Brett,

Here's a link to their survey results, including the questions asked:

http://www.auto.xprize.org/downloads/axp_polling_08012007.pdf

The results aren't completely broken down, but their analysis and the raw numbers provide a little more information to chew on.

Reply: Thanks Travis. Brett

They should invent a 100 MPG motorcycle first.

I ride my bicycle to work and get infinity miles per gallon. I am not so delusional though as to think that my choice affects the climate. It keeps me in shape, saves money, avoids sending money to the Middle East, reduces pollutants - and I arrive at work in a better mood.

Interesting, from the survey, the AGW position is assumed without being questioned. No questions on whether GW is good or bad (historically, climate optimums are great times, it is the cooling afterwards that produces the problems the IPCC claims) and whether or not humans are a cause or can even do anything about it. OTOH, a viable 100mph car would have a definite market, but that means it would have to be economically viable also.

Personally, that would be ~6 gallons/2 weeks and at ~$3/gallon, that would be say $20 every 2 weeks, which would then make it $520/year saved. Assuming the usual 5 years per car (IMO, any vehicle that wins this will be extra flimsy.), that would mean it would be worth ~$2500 more than a new car. OTOH, we aren't stupid enough to buy a new car, so it would actually have to be much cheaper than a new car to pay for itself. Also, it won't save on any of the other than commuting driving since this thing will also have little to no cargo capacity or the ability to pull a loaded trailer.

Interesting that men and women tend to have differant views on the survey.

Tending to be most intested in saving gas is probably because Men tend to think about finances more than anything else.

Women, thinking about the environment display a greater concern about the welfare of everybody else.

No doubt these tend to be fundamental drivers in ones position on Global Warming as well.

Of, there is plenty of data proving that Global warming is occurring as well as the astute observations of many. All types of people from Farmers, Gardeners and Fishermen to Skiers, Eskimos and Construction workers have noticed the warming. The common theme is that it is people who spend a of time outdoors and in activities that depend on the weather.

From actual temperature measurement, the last 5, 10, 20 and 30 year periods are the warmest 5,10,20, and 30 year periods since records have been kept by the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_and_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

This sounds dramatic, but amounts to only about 1.4F on average which is hardly noticeable on any particular day and why some people do not personally notice it. However, the warming isn't uniform and has been found to be greater than average in the Arctic (The rest of the world has warmed less than average).

The temperature record is not the only indication of Global Warming. Seal Level has also been rising and there has been a significant declines in the amount of snow and ice in through out the world ON AVERAGE.

Sea Level had been fairly constant for 3000 years up until 1900. But has risen about 8 inches since then and is currently rising about an eighth of a inch per year. The IPCC has lots of infomation on Global Warming an sea level rise:

www.ipcc.ch

Wikipedia also has a concise entry on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

Sea level is rising due to both the warming of the oceans as well as melting of ice on land. Sea Ice is also declining and is of course another indication of Global Warming. Here is a link showing how much sea ice has decline. There will be more about this in the news as time goes on since the Arctic has not been ice free for well over a million year, but will be within the next 20 or so due to Global Warming.

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20070430_StroeveGRL.html

Hope this helps!

I think this is a hoot. More power to 'em. Why would anyone be against saving money at the gas pump, even if it does reduce CO2?

I thought this might be a good place to mention a couple of solutions I think are are interesting:

putting iron dust (rust) in the ocean. Seems like an easy one, but as with other big technofixes, there is worry about unintended consequences.
"California firm Planktos is investigating a controversial technique to scatter iron dust over the ocean, in order to stimulate the growth of plankton, which absorbs carbon dioxide - one of the main greenhouse gases."
ref buried in middle of this article. Note that in an adversarial climate change atmosphere making a profit may be the only possible way to arrive at solutions:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6283986.stm

Ocean wave and tide energy collection. Still in the baby stages; Scotland and Portugal may profit hugely.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4221062.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_4640000/newsid_4647300/4647384.stma brief video:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6170000/newsid_6173000/6173085.stm?bw=nb&mp=wm&nol_storyid=6173085&news=1

Car ramp. Couldn't find ref on this, but very cute.

Are 100MPG automobiles even physically possible?

Why not go all the way and invent personal teleportation devices, powered by clean nuclear energy, of course.

We've been over this ground before on this blog, in another thread a few months ago while Laura was still moderating.

Like Patrick said, they should invent a 100mpg motorcycle first. Just to get past 50 mpg they'll have to build something smaller than a Mini-Cooper which will cost twice as much and be no safer than a motorcycle (although it may keep the rain off you.)

Reply: Sorry guys, I just do not remember some of the earlier stories she posted, so this may happen on occasion. Brett.

GSAC,

You are promoting an attempt to pollute the entire ocean in order to fix a non-existent problem. Cyclical climate change is unavoidable and perhaps desirable, but the impact of trying to engineer the world's largest ecosystem will almost certainly be disastrous.

