I hate stories like this one by the Associated Press.

Electric cars are also more limited than their gas-guzzling cousins, running 40 and 120 miles (60 to 200 kilometers) on a charge, while taking anywhere from two to seven hours to fully recharge.

The problem with this? Although the article gives a negative tone with phrases like “more limited” the perfect fit for electric vehicles is the urban and suburban driver who never go more than 120 miles per day and are stationary for at least two hours a day. This technology is not meant to replace the fantasy of the open road trip; the one people in the suburbs always talk about but rarely ever act upon. They could rent an exotic non-guzzling turbo-diesel performance vehicle for those days.

Here is another example:

Jay Nagley, the publisher of Clean Green Cars, a British online guide to environmentally friendly vehicles, said the G-Wiz, while ubiquitous, is technically not a car but an “electronic quadricycle.”

He said the G-Wiz had limited appeal outside the British capital, where wealthier residents use it mostly to avoid parking fees and the city’s hefty congestion charge.

“It’s pretty expensive paying seven grand for a four-wheeled motorcycle. You’d be pretty brave to take it outside the city center,” he said.

First of all, seven grand is peanuts for a new high-end motorcycle in London, especially one to carry two passengers and baggage. When you factor in the maintenance and gas consumption of a motorcycle then the G-Wiz doesn’t seem “pretty expensive”. It also is a tiny sum compared with the cost of property in London. Finally, why should an urban vehicle have appeal outside the British capital? That seems to me a lot like saying an airplane doesn’t do very well as a ferry on the Thames. This chicken does not taste like beef. There should be more attention paid to the objectives of new transportation with better efficiency and less noise about the old fantasies, habits and fashions.

Some of the more meaningful things that the article could have mentioned is a reduction in risk that comes from smaller vehicles, lower insurance rates, etc.. It also could have mentioned stats like the average daily distance traveled by American drivers; seems like it is around 50 miles, perfect for a small electric bike with two or four wheels.

The Scientific American reports on Environmental and Economic Pluses of the 4-Day Workweek

Local governments in particular have had their eyes on Utah over the last year; the state redefined the workday for more than 17,000 of its employees last August. For those workplaces, there’s no longer a need to turn on the lights, elevators or computers on Fridays—nor do janitors need to clean vacant buildings. Electric bills have dropped even further during the summer, thanks to less air-conditioning: Friday’s midday hours have been replaced by cooler mornings and evenings on Monday through Thursday. As of May, the state had saved $1.8 million.

No word on how this helps security, but clearly happier employees are less likely to become a risk (reduces motive). Although the time in the office is the same, I suspect the shift to longer days and fewer of them is also less risk (potentially reduces opportunity). Just as employees are on the road 20 percent less, they also potentially need authorization 20 percent less. The article does mention that health issues are reduced, surely because commuting and work-family pressures are reduced as well.

“Utah employees actually show decreased health complaints, less stress and fewer sick days,” Wadsworth says, noting previous research finding that fatigue is typically triggered by workdays over 12 hours. Early results from another multicity survey indicate that just 20 percent of respondents said they felt they ate more fast food and only 30 percent said they worked out less. In fact, 30 percent said they exercised more. Anecdotal evidence from Utah also points to an unexpected benefit: increased volunteerism.

That suggests four day work weeks are the limit. No need to get excited about trying the three day model. Another benefit might be more time at brick-and-mortar retail, which could boost the economy as well, and have more people outside for more days potentially reducing street crime.

It has been a while since I last waxed poetically about the amazing virtues of diesel. It is the obvious choice to me for independence from petroleum today. The new Volkswagen Lupo 3L TDI not only proves this is reality, but has some nice marketing language to boot:

It wasn’t long ago the European community thought the idea of a regular production vehicle that consumes 3 liters of fuel for every 100 kilometers was a mere pipe dream. A challenge was put out to European car manufacturers to produce such a vehicle and former VWAG Chairman Dr. Piech stepped up to the plate and swung hard – he usually didn’t miss too many pitches when it comes to engineering feats. What resulted is the Volkswagen Lupo 3L TDI, the worlds first 3-liter consumption production car.

Considering that the 2010 VW Golf will give 170hp at 44mpg, we’re talking real cars with really efficient engines today. This is not to say small engines are not a good idea, but the fact is that today’s typical American driver will purchase based on performance and status first, efficiency second. The fact that BMW has started pumping up the 3-series diesel is proof of this performance-orientation taking hold. Not too long ago they were carrying on about some sort of hydrogen 7-series, which will probably be a reality in like…never. Today they too see the American diesel market heating up. Next step, biodiesel blends of 5% or more. Landfills, get your conversion systems running. You don’t have to be a total veggiebus to make a significant impact. Imagine reducing dependence on foreign oil by just 10% and the positive impact to air quality and health.

Biofuels are carbon dioxide (CO2) neutral. Unlike petroleum fuels, they do not add new carbon to the atmosphere [since they come from renewable plants which consume CO2]. Sulphur dioxide (SO2) and sulfates (major contributors to acid rain) are completely eliminated due to the fact that sulfur does not exist in veggie oil. Carbon monoxide (CO) emissions are reduced by 40-60% and carcinogens by 90%. Hydrocarbon emissions are reduced by 50% which reduces photochemical smog (ozone) by 50% as well. Particulate matter, a major contributor to increased asthma cases, is reduced by 45%