SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: TimF who wrote (331609)4/4/2007 3:33:10 PM
From: Road Walker  Respond to of 1576866
 
Next X Prize: Build a practical, hyperefficient car By Mark Clayton, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Wed Apr 4, 4:00 AM ET


If your dream is to build the world's greatest car – not just a science project or a concept car, but a real-world, 100-mile-per-gallon vehicle that's safe, can be mass-produced, and emits almost no pollutants – there's a big, fat prize waiting for you.

It's expected to be at least $10 million, maybe much more.

But here's the rub: If the first X Prize put a man in space on a shoestring budget, the 2009 Automotive X Prize by comparison looks timid to some.

Why aim for just 100 miles per gallon or its energy equivalent? What about a vehicle that gets double that? What about a vehicle that burns no carbon-based fuel at all?

Such are the criticisms already being leveled at the Automotive X Prize "draft guidelines," to be formally unveiled this week at the New York International Auto Show. Most questions are being raised not by skeptics but by the contemporary soul mates of the Wright brothers and Henry Ford, true believers who would love to enter the "great race."

More than 1,000 people have already contacted X Prize organizers, including some auto companies. A number of concerns over the draft guidelines, which are open for public comment until May 31, are already being voiced by these Henry Ford wannabes.

"Why stop at 100 m.p.g.?" asks Robyn Allen, student codirector of the Vehicle Design Summit at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Last summer she and colleagues were designing and building vehicles aiming for a 200 m.p.g. equivalent. "Given the magnitude of the climate-change problem, shouldn't we match that with commensurate effort?"

But will her MIT-led team enter the race? "Absolutely, we will," she says without a moment's hesitation.

The competition requires that a car attain 100 m.p.g. of gasoline fuel economy (or its energy equivalent) and meet tough emissions standards. The winner must also get the fastest time in two long-distance races to be held in 2009. There will be two categories of vehicles: traditional four-seat vehicles with four wheels and two-passenger vehicles with no requirement for the number of wheels.

The criteria leave some would-be contestants worrying that the X Prize doesn't go far enough to unhook auto travel from oil dependence – and won't do enough to alleviate global warming.

"The way the current rules are written, solar- and wind-powered vehicles would be judged poorly, since it would not be given credit for having derived energy from the sun," says Andrew Frank, a professor of engineering at the University of California at Davis, whose student teams have built high-mileage vehicles for years. To him, the prize should be about dropping carbon-based fuels altogether to help squelch global warming.

Because competing vehicles must pass safety tests, too, big automakers with deep pockets have an advantage, he says. He's worried about liability questions, as well. But does he want to enter?

"Of course, we would like to," he says in a phone interview. "But a lot of questions still have to be answered before we commit."

Organizers of the Automotive X Prize respond that they've spent more than a year getting feedback from dozens of scientists and automotive experts. That has led them to set goals that balance what is achievable, what will make a difference to humanity, and what will create a playing field where small teams and big auto companies can compete on the same level.

"What we've presented is a nice round number [100 m.p.g.] that's going to be very difficult for all to achieve but which is clearly in the realm of the possible," says Mark Goodstein, executive director of the Automotive X Prize. "It's the right number to encourage simultaneously hitting efficiency targets and still achieve market viability."

Automotive technology has progressed rapidly in recent decades, even though mileage has stayed flat. That's because most technical advances in engines have gone to improve performance rather than fuel economy, experts say. Now there may be a chance to change that dynamic.

"These kinds of prize competitions are very good at gathering public attention, the attention of the technical community, and can become a very good motivator for progress," says Patrick Windham, a principal at Technology Policy International, based in Newton Center, Mass.

Polls show that the public wants it all: a vehicle with good performance, far better mileage, less pollution – yet that is comfortable, safe, and affordable.

It's really that last part – affordable – that may be the key to winning. Each team must present a business plan that shows 10,000 vehicles can be built at a reasonable cost per vehicle. That last requirement – market viability – may be the toughest test, experts say.

"The biggest challenge of all in this competition will be to meet these performance objectives at a reasonable cost," says John Heywood, director of MIT's Sloan Automotive Laboratory. "The goals they've set will be hard, technically very challenging, but they can be achieved. Then the real-world cost factors come in - and keeping the cost of the vehicle down will likely be the toughest challenge of all."