It this the sort of arrogant craziness which AGW is taking us towards?

I'm all for it provided that it sits up high, can run over all terrain and can carry more than me the wife and her Chihuahua.

Oh, and have a big radio.

I would love a 100 mpg car because of the price of gas which is about $2.59 where I live. Then again, what if we find an alternative fuel which could possibly be much much cheaper? I would rather buy a average price car and use a new cheap fuel than buy an extremely expensive car and continue to buy gasoline.

Either way, both cases would be great! Then again, neither would help with global warming. The only way to stop that would be to block out the sun, cause nuclear winter, cause volcanic eruptions, change earths tilt, reverse precession, move the planet to be one of Jupiters moons, or we could all open our freezers at once! Just kidding about that one.

Patrick Henry,

"Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" :)

I think I mentioned that there is a concern about unintended consequences. I don't think seeding the ocean with some rust to rebalance the plankton deficit is necessarily "polluting the entire ocean." I've been looking at lots of proposed solutions and thought this was a lot less dangerous than many and worth a second look, which it is getting.

Am switching to GSAC for the time being; agree GiveScienceaChance is cumbersome. I don't agree that once I start looking up sources and outing them to defend the position taken by non-members of the skeptic club that makes me less "scientific" than those using character assassination, flat assertions, generalizations, and flat denials based on partial or biased sources.

And, lest you think I am entirely inflexible I am now prepared to keep my eyes open for further information IPCC and to perhaps even read all of it based on the discussion below, while not agreeing that it is proven to be entirely wrong.

GSAC,

Every time humans have attempted to intentionally alter an ecosystem, there have been unintended consequences. In the 19th century, salt cedar was introduced to the west to prevent soil erosion. It destroyed most of the desert riparian habitat in Arizona and Utah and made the land they were trying to improve useless to this day.

Messing with something as large as the ocean ecosystem will no doubt come back to haunt us one way or another.

I don't think a 100 mpg would look like any car we see today. The combustion engine design is quite limited, don't motorcycle only get about 60 mpg? Can't get much more from the combustion engine so you would have to work on weight and aerodynamics and electric/hybrid, etc. So a 100mpg car would have to have a tiny engine that has a battery that lasts for the life of the car and would not be so expensive (like today), plus it would be a tiny, tiny, very, very light, aerodynamic car. Maybe a Segway with a top. This does not sound attractive to me. I am a woman but I must be in the minority because I want a car that goes fast and looks good and is comfortable and gets decent gas mileage, (maybe like the BMW 650i) but I don't worry so much about the environment (sorry, Andrew). I also don't think, based on the current political arena, if its many ill-informed politicians get their way, that the price per gallon of gas is going to stay around $3.00. The politicians seem to want to take away the profits from the oil companies and put huge taxes per gallon of gas. But the oil companies will just pass the taxes on so the consumer will bear the brunt of increased cost per gallon of gas. So if the gas goes up substantially,(maybe even to $15 a gallon) that 100 mpg car may not be so cost effective.
BUT on the other hand, in the Aug 6 Barrons, a columnist says that prices of crude will remain high through 2008, helped by a falling dollar and production shortfalls in Mexico and Venezuela. But eventually, oil will take a hard fall, maybe as early as 2009. He thinks when oil falls as hard as it will, it will be disastrous for ethanol and wind power (Washington's pet projects). Basically, he says even with substantial government tax subsidies, the 2 sources of "clean" energy can't compete with lower-priced petroleum. So he is cautioning car buyers to think twice before buying a hybrid. He predicts that the drop in crude oil per barrel could be fairly precipitous. So it may be awhile before a 100 mpg car becomes generally available, probably not in my lifetime.

A tax on all cars and/or gas, proceeds going to a domestic solid-state hydrogen researcher multilateral fund.

A tax on coal power generation going to wind and solar generation.

Human activity has already driven billions of tonnes of iron in small parcels to low lying regions; therefore intentionally spreading iron fileings onto rising seas will not be necessary.

The amazing thing is that one company is already selling carbon credits from its iron seeding project in Arctic water. The process works quite well producing a thick bloom in only a couple of days which survives for about 2 weeks until the plankton starves to death, dies and the dead zone caused during the process is all that is left.

The world can easily save billions of tonnes of CO2 just by making it unprofitable to log old growth forests. This would be possible and welcomed by leasing the rainforests of underdeveloped nations and trading parcels of endangered ecosystems as carbon credits, benefiting the third world populations and industrial nations without actually doing a thing.

Cars on the other hand will always be polluting, just the manufacture alone is enough make the process a deathly shade of grey, fuel just kills any chance that cars could become green. As developing countries achieve greater economic growth their populations will spend their newmoney on cars. Millions of cars will be sold in China this year and as cheap cars are to be made and sold in India next year by Tata for $4000 a piece, millions more cars will burn more fuel, making any savings made here hardly worth mentioning.

