plan although we did have a few glitches along the way. Each of the Sequels carried one journalist, one engineer and either GM Vice President Larry Burns or Sequel Chief Engineer Mohsen Shabana. The engineer in the back seat was equipped with a laptop to monitor all the vehicle’s vital signs which turned out to be good thing.
In order to ensure the safety of the fleet and the participants GM set some strict operating parameters. If anything got out of range the whole convoy would pull over immediately so the engineers could diagnose the problem. If they couldn’t sort it out within five minutes, the other half of the team would go on and the stranded vehicle would either catch up or get loaded on trailer that tracked our route.
During the course of the 300-mile drive we had to pull over unexpectedly three times. In each case the vehicles ultimately got back underway and in each case the reason for stopping was apparent high battery temperatures. The issue on the vehicle that stopped twice turned out to be a faulty sensor which was replaced but the battery temperature in the other Sequel actually did get a bit too high.
The Sequel engineering team
Aside from the that the vehicles performed flawlessly and actually got better than expected fuel economy. The Sequel, like the other fuel cell vehicles I’ve driven, behaved very normally which is particularly impressive given the drive-by-wire nature of the Sequel. The Sequel has four wheel steering with a rack in the front that has an actuator and two individual actuators on the rear wheels. The brakes have electrically actuated friction brakes with regenerative braking blended in and throughout the drive never exhibited any out the ordinary behavior.
The Sequel has the fourth-generation GM fuel cell technology which is the same type used in the upcoming fuel cell Equinox that will be part of the Project Driveway program this fall. At the recent Shanghai Motor Show GM unveiled a version of the Volt concept with the new fifth generation stack which doubles the power density of the stack in the Sequel. Even with the now-superseded fuel cell stack technology. the challenge was to cover a distance of at least 300 miles.
As it turned out both vehicles ran the full distance arriving at Lyndhurst Castle in Tarrytown New York eight and a half hours after leaving Honeoye Falls having covered a little over 302 miles. Each Sequel still had at least 1kg of hydrogen left in the tank which would have carried the vehicles over forty more miles. Considering the driving conditions with traffic jams, construction zones and air conditioning running almost the whole way on a day that ended at eighty degrees this is quite an achievement.
No one else is known to have gone this far under these conditions on a single tankful of hydrogen before. The only really technical issues that we encountered were elevated temperatures in the lithium ion batteries. The batteries used in the Sequels are air cooled but talking to Larry Burns when we were approaching the end of the trek, he indicated that it’s looking like liquid cooling is going to be required in order to achieve the robust thermal management that will be required for production applications.
At the finish line a clearly delighted Larry Burns spoke to the crowd of local schoolchildren and other onlookers who had awaited our arrival and told them this is just the beginning of the transformation of the automobile. He clearly believes in this technology because it will free us from dependency on oil. No matter what you think of hydrogen as an energy carrier, the fact is that a lot engineers and technicians have worked very hard for many years and achieved a lot. The Sequel is one of the most technologically advanced vehicles in the world and it works. Not all of the technology contained within these concepts will appear at the same time, but over time it will probably filter into the cars we all drive.
If lawmakers on Capitol Hill want to cut carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions that cause global warming, they will have to face another giant to make real progress: A government program, hailing from the Depression era, that sends billions of dollars of low-interest loans to rural areas to build coal plants. The Rural Electrification Administration was created in 1935 by President Franklin Roosevelt to bring electricity to U.S. farms. The mission has been accomplished, but the money keeps coming.
Rural electric cooperatives ("co-ops") are nonprofit organizations that distribute electricity and are owned by their customers. There are more than 800 of them across the U.S., and more than 50 of them own a power plant. The co-ops plan to spend $35 billion to build old-fashioned coal plants over the next 10 years. A sobering reality check: That’s enough to offset all state and federal efforts to cut CO2 emissions over that time.
The Office of Management and Budget wants to end the loans for new power plants and limit the ones for transmission projects in the most remote areas. But the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association is a powerful lobby, and sent 3,000 members to Capitol Hill last week to keep the lending program rolling, arguing that the new coal plants are needed to keep energy cheap and reliable.
Glenn English, chief executive of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, pointed out that taxable utilities get tax breaks to encourage renewable energy projects and efficiency measures, but rural co-ops can’t. He wants Congress to give the nonprofit co-ops incentives too, like no-interest loans.
Besides political influence, co-ops often carry a lot of clout in their communities because they are more involved than just distributing electricity. English explained that one co-op reopened a gas station that went out of business. Another bought and kept open the local Dairy Queen.
