A very nice site that explains a simple way to increase the gallons per mile of a Geo Metro, simply by reducing drag:

This car, originally, was a joint venture between General Motors and Suzuki, which delivered as much as 58 miles per gallon. 49 hp is all it takes to get a person to work safely and comfortable. I reworked this car to get even better mileage. It was getting 75 mpg during the 2 years I drove it. The bottom line is, with a 3-cylinder engine 12 valve variable cam, a small streamlined tandem-style could get even better mileage.

What, no roof-rack? I guess the real down-side is that when you cut away half of a Geo Metro, you are still left with half a Geo Metro. But seriously, the problem I see is that the footprint on this thing is still four wheels and now just has a lot of wasted space. That would not appeal to someone looking for a smaller vehicle, and it lacks the storage for someone who needs a larger vehicle. High marks on drag efficiency and gallons per mile, but who would find it useful beyond these advantages?

Did I write about this already? It does not look like it. Shame, as I have been doing a bunch of FISMA writing and this article has been floating in my head for a while now. Better late than never, as they might say in NERC.

US Representative James Langevin, chair of the House Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity and Science and Technology, said he had “little confidence” that the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) has fully addressed a vulnerability code-named Aurora, in which electric utilities generators and other equipment comes to a grinding halt.

“I still do not get the sense that we are addressing cybersecurity with the seriousness that it deserves,” Langevin said, according to this report from IDG News Service. “I think we could search far and wide and not find a more disorganized, ineffective response to an issue of national security of this import. If NERC doesn’t start getting serious about national security, it may be time to find a new electric reliability organization.”

Yeah, go Langevin. While I can appreciate the concerns of some who say keep the whole thing offline forever, the reality is that the network is here to stay and there are real cost benefits to remote access, control and reporting. The trick is providing a secure solution, rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

The Washington Post story on the state of Iraqi oil has an interesting pair of paragraphs:

A higher-profile role for Western companies in Iraq’s oil industry is likely to revive speculation that the Iraq war was motivated by a desire to tap into reserves that were controlled by foreigners until the 1960s, when the industry was nationalized. The belief is widespread in the Arab world.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Thursday said the U.S. government played no role in securing the deals. She called the impending contracts a sign that security gains are attracting foreign investment in Iraq.

If I read that correctly, Rice is speaking out of both sides of her mouth at the same time. Impressive. US security gains are attracting deals, while deals are not attracted by US security gains. In other words, better security is not required for developments that require better security, and therefore better security should be given credit while it has nothing to do with progress. Good luck easing concerns with that reasoning. She should have just said “the U.S. government played no role in security gains”.

Reuters reports on a novel concept — adopting a measure of consumption that people could easily understand for fuel:

When presented with a series of car choices in which fuel efficiency was defined in miles per gallon, the students could not easily identify the choice that would result in the greatest gains in fuel efficiency, he said.

People had a much easier time when fuel efficiency was expressed in gallons per 100 miles. In that case, a car that gets 18 miles per gallon uses 5.5 gallons of gas per 100 miles, and a car that gets 28 miles per gallon uses just 3.6 gallons per 100 miles. With gasoline prices over $4 a gallon, that’s a difference of about $8 per 100 miles.

“If we just turn everything around, you can see where are the large savings in gallons of gas,” Larrick said in a telephone interview. The idea is not new. Many other countries, especially in Europe, already use a standard that compares gas used per trip.

Uh-oh. Does he realize that comparing the US to Europe is likely to create discontent among those in America who refuse to acknowledge progress can happen anywhere else in the world?

To translate miles per gallon into gallons per 10,000, Larrick said people can simply divide 10,000 by miles per gallon. Cars with the highest miles per gallon are always the most fuel efficient, he said. It is when people are trying to replace a car that they may be misled.

That’s how he became interested in this problem.

“We were trying to decide whether to get rid of a minivan and go for a station wagon versus getting rid of a sedan and going for a really high-mileage hybrid car,” Larrick said.

“We realized in the end we were better off trading in the minivan and only gaining 10 miles per gallon then we would be trying to swap out the sedan for a highly efficient car.”

Excellent article. The fact that it highlights a real measure instead of searching for the most effective marketing campaign or the creation of feelings about better consumption…it’s practically un-American.