The X Prize people think their competition comes at a propitious moment in human history.

"We are at a pivotal moment in time when promising new technologies, growing consumer demand, and global politics make it ripe for a radical breakthrough in the cars we drive," said Dr. Peter H. Diamandis, founder of the X PRIZE Foundation, in a statement. "We have made great progress in designing a competition that will capture the public's imagination to solve these problems."



To: TimF who wrote (331609)4/5/2007 6:48:16 AM
From: Road Walker  Respond to of 1576866
 
Our Crumbling Foundation
By BOB HERBERT
Fifty-nine years ago this week — on April 3, 1948 — President Truman signed the legislation establishing the Marshall Plan, which contributed so much to the rebuilding of postwar Europe. Now, more than half a century later, the U.S. can’t even rebuild New Orleans.

It doesn’t seem able to build much of anything, really. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, the U.S. infrastructure is in sad shape, and it would take more than a trillion and a half dollars over a five-year period to bring it back to a reasonably adequate condition.

If there’s a less sexy story floating around, I can’t find it. It certainly can’t compete with the Sanjaya Malakar saga, or with the claim by Keith Richards that he snorted his dad’s ashes with “a little bit of blow.”

But, as we learned with New Orleans, there are consequences to neglecting the infrastructure. Just a little over a year ago, a dam in Hawaii gave way, unleashing a wave 70 feet high and 200 yards wide. It swept away virtually everything in its path, including cars, houses and trees. Seven people drowned.

On the day after Christmas in Portland, Ore., a sinkhole opened up like something from a science fiction movie and swallowed a 25-ton sewer- repair truck. Authorities blamed the sinkhole on the collapse of aging underground pipes.

Blackouts, school buildings in advanced states of disrepair, decrepit highway and railroad bridges — the American infrastructure is growing increasingly old and obsolete. In addition to being an invitation to tragedy, this is a problem that is putting Americans at a disadvantage in the ever more competitive global economy.

Felix Rohatyn, the investment banker who helped save New York City from bankruptcy in the 1970s, has been prominent among those trying to sound the infrastructure alarm. Along with former Senator Warren Rudman, he has been criticizing the government’s unwillingness to invest adequately in public transportation systems, water projects, dams, schools, the electrical grid, and so on.

He recently told a House committee that Congress should begin a major effort to rebuild the American infrastructure “before it is too late.”

“Since the beginning of the republic,” he said, “transportation, infrastructure and education have played a central role in advancing the American economy, whether it was the canals in upstate New York, or the railroads that linked our heartland to our industrial centers; whether it was the opening of education to average Americans by land grant colleges and the G.I. bill, making education basic to American life; or whether it was the interstate highway system that ultimately connected all regions of the nation.

“This did not happen by chance, but was the result of major investments financed by the federal and state governments over the last century and a half. ... We need to make similar investments now.”

Politics and ideology are the main reasons that government has turned away from public investment over the past several years. Zealots marching under the banner of small government have been remarkably effective in thwarting efforts to raise taxes or borrow substantial sums for the kind of public investment that has always been essential to a dynamic economy.

That this is counterproductive in a post-20th-century world should be as obvious as the sun rising in the morning. There is a reason why countries like China and India are racing like mad to develop their infrastructure and educational capacity.

“A modern economy needs a modern platform, and that’s the infrastructure,” Mr. Rohatyn said in an interview. “It has been shown that the productivity of an economy is related to the quality of its infrastructure. For example, if you don’t have enough schools to teach your kids, or your kids are taught in schools that have holes in the ceilings, that are dilapidated, they’re not going to be as educated and as competitive in a world economy as they need to be.”

Mr. Rohatyn and Mr. Rudman are co-chairmen of the Commission on Public Infrastructure at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. They believe that failing to move quickly to address the nation’s infrastructure needs — through the establishment of a national trust fund, for example, or a federal capital budget — could lead to long-term disaster.

But words like trust fund and long-term and infrastructure find it very difficult to elbow their way into the nation’s consciousness. We may have to wait for another New Orleans before beginning to take this seriously.