Others argue that many of the co-ops shouldn’t qualify as rural anymore because of their expansion into densely populated zones, like Dallas-Fort Worth area and Atlanta. Additionally, the low-interest money they receive removes any incentive to promote energy efficiency or go after renewable resources. In fact, rural co-ops get on average 80 percent of their electricity from coal, compared to 50 percent with the rest of the country. Their energy demand is also growing at twice the national rate.
This is going to be a tough political issue for Congress to tackle. Both sides may have valid points, but the system must be restructured to be a more efficient process that emphasizes clean, renewable, local energy. If not, than all the state and federal goals, programs, and initiatives that aim to cut climate change emissions will be simply blown away.
Lindsay Lohan, Leonardo DiCaprio, Hugh Grant, Paris Hilton, Brad Pitt & Angelina Jolie, Gwyneth Paltrow, Naomi Watts & Liev Schreiber, Owen Wilson and Jim Belushi.
Aside from being the potential cast list of the season’s lamest romantic comedy, the celebs listed above all are featured in a photo gallery over at E! Online showing them all on scooters (Paris as a passenger, being chauffeured on a two-wheeler) in various places; it wasn’t a celebrity scooter rally or anything. I’ll admit this isn’t really green car news, but if anyone asks what kind of people ride Vespas, now we know it’s more than Italian hipsters.
The New York Times lead editorial on Saturday, May 5, was very clear. The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has issued three reports this year. The first, in February, blamed human activity for rising concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The second report, issued in April, warned of weather and ecological disasters unless emissions were brought under control. Sounds pretty dire, doesn’t it? Well, the third report has been released and it “asserts that significant progress toward stabilizing and reducing can be achieved at relatively low cost using known technologies.”
As Bob De Niro said in the classic film, “Taxi”, “Are you talkin’ to me?” I think they are. The reach of the web is very long and fast, and I think ABG readers tend to be well informed, influential members of their respective communities. It is a question of numbers. The real world is still a massive place with billions of people, many of whom (about 5 billion) don’t contribute very much to global warming at all. They don’t have electric power, or clean water, or petroleum powered vehicles. It is those of us who do who have take to heart the message of this third IPCC report. That seems to me what ABG is all about anyway.
During the recent SAE World Congress in Detroit Dr. Gary Smyth participated in a panel on new generation drivetrains beyond 2015. Dr. Smyth had some interesting things to say about the internal combustion engines and where they are going so AutoblogGreen arranged to talk to him afterwards. Dr. Smyth is the Director of Global Powertrain Research and Development at General Motors. This is the transcript to the interview in the latest AutoblogGreen podcast.
AutoblogGreen: I’m talking today with Gary Smith who is the Director of power-train systems research at General Motors. I saw Gary speak a couple of weeks ago on a panel at the SAE World Congress on next generation power trains and he said some interesting things so I wanted to follow up a little with some of those things with Gary. Gary, first of all, can you tell me a little about what your role is at General Motors.
Gary Smyth: Yes I’m actually responsible for all of the power-train research and development that’s done globally within the corporation. We have the power-train organization and then we have research and development so all of the research is my responsibility.
ABG: One of the interesting things that popped up during your portion of the discussion on that panel is you mentioned two-stroke engines which back in the early to mid-1990s for a time seemed to be the next big thing. At the time I was very much into two-strokes and was following along with that whole technology, with what Orbital Engines was doing and all the various companies that were at least looking into two strokes. Can you talk a little bit about what happened with two-strokes and why they seemed to go away?
Gary’s comments on two stroke engines, diesels, HCCI and more can be found after the jump
GS: Well I think Sam, really the advantage to the two-stroke was first of all the size of it. Certainly when you look at the power output from the two-stroke from a unit/mass perspective, it certainly is better than the four-stroke. But really the real benefit of the two-stroke was the fuel efficiency that you could get from it. That fuel efficiency came from the fact that you don’t throttle the two-stroke engine which you do of course on conventional four-stroke engines. Since then we’ve done a lot of development in reducing that parasitic loss on the four-stroke. In fact most of the technology we’re developing, active fuel management, direct injection, etc., is all going after the pumping loss, on reducing that pumping loss. So really in essence the four-stroke engine has come up to parity with the two-stroke on the fuel economy potential. And that was one of the biggest drivers for the two-strokes, so that’s why you really didn’t see it happening in production.
