BATTERIES!

In the 1970s and 1980s, radio personality (and "Flying" and "Car and Driver" magazine contributor) Gordon Baxter did a television ad for an auto repair shop in Beaumont, Texas. Near the end of the ad he said you'd recognize the place, because on the top of the building it said "BATTERIES", his voice creating a series of virtual exclamation points. Indeed, in large letters across the top of the barn-like structure, giant letters spelling "batteries" were displayed so that folks traveling on U.S. 69 couldn't miss it.

Car batteries have improved since those days. There was a brief period in the late 1980s and early 1990s where a new battery might last only a year, because the load put on them had increased, and possibly because the heat under the hood of the automobile had increased as well. That's been fixed. In my recent experience, batteries last four to six years.

As of late, some cars have multiple batteries. A car may have two or three if it's designed to shut the engine down while the car is stopped at a red light. This keeps the climate control running, and enables the car to re-start in a barely perceptible fashion. Of course, the electrical loads are still increasing.

And, of course, there are now many hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles on the road, requiring a large battery, and a few electric cars that are entirely powered by a large battery. Spelling it in all caps — "B-A-T-T-E-R-I-E-S" — and perhaps adding an exclamation point or two, might be the appropriate way to emphasize how important improved battery technology has become.

I've often predicted that we will one day, in the not-all-that-distant future, look back and laugh about how we used to fill our gasoline tanks up every week, because by then we'll simply be charging our cars up about once every four weeks. If we can ever get 1000 miles on a single charge at highway speeds while running the air conditioner, the internal combustion engine powered automobile will find its replacement.

In a step toward that future, Envia Systems now claim to have developed a battery that stores 400 watt-hours per kilogram. That's more than twice the energy density of the lithium cells currently being used in the Nissan Leaf. This could give a compact car a range, according to the article, of perhaps 300 miles. My guess is that 200 miles is more realistic, comparing it to about 85 for the current best EVs. That's still not enough to go on vacation, but it would do all of the duty that my "work car" currently does, that is, driving to work, and occasionally going to my parents' house. For anything longer, we already use our other car.

You may be familiar with Moore's Law, which states that the number of transistors that can be placed inexpensively on an integrated circuit doubles roughly every two years. That rapid pace hasn't yet arrived with electrical storage, but we are having some rapid advancements, and may be amazed in the next couple of years.

Many car nuts become angry at the idea that the internal combustion engine should ever be replaced with an electric motor. They believe the move toward electric to be an attack on the car.

Many environmentalists get angry at the idea that personal transportation may one day be powered by cleanly-produced electricity (say, from Thorium reactors?), because they've already decided that the only way to a "green" future is for all of us to live in multi-family housing near city centers where we only move faster than bicycling speed while riding public transportation.

I'm a car nut, and I want to be "green". I'm an optimist. I see us being able to always enjoy the freedom that comes from personal transportation, moving about freely in cars that make artificial sounds, perhaps like George Jetson's flyer. The car culture is here to stay, and it will only get better.

Would You Rather Be Walking?

I've lately thought that it might be nice to live within walking or bicycling distance from work. For various reasons, that just isn't going to happen, but even of it did, on a day like today I would have taken the car to work. If I normally used public transportation to get to the office, today I would have taken the car. Why? It's simple: I hate being miserable. I knew it was going to be raining when I left work -- storming, in fact, because sometimes the weather forecasters are right. With a car in the parking lot, I can walk out under cover of umbrella and get into my enclosed vehicle, which will take me directly to my house. Are there reasonable alternatives? Certainly. Living close enough, if we only had one car, my wife could pick me up. But that assumes she is in town. Many people wouldn't even have that luxury... With only one car they would be stuck.

And many people are stuck, living in many places. You have rain gear with you for those days, and you walk to the bus stop and wait in the rain. I even saw three motorcycles on the road this afternoon. I must admit that I've been thinking about getting some really good rain gear to make it easier to ride in bad weather, but the truth is that I don't like being miserable. (Yes, I know I already said that.)