Phillip,

I have yet to see a new tax which goes anywhere other than additional government waste.

Look at the National labs budgets. Most of their money goes to administration, which is why a cash cow like AGW has become a sacred cow.

Since the days of Proxmire and the Golden Fleece, National labs are afraid to do anything which might become fodder for a politicians career - and they waste billions in administration costs in the effort to avoid criticism.

Mary,

The Volkswagen Jetta tdi (turbo diesel) gets 50+ MPG and is a decent-sized car. You can run it on low-sulfur diesel or on bio-diesel. If hybrid technology was combined with this engine, it could probably do 65-70+ MPG.

Also, do you have a link to the article you mentioned? If not, can you tell me more about it? I'd like to know the columnist's rationale for saying that oil prices are due to plunge after 2008. I personally find that claim doubtful given increasing demand and continuing geopolitical struggles. I just don't see oil going below $50 a barrel any time in the near future unless there's something important I don't know about.

Thanks.

While I think it is wonderful that the reception to this idea is so strong (regardless of the reasoning behind it), even several of the comments posted here show how little we Americans know outside of what goes on in our own country.

Tom, the fact that you even ask if a 100 mpg car is possible astounds me.

Now I'm no conspiracy theorist, but it has been possible to build 100 mpg cars for at least 25 years, leading me to believe that all cars should already be averaging at least 50 mpg. What is the reason we don't have these cars already? All the technology already exists to build such cars, and there are several examples to prove this point.

In 1981 French auto maker Renault developed the VESTA 2, which was ultra-efficient, getting anywhere from 94-124 mpg. It could hold four passengers, plus cargo. That was 26 years ago.

During the same time, the Honda City (only sold in Japan I believe) got around 70 mpg in city driving conditions.

Another car, developed in Germany in the 80s was actually a do-it-yourself kit, and could get from 60-70 mpg.

Travis mentioned the VW Jetta as being a wonderful fuel efficient car. Until very recently, VW was manufacturing their diesel-powered Lupo 3L TDI. The 3L of course refers to a consumption of 3L per 100 km, which translates to 100 mpg. I believe this is the most fuel efficient car yet mass produced.

We're all aware of the Toyota Prius, and the claim made by Toyota that it is a huge step forward in the design of cleaner cars. 60 mpg does seem impressive, though not so much when presented with the numbers above. It's even less impressive when one finds out that in 2001, Toyota created the ES3, a diesel-electric hybrid that achieved 104 mpg. Where is that car today?

The point is that the technology exists today, and has for some time now, to build a car capable of 100 mpg, that would pass all the safety standards etc. Mary, these are not going to be futuristic looking autos as you imagine, just do some research on the cars I've mentioned. Though there are some space age type concept cars out there that are working to break the 200 mpg mark, they are mostly impractical at this point. 100 mpg though? That can be achieved in our normal cars today.

Lightweight Sports Car Sets World Record at 103.7 MPG!
Imagine a fast, fun-to-drive sports car setting the world record for fuel economy.
Lightweight and aerodynamic, a prototype Avion automobile � built by two engineers in Bellingham, WA � holds the Guinness world record for fuel economy at 103.7 mpg!
How soon can you drive one yourself, or buy one? The answer is, �Early next year!� according to Craig Henderson, co-designer of the car and president of Avion.
Perhaps the most amazing part of this story is that the first Avion prototype was completed in 1984 and driven into the Guinness Book of World Records in 1986. Co-designer Craig Henderson set the record, traveling up the West Coast from the Mexican border to the Canadian border, and he�s about to repeat the drive in the other direction.
Unfortunately, fuel economy was not a big concern in the USA in the mid-eighties, so Henderson and co-designer Bill Green didn�t find a ready market for their Avion cars.
But oh, how times have changed!
In early 2008, Henderson, Green and the original (twenty three year old) Avion prototype are about to make another run, this time down the West Coast, from Canada to Mexico. And this time fuel economy is a global concern.
In the interim, Henderson and Green have found ways to manufacture their fuel-efficient dream cars in limited production, using standard engine parts and drive-trains that are innovative only when teamed with the lightweight, aerodynamic Avion chassis and body.
�The Avion is fun to drive, and it gets great mileage,� says Henderson with understated pride. �Our test car has achieved 80 mpg at 70 mph, and we�ve reached 114 mpg at 55 mph, driving on public roads from Eugene to Portland, OR. That�s pretty amazing and we did it over twenty years ago.�
The Avion will attempt to break its own Guinness World Record in early 2008.
Twenty-three years after the first Avion prototype made its historic run, will the Avion still be �ahead of its time?� Not likely. This time, the test car is attracting sponsorship interest and you�ll be able to order a new Avion for yourself, as Henderson stops at designated cities along the way.
Have a look at www.100mpgplus.com