Gas mileage is no longer just an environmental issue, its also a financial issue. People are strapped for cash and are looking for ways to improve their gas mileage mainly in an effort to save on gasoline costs. But increasing mpg will also help the economy. According to the Environmental Defense Fund, nearly 20% of US greenhouse gases come from gas emissions relating to transportation. In simple terms, our driving habits and use of gasoline are responsible for one fifth of the green house gases that are currently destroying the atmosphere. There is no doubt that something needs to be done, but what? The government has realized

this issue and set standards for car manufacturers that are established to help increase mpg. To put this whole issue into perspective, lets look at the the mpg of a Pontiac GTO back in 1970. The GTO on average got 10 miles to a single gallon. For most Americans that’s their commute to work daily. Congress recognized this problem and established standards as early as 1973 by requiring that cars must get at least 27.5 mpg. Auto manufacturers were able to accomplish this by decreasing the weight of the vehicles. By the end of 2000, we were introduced to the Prius which got a whopping 50 mpg. That of course is mainly attributed to the fact that it is a hybrid which can run on electricity as well as gasoline. Just last year, manufacturers reached a major milestone by agreeing to much more stringent standards for cars made between 2017 and 2025. According to the new standards, manufacturers must begin making progress to achieve an agreed-upon goal of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. But there is much work to be done in order to reach this goal. Again auto makers will look at reducing the weight of cars, by removing unnecessary accessories like the rarely-used CD players. This is, however, challenging as the government continues to add more safety requirements which often add weight to cars. Another way to help increase mpg is by experimenting with new engine technologies such as Direct Injection (DI).Other technologies include increasing the number of speed gearboxes being used. For example seven and eight speed are becoming very popular. It is also highly likely that new cars will see 9 speed gearboxes. Finally, another area of the car being tampered with to increase mpg is the transmission, something that Nissan has pioneered especially in the Altima. But automakers are not the only people who can improve mpg. Drivers can work to increase gas mileage by performing some simple tasks. Firstly, regularly performing air filter changes. This can improve your mpg by nearly 10%. This simple tasks helps keep damaging particles out of the engine and allows the engine to run properly. Another very simple technique is driving the speed limit! With these simple steps, automakers and consumers can work together to meet federal standards and hopefully reach the goal of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. is used in the Porsche 911 which was able to increase gas mileage by nearly 16%.

Sources

1) http://www.thedetroitbureau.com/2012/08/how-automakers-will-get-to-54-5-mpg/

2) http://www.edf.org/transportation/cars-and-environment?s_src=ggad&gclid=CP7G6t3347ICFQqZ4Aod20wAAA

3) http://www.forbes.com/2008/04/22/cars-mpg-gas-forbeslife-cx_jm_0422cars.html

If I told my grandmother that the device pictured on the right would be able to calculate things such as distance traveled,

revolutions of the tire and many other complicated calculations, she would laugh at me. Further more, if I told her that this simple looking toy was controlled simply but the push of a button, and an arrangement of various functions, she might pass out. But its a reality! It may  not have been years ago, but it is today. As cool as these robots can be, are they completely accurate? We wanted to know the direct answer to that question, so we did a little experiment. We ran the robot at multiple different power levels, and reviewed the data provided by the robot. We also compared it to the data which we manually collected (a method my grandmother would much prefer) and calculated the percent error of the bot. In each trial level we altered the power level which directly controls the speed of the motor, and thus the speed of the bot. In the first trial, we ran the bot at a power level of 75. We ran each trial for a standard 2 seconds. In the first experiment the bot calculated the distance traveled as 0.51 m. Using the circumference of the tires which remained the same throughout all trials, and some good old fashioned ruler measurements, we determined the distance traveled to be 0.59m. This meant that the percent error for the bot at the power level 75 was 14.5%. In the second trial, we slowed down the bot by bringing the power level down to a mere 55. At this level, and for the standard 2 seconds, the bot calculated that it traveled 0.36 m. We used my grandmother’s preferred method and calculate the distance traveled as 0.45m. This meant that the percent error was 22%. Finally in the third trial, we increased the power level to 95, thus increasing the speed. When the bot traveled at this level for the standard 2 seconds, it calculated that it traveled 0.66m. We on the other calculated that it traveled 0.76 meters which left the percent error for this trail at 14%. If you look at all three trials, you find a trend. When the speed of the bot is increased, the percent error goes down, while the percent error increases if you decrease the speed. This means they have an inverse relationship. Although I am not nearly certain of why this is, I would assume that at a slower rate, the bots technical devices may be slowed down as well. Another fact may be that at a slower rate, the bot may relax, or take a break. In order to make the bot move, we used an engineering program called Lab View. This program allowed us to control the power of the engine, the amount of time it moved for, and many other factors. It also did all the calculations for the bot. I think this experiment shows us that although technology can be cool, there are also some flaws inherit with any technology that could affect research data.