ABG: So I guess some of the technology that was being looked at that time on the two-strokes, with the direct injection and some of the other things has any of that helped with the development of some of the current four-stroke engines and is that being fed into current engine development?
GS: Absolutely. In fact I started at General Motors working on the two-strokes. In fact all of my research at University was on two-strokes. So I’m a strong supporter of them. I was also one of a small team who decided that it didn’t make sense. But what we did do is we took the technology, we took the torque based control structure that we were using on two-strokes, we took the direct injection systems and we’ve applied those onto four-stroke engines and if you look today, in fact GM right now, I think by next year will have about 200,000 direct-injection engines on the market and we intend to do a lot more of that. So if you even look at advanced technology like HCCI a lot of that was based off of some of the enabling technologies you saw in two-strokes. And and that was primarily the direct-injection fueling system.
ABG: Since you mentioned HCCI, why don’t we talk about that a little bit. I think probably most people that aren’t following it directly may have never even heard of it since I don’t think there is anything like that in production right now. Can you explain a little bit of what HCCI is and the benefits of it?
GS: Well, first of all it’s a homogeneous charge compression ignition. So what it really is what I would call the next generation combustion process. So it’s not a technology, it’s really the process, it’s the combustion process that we’re developing and it really is, think of it as clean, efficient combustion. Like the two-stroke, the two-stroke by the way ran very lean and by the way we could run HCCI on the old two-strokes, we’re not doing the same with the four-stroke where we are running the engine extremely lean and we’re not using a spark plug, it’s the whole combustion process is what we call kinetically controlled. It depends on the air fuel mixture in the cylinder. So, we’re now controlling the combustion without a spark plug. We’re running extremely lean and we need a number of enabling technologies to help us control the combustion. One is direct injection. The other is very wide-authority cam phasing. The other is very precise control. Another one is significant residuals or exhaust recirculation gases that we would take into the cylinder. So, much more complex from an engine perspective but allows us to really get the upper bound fuel economy potential of the four-stroke engine and do that with very low emissions.
ABG: And, what kind of fuel are you running in the HCCI engines, is that running with gasoline or with diesel fuel?
GS: Primarily gasoline but we’re also looking at HCCI-type combustion on diesel engines as well. We call it PCCI but again all of these would come under what I would call low-temperature combustion. And what it’s really doing is my running extremely lean you’re driving down the temperature and if we drive down the temperature then we drive down the NOx generation. And that’s the key whether it’s diesel or gasoline. So you’ll see this type of low temperature combustion on both diesel and gasoline but we’re putting tremendous effort right now on the gasoline engines and it’s our view that you know if you have to develop a special fuel for these technologies then you will not see them on wide-spread applications. So clearly we need to be able to use the fuels that are available today around the world so that again we can get this technology developed or these processes developed and get it out in volume. And get it out across the globe.
ABG: So you’re using regular pump gasoline like we see today in the 87 to 90 octane range in the HCCI engines?
GS: Absolutely. And in fact you know the lower octane is actually better for the HCCI process.
ABG: Someone else during one of the sessions, it may have been the same session I saw you in, spoke on running HCCI engines on as low as 80 octane gasoline. Traditionally you wouldn’t typically run a fuel like gasoline in a compression-ignition engine. Is it the lean combustion that allows you to get away with doing something like that on an engine like that?
GS: Well, it’s the lean combustion, it’s also very temperature controlled. So that is why we look at different strategies with our variable value train systems, we look at re-compression, we look at re-breathing, we have very complex injection strategies where we actually reformulate the fuel in the cylinder so we’re doing a lot with these enabling technologies to allow us to develop the right type of mixture that is going to combust. And that is very dependent again on temperature, it’s very dependent on the actual mixture that you have within the cylinder. So again, a number of key technologies are allowing us to do that. Cam phasing is one, and I would say very wide authority cam phasing, fast cam phasing, direct injection is another.
ABG: What kind of timeline are we looking at before we might see HCCI engines on the road in production?
GS: I think it’s still still hard to say. And as you know I’ll not give any precise projections on production timings. What I would say is that I actually believe that GM is probably one of the leaders here, there’s a number of companies that are pushing very aggressively within HCCI. you know we’re at a point where we’re putting significant effort in both the research organization within the advanced engineering organization. This is truly a global program, by the way we’re working in Europe, we’re working in North America, but if you look today and if you were go round and ask automotive companies to let you drive HCCI vehicles I don’t think you’re going to see too many demonstrators out there today so we’re at a point where everyone is heavily into developing the process. The key breakthroughs by the way is in the control of HCCI. It’s very easy to make the engine run in this mode. But this is a light-load combustion mode. I have to go back to more traditional combustion with the heavier loads. And I have to be able to transition in and out of that and I’ve got to develop the control systems to do that. I would say to you that we have made significant progress there but as of today you will not see vehicles either in production or close to production, so while we’re working aggressively there’s still a lot of development that’s required.