That points up the fallacy of the one of the arguments about living close to work or taking public transportation: they say you can get by with one car, or possibly no car at all. Yes, you can, but most people will regret it eventually, and go back to having two. My parents even did that in the fifties, and for quite awhile, but along about 1967 it became impossible.

So it really isn't much of an argument. If a person really wants to make it work, they can, but I doubt that most people would be that committed for long.

Advantages and disadvantages of motorcycle commuting.

There are advantages to riding a motorcycle when the weather is right. First, of course, it the fuel efficiency. If you already have a motorcycle, why are you still driving a pickup truck to work? (I've seen you in your F150 with a Harley-Davidson sticker on the back window!) The second advantage is that you can potentially get to work a few minutes quicker. You know how those 18-wheelers seem to get further and further behind when traffic is heavy? Cars fall behind motorcycles for the same reason. It's like pouring sand into a jar of rocks... the sand filters through. A third advantage is being able to see over the cars. This may not be true if you're riding a cruiser, but standard style motorcycles and sportbikes are tall, so your head is up there with the pickup-truck drivers. Finally, and most importantly, it's just fun. Riding a motorcycle turns your commute into a recreational activity. Now I get to have an hour-and-a-half of fun every day!


Riding a motorcycle is generally not considered a "green" choice, despite the exceptional fuel economy. Motorcycle emission standards allow more unburned hydrocarbons and higher levels of oxides of nitrogen, and most motorcycles are tuned for power, which means they do pollute more. They have higher compression ratios than car engines, and they turn at (often) much higher revolutions per minute. Carbon-dioxide emissions are lower by virtue of burning less fuel. As for the Royal Enfield, it has only an 8.5:1 compression ratio and turns slowly, so I suspect it isn't bad on the NOx scale, but that's not why I bought it anyway.

I did the math on the fuel savings, and can see that if gasoline goes to $5.00/gallon (which is prognosticated, but which I truly doubt) that riding the motorcycle full-time would save $129.97 in fuel cost per month. But notice my first sentence: "... When the weather is right." The weather isn't ever right in August, to be honest. And today, I got rained on. That was okay, as I pulled off of the freeway before it really got going and pulled on my rain pants. That has me thinking about ordering some better rain gear, though. I could ride in on rainy days, as long is it isn't too hot.

The disadvantages are fairly obvious. It's supposed to be fun, but cold and heat and rain can make it not so. And while the freeway commute practically eliminates the risk of cars turning in front of you (except for the few miles of surface streets), cars can come across several lanes to attack, as happened to a fellow in Colorado last week. Perhaps the most inconvenient thing is that you cannot simply hop on it and go like you can with a car. You have to get ready, put on a jacket, a helmet, perhaps some rain gear, and stow the stuff that you normally keep in your pockets (or else risk losing it). I once lost a watch while riding, so now I put my watch in the tank bag. For this reason, I tend to avoid going out to lunch on days when I ride.

I suppose this gets back to the reason I started this blog in the first place. The idea is that the commute can be enjoyable. It doesn't have to be a stressful drive or ride, and people who commute using personal transportation needn't be laden with guilt over their anti-environmental choice. Living close to work may be nice, but the quality of life in the city isn't necessarily higher than in the suburbs. If it were, people wouldn't have moved out to the suburbs in the first place.

I've been watching the computer-calculated gas mileage in my car lately, trying to keep it as high as possible. I can get about 29 mpg (computer estimated at nearly 32) if I'm careful, versus about 27 mpg if I don't pay attention, and I find that when I drive that way I'm more relaxed. You have to drive in a relaxed fashion to improve the mileage. Try it sometime! And by all means, enjoy whatever you choose to drive, and wherever you choose to live. There are legitimate reasons you made those choices. Try to include some environmental concerns in your choices in the future, which generally will help your own finances as well. It's little changes made by all of us that will improve all of our quality of life.