In a day and age where “going green” dominates everything from media, schools, and now even public policy, the not-so newsworthy country of Germany is making headlines because of their progress in the field. Their passion to develop this sense of sustainability began with the devastating disaster we know as “Fukashima”. Another major contributor of the green movement was the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. This disaster left the country worried about the potential dangers of nuclear energy and led the nation to introduce its first ministry responsible for the environment in 1990.  In a further attempt to use renewable energy, that new ministry enacted a program call FIT. That stands for “First-Feed in Tariffs” which provided monetary rewards for creating small scale renewable energy sources. Scientists and those studying green policy in Germany say that this program was directly responsible for the boom in renewable energy. Renewable energy sources experiencing a boom come from sources like wind turbines on farms, home solar-panels, and bio-gas being created by local farm waste. All of these sources are being used by countless Germans today.

Germany may have initiated this movement many years ago, but progress is still being made today. In 2011, nearly 20% of energy used in Germany was renewable energy. Nearly half of its nuclear power plants were closed just last year, and the country plans on closing the remaining plants by 2022. As a matter of fact, according to the UK news company “The Guardian”, the amount of renewable energy currently being produced and consumed in Germany is the equivalent of 20 nuclear power stations, minus the danger. By 2050 the country plans on not only reducing energy consumption by a considerable amount, but they also plan on producing nearly 80% of the energy they use, in renewable form of course. Furthering the green movement, Chancellor Angela Merkel has also introduced propositions to reduce CO2 levels. Her plan would cut CO2 levels by 40% in 2020, and as much as 80% by 2050. Her avid plan to reduce Germany’s carbon footprint if you will has received criticism and praise from citizens, and foreign leaders. While Germany is reducing reliance on nuclear energy, President Obama has passed legislation which would increase our dependence and create more nuclear reactors by providing state-backed loans for nuclear plants looking to expand.

Critics of the plan argue that this is unfeasible and will cost Germany way too much. According to German energy journalist Christian Schwagerl, in order for this plan to work Germany would have to replace three quarters of Germany’s current energy sources with green technology in order to achieve her green and CO2 reduction goals. But the progress can be seen simply by exploring the country. Wind turbines can be found all along the northern coast, and in the sunny south photovoltaic panels cover nearly all rooftops. Whether or not this plan is achievable can only be determined by watching how it all plays out. After all, Germany does in fact have the biggest economy in Europe and the people of Germany have shown sincere dedication to reducing their carbon footprint.

Sources:

1) http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/30/germany-renewable-energy-revolution

2) http://e360.yale.edu/feature/germanys_unlikely_champion_of_a_radical_green_energy_path/2401/

I also reviewed information from the Following:

3) http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/revolution-threatens-to-falter-is-germany-s-green-energy-plan-failing-a-790940.html

Welcome to Blogs.cas.suffolk.edu. This is your first post. Edit or delete it under Manage>Posts or make a new one under Write>Posts then start blogging! Be sure to visit the Design tab to choose a new look for your blog as well.

Also, for immediate “how-to’s” visit the Tutorials section, or the Getting Started section.