ABG: Okay. Back to diesels. Traditionally, diesels have not been very big in the U.S. market. They’ve been a lot more popular in the European market because of the much higher cost of fuel over there. GM announced a new a diesel V-6 at the Geneva motor show a couple of months ago. What sorts of things is GM doing with clean diesel technology, and are we going to see any of these do you think in the U.S. market any time soon?
GS: Well, diesel is very important to us first of all because you know if you look at our portfolio, GM globally makes everything from a 1.25 liter and 1.3 liter right up to our 6.6 liter Duramax which of course is very successful here. The real key is will diesels make it in the North American market? And a lot of people look at it like, well why don’t we just use our diesels from Europe and bring them here, they seem to be very successful in Europe. The real challenge is meeting the emissions here in North America, because if you look at NOx emissions in North America and you look at our standard for Tier 2 of Bin 5 which is our ’07 standard, it is one-quarter the standard of Europe today. So it’s one fourth the standard. And so we have to meet that, actually usually with bigger vehicles or with bigger engines because we’ve bigger vehicles. So we have a major challenge which is how do we meet emissions here in North America that are the most stringent requirements in the world. Then also of course if you look at it from a standpoint of the cost of fuel, even though it has increased here, it is still relatively cheap versus what you will pay in Europe for fuel. So, we have announced, and we did announce that post-2009 we will be introducing a new V-8 engine here in North America. We have stated that we know how to meet and we will meet the emission requirements of all 50 states, so we’ll meet Tier 2 Bin 5 emission requirements. And so we have said that we will be coming into the light-duty market. The real challenge is, and I think diesel will be important to us going forward, the real challenge is is how much penetration will you see with the diesel engines and the challenge is as we meet these emission requirements we’re adding even more cost to a very costly engine. You have to remember that even in Europe today a diesel engine probably costs about twice the cost of a gasoline engine and then we’re adding even more cost as we go with more sophisticated after-treatment systems. So while some people may say the challenge is emissions, the real challenge is is what is the cost of this propulsion system when you meet all of the requirements?
ABG: The V-8 that you mentioned is that going to be a successor to the Duramax for the truck applications or is that intended as a passenger car-type engine?
GS: Well I think, I think what we have stated there is obviously that engine will come into the light-duty market so it’s clearly as a V-8 that’s going to come into the larger vehicles, the trucks, the SUVs within the light-duty market, Today of course the Duramax is over 8,500 pounds. It’s in the heavy-duty market. So clearly it’s not a replacement, it’s in addition to the Duramax.
ABG: The last area that I wanted to ask you about was camless engines. There’s been a lot of talk from Seimens VDO in recent months about pushing their camless engine technology and Lotus Engineering first showed something more than a decade ago. Is this an area that General Motors is looking at as a potential technology to use and do you think it’s something that can realistically be useful and go into production any time in the foreseeable future?
GS: Well I think first of all the one thing that we’ve got to do and the one thing that I talked about when we were at SAE was that we really have to go after upper bound fuel efficiency in our portfolio. We are laser-focused on that right now on making that happen. So now you start looking at what are the technologies that will allow you to get to that upper-bound efficiency. And part of that is adding complexity to the valve-train system and we are doing a lot of work looking at very complex valve train systems. We have a lot of course cam phasing was the first introduction of variable valve timing. Now you are seeing variable valve actuation, etc. And you’re seeing everything from, again, cam phasing to two-step, to other mechanical systems that are fully flexible to electro-hydraulic systems to electromagnetic systems like you’ve seen with with Seimens. All of these are adding significant complexity and significant cost and what you need to understand is how much flexibility do we need. We certainly are doing significant development with fully flexible systems and in fact we have a program with the DOE and the Government where we are looking at electro-hydraulic valve train and systems. However what we need to understand is what will the requirements be of the valve train and system and how do we do that with the most cost-effective and durable solution and while we’re investigating fully flexible systems we actually feel that we can probably meet all of the requirements that we’re looking for with less than fully flexible systems such as two-step, with cam phasing, etc. So really the jury is still out on whether you need fully flexible systems but we do need a lot more authority with regard to valve timing and actuation.
