CNET News has reported that a start-up is really taking off. March 6th saw the maiden voyage of a car that can actually fly:

Terrafugia describes its Transition vehicle as a “roadable aircraft” and is pitching it in part as giving private pilots an easy travel alternative when bad weather makes flying a bad idea, or simply to avoid having to take a separate car to the airport. Also, in the eyes of the Federal Aviation Administration, the vehicle falls into the light sport aircraft category.

Delivery could start as early as 2011. It will be interesting to see how regulators figure out the safety standards for these vehicles, since they seem to struggle over things like the number of doors and seats in conventional cars. Unfortunately it’s a gasoline engine, but otherwise seems like yet another reason to finish my pilot’s license this summer.

Here is a high-level overview of the 2009 VW Jetta TDI package, which sports the latest diesel technology:

In sum, it’s a 60mpg diesel vehicle that weighs 3000lb and has 236 ft/lb torque with low emissions. In fact the emissions are so low it won the green car award at the LA show, beating the most popular hybrids. The VW 4motion sport wagon will give the new Subaru diesels a run for the money.

RIP gasoline.

Or, in the words of the reviewer, this car is “Doggone awesome!”

This is what I was talking about when I said the assumptions in a Stanford energy study were askew.

…starts at just $19,075

Hmmm, looks very similar to a Passat TDI I bought in 2004.

Wonder if there will be an upgrade for the 2.0L engine, or at least a remap for the computer. I get 40mpg with a bigger vehicle, which isn’t bad. Ha, imagine the auto industry providing upgrades like replacing a CPU. No update on the Cadillac options I wrote about a while ago.

It is no surprise to those familiar with new diesel engines that they are winning major motorsports events around the world. Audi has dominated the Le Mans in a diesel, and now VW has done the same for the Dakar Rally. Incidentally, this is the first Dakar victory for VW:

De Villiers and navigator Dirk von Zitzewitz of Germany in a Race Touareg finished 8 minutes 59 seconds ahead of fellow Volkswagen driver Mark Miller of the United States.

It was the first diesel-powered win in the event which was switched this year to Argentina and Chile after last year’s edition in Africa was called off amid security concerns.

There really is nothing left to criticize of diesel engines compared with gasoline. The diesel technology burns cleaner, with more performance and better efficiency. It is sad that so few people drive or even appreciate diesel in America.

While reading the New Scientist I noticed an article called the Top 7 alternative energies listed.

A list of the top seven? Not ten (metric) or twelve (imperial), but seven? I’m already dubious.

The US could replace all its cars and trucks with electric cars powered by wind turbines taking up less than 3 square kilometres – in theory, at least. That’s the conclusion of a detailed study ranking 11 types of non-fossil fuels according to their total ecological footprint and their benefit to human health.

The study, carried out by Mark Jacobson of the atmosphere and energy programme at Stanford University, found wind power to be by far the most desirable source of energy. Biofuels from corn and plant waste came right at the bottom of the list, along with nuclear power and “clean” coal.

Does this study really account for the technology changes that are anticipated? Is it a futurist view, or an argument for what the US should be using today if the Bush administration eight years ago somehow had decided to improve national security instead of betting the future on oil companies and SUVs.

To compare the fuels, Jacobson calculated the impacts each would have if it alone powered the entire US fleet of cars and trucks.

It sounds so easy!

He considered not just the quantities of greenhouse gases that would be emitted, but also the impact the fuels would have on the ecosystem – taking up land and polluting water, for instance. Also considered were the fuel’s impact on pollution and therefore human health, the availability of necessary resources, and the energy form’s reliability.

I agree with all that, and I really like this part:

“The energy alternatives that are good are not the ones that people have been talking about the most,” says Jacobson.

“Some options that have been proposed are just downright awful,” he says. “Ethanol-based biofuels will actually cause more harm to human health, wildlife, water supply, and land use than current fossil fuels.”

Yup, ethanol fuel is only driven by the corn lobby/industry. It’s the same as corn syrup. Even though it is clearly bad for health, bad for productivity, and therefore bad for national security, the cost savings that get converted into lobby dollars are somehow able to get America hooked on the stuff.

I don’t see any mention of algae-based biodiesel, or the new forms of biodiesel conversion that use no ethanol…but I guess this study is handicapped by the fact that there are few diesel passenger vehicles on the road today. So it has an assumption that I would challenge.