ABG: Right.,and obviously a camless system, although it give you a great deal of flexibility there’s also clearly some power requirements just in order to actuate all those valves at those kinds of speeds.
GS: Exactly. And as the engine speed goes up and the load goes up that power goes up as well.
ABG: You start to lose a lot of the benefit that you would potentially get from the flexibility.
GS: Absolutely. And really our goal is how do we get that fuel economy potential and how do we get it out there in the millions that the customer therefore can afford to purchase.
ABG: Is there anything else that you wanted to add to this?
GS: No, I think in general you know the one thing that I would say and that we talked about at SAE is I think this is the focus that we’re on right now, on displacement of petroleum. And the one thing that I say to people is we need to be looking at very bold moves to make that happen. Because today, we’re probably consuming 130 to 140 billion gallons of fuel in our vehicle fleet today, and we’re looking at that increasing significantly in the future, and that’s not acceptable. We have to look at how do we create more diversity, with regard to the fuel and how do we improve the efficiency of the vehicles that are using conventional fuel. So this is not just about developing technology, it’s about displacing fuel and from my perspective it’s therefore developing the technology fast but getting it out in volume products so that again you can actually displace fuel as opposed to niche applications. So clearly the challenge we have and what we’re driving to right now is going about displacing fuel and efficiency of gasoline is extremely important to that, we need the right technologies and we need to get it out across the whole portfolio in volume. Diesels again can play a significant role because of their efficiency and then we also talked about what else do we need to do, alternate fuels, partial electrification of the vehicle with hybridization, etc. So there’s a lot happening and all of it is focused around energy diversity, displacement of petroleum and ultimately that is driving us absolutely in the right direction from a CO2 perspective as well.
ABG: Well thank you very much, Gary, I appreciate you taking the time to talk to me today.
For a few weeks now, we’ve been saying we expect Ford to bring the Fiesta to the U.S. when the company’s new global B-car arrives sometime in late 2009. But hold the phones. Just-Auto (subs req’d) says today that the Fiesta name may be dropped in favor of one of the following four: Genesis, Isis, Cuga or Phoenix. J-A says Ford is checking to see what other companies have claims on these names, and will likely use one of them for the vehicle.
Does it really matter what name this car has? I think that because the car will be the most global of any in Ford’s history, and the Fiesta name is popular around the globe, a bit of unity wouldn’t be a bad thing. Unfortunately, in the U.S., where Ford Fiesta sounds a bit like Ford Festiva. I guess if 70-85 percent of the parts are the same around the world, a different name badge is pretty easy to do.
Linking Future Scenarios Across Scales
Bacteria Found in Tar Pits Could Have Positive Impact
New Fungus Could Provide Alternative Fuel
Help Me Redesign the Web
Drive to Cut Emissions Creates Jobs Engine
Photo Credit: recyclethis.co.ukThe search for opportunities for recycling stretches beyond individual desires to be able to recycle more, as Jennifer discussed earlier this week in our Q & A feature. 
Some of the entries are simply documenting materials that are in need of recycling, such as tires, container ship cargo bags (huge nylon bags with a capacity of more than a ton that are used to load materials on board cargo ships rather than using the ubiquitous shipping container), and discarded wind turbine blades (which are unusable for their primary purpose due to cracks).
At a more consumer level (but no less interesting), How Can I Recycle This? addresses questions about recycling consumer materials. Rather than dealing with industrial scale materials, the questions here tend to be more about ubiquitous household items and consumer goods. It's based in the UK, so some materials/uses may be a bit unfamiliar. The format is a very ordinary blog, with single issue entries addressing questions about how to recycle (or more often, to re-use) various unusual materials. Suggestions are found in the coments following each post.
If lawmakers on Capitol Hill want to cut carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions that cause global warming, they will have to face another giant to make real progress: A government program, hailing from the Depression era, that sends billions of dollars of low-interest loans to rural areas to build coal plants. The Rural Electrification Administration was created in 1935 by President Franklin Roosevelt to bring electricity to U.S. farms. The mission has been accomplished, but the money keeps coming.
During the recent SAE World Congress in Detroit Dr. Gary Smyth participated in a panel on new generation drivetrains beyond 2015. Dr. Smyth had some interesting things to say about the internal combustion engines and where they are going so AutoblogGreen arranged to talk to him afterwards. Dr. Smyth is the Director of Global Powertrain Research and Development at General Motors. This is the transcript to the interview in the latest 