New NY State License Plate Revealed—And Required On All Cars
Access-A-Ride Renders Bike Lane Inaccessible
Cops: Fort Greene Violence Sparked By Chicken Wing Promotion
The UWS Gets Its Very Own Apple Store
64 Things Restaurant Patrons Must NEVER Do
Yesterday afternoon, Mayor Bloomberg announced that every yellow taxi on the streets of NYC will go green under the hood in five years. His latest implementation of PlaNYC involves using requirements set by the Taxi and Limousine Commission to have cab owners upgrade their hacks to hybrid vehicles so that the entire fleet will be hybrid by 2012. Yahoo! exec Patrick Crane was on hand at City Hall to donate ten of the new hybrid vehicles as part of Yahoo!'s green initiatives, which seemed pretty nice, but proved that purple interiors can be a matter of taste. Council Member David Yassky (Brooklyn) has been hailing this issue for the last five years. We're glad he finally managed to flag it down.
They were all tricked out with the soon-to-be-mandatory upgrades like credit card payment devices. The spoof door-signs advertising the cab rates were cute, although we don't recommend trying to figure out how they translate. At any rate, these ten cabs will help the city achieve taxi hybrid-ization; here's the timeline for the roll-out:
By October 2008 - 1000 yellow hybrid taxicabs
October 2009 - 4000 yellow hybrid taxicabs (30% of the fleet)
October 2010 - 7000 yellow hybrid taxicabs (53% of the fleet)
October 2011 - 10000 yellow hybrid taxicabs (76% of the fleet)
October 2012 - all yellow taxicabs will be hybrid (100% of the fleet)
Bloomberg stated that by mandating cleaner environmental standards for the 13,000 taxis in the city, it would be the environmental equivalent of removing 32,000 individually owned non-hybrid cars from New York's streets. The Mayor evinced little respect for the federal government that gave up on a plan of incremental fuel-efficiency improvements, and he's picking up the slack:
The Ford Crown Victoria, the current workhorse of the taxicab fleet, achieves only 14 miles per gallon (mpg). After October 2008, all new vehicles entering the fleet must achieve a minimum of 25 mpg (based on EPA city surface street ratings), and after October 2009, all new vehicles must achieve a minimum of 30 mpg.The owner of Taxi Club Management, which has 120 hybrid taxis in its fleet, told AMNY, "Drivers love it." But one taxi driver, who switched from a Crown Vic to a hybrid, explained to the NY Times, in spite of big savings on gas, "The only bad thing is that repairs can be very, very expensive." And a group representing disabled riders was upset that the mayor isn't concerned about taxis that can transport the handicapped, so the News asked Bloomberg about it, only to have him reply, "I'm sure you have found somebody that isn't happy and we appreciate the efforts that you make."
One funny anecdote we heard at yesterday's press conference relates back to the introduction of Yahoo!'s green-city challenge in New York two weeks ago. NYC is already a winner in that we've got ten new hybrid taxis from Yahoo!, but someone less interested in being green than getting some cash unbolted the marquee on one of the cabs and boosted its compact fluorescent bulbs. The theft went unnoticed until the green-cab driver took a fare onto the Long Island Expressway, and under high speeds the under-bolted marquee flew right off onto the side of the road.
Currently, NYC is still in the running to be the most-green city and score some more free cabs, so...instead of kicking the crap of of those four other frontrunners, here are some some tips to be greener.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Why bother with the hybrid... every step counts but by then it will be too late. Should push for 100% full electric if he really wants to shock the world and go green.
ethanol is more practical than electricity which still takes oil fuel to make.
I wish the city would do more to raise the awareness of the green cabs with some cool graphics (instead of some ugly corporate sponsorship deal) ala these ideas...
onnyturf.com/articles/read.php?article_id=335
I really hate myself for saying anything against an initiative that is hoping to improve the quality of our air. However, it can be a long time before the savings in fuel costs outweigh the expense of buying a hybrid vehicle. As such, are we going to have to pay higher fares to offset the initial hybrid investment? How long before there are new requirements that force the taxi drivers to upgrade their cars again, defeating any savings they might achieve? We can't forget that, at the end of the day, this service is business.
enough with you ethanol idiots. it takes more fuel to grow, harvest, and process, then there is energy stored in ethanol. you need to plant the seeds (big machines), grow the stuff (big machines, pesticides, herbicides, irrigation), harvest it and process it (big machines), and ship it the same as any other fuel. nevermind the fact that growing ethanol means not growing corn to actually eat, leading to higher food prices. c'mon people, common sense, work with me here. there are plenty of renewable energy sources, ethanol is just a dumb one. in addition, it pollutes just the same as good ol dino juice.
How many of these hybrid taxis will be wheelchair accessible?
disablednyc.com
actually self hate, if you do the simple math, with a taxi cab hybrid costs will be offset in arguably less than a year. it never made sense to drive a crown vic 0-35mph in this city, at maybe 12mpg. if there is a more perfect use for a hybrid vehicle than a nyc cab, i cant think of it.
Ethanol??
Where do you think ethanol comes from? It don't appear out of no where!
Ethanol contains approx. 34% less energy per gallon than gasoline, and therefore will result in a 34% reduction in miles per gallon.
Ethonal doesn't just come from corn. It can be exracted frm sugar-cane and perished garbage. The theory of corn prices rising is ridiculous. Corn is already pretty darn cheap.
If you really think electric cars are cheaper to fuel you're dead wrong. think about all the oil it takes to fuel this city alone. Why do you think your electric bill went up almost 50% last year? Oil.
When's the drilling start in Alaska?
this is an admirable goal and one the mayor should be commended for. he's leaving his mark on the city – which is a hell of a lot more than can be said about, for example, dinkins.
dinkins left his mark... crime skyrocketted under his term.
Put a measly 3 ounces of acetone in your tank for every 10 gallons of gas, and you'll get a 10-20% increase in fuel economy.
I've been doing this for years with only good effects.
Those worried about acetone in their gas should realize that the concentration of gasoline to acetone at these amounts is 1:427.
Put an extra 5lbs of air in your tires on top of using acetone and you can improve your MPGs by as much as 30%.
If in addition to all this you want to get real fancy and put a chin spoiler on your ride (a do it yourself chin spoiler made from garden edging works fine, and can be placed far enough back from the bumper so nobody even sees it), 35-40% improvement is possible.
All these modifications provide an immediate return on investment. IOW, you save gas and money right away!
AFA ethanol is concerned... Sorry! It's a poor competitor when compared to bio-butanol! No modification of anything needed with butanol, just pour in your tank and drive. Bio-butanol is also a net energy positive after all production energy is considered (see www.butanol.com ).
Get educated people!
I think something you hybrid/ethanol bashing asshole s are forgetting is the fact that under a certain speed the engines run on electricity.
I do not remember what the speed is exactly, but its something around 50 mph - a speed which cabbies generally do not travel at.
The point is - low emmisions.
#8:
correct. however, not entirely true. that equation only applies to current engines. if an engine was to be designed soley for ethanol the fuel efficiency would rise rendering ethanol as efficient as gasoline, but not nearly as damaging to the environment as gas, i.e. carbon monoxide. ethanol, when burned creates carbon monoxide and water.
In general, ethanol-powered engines are tuned to give similar power and torque output to gasoline-powered engines. In flexible fuel vehicles, the lower compression ratio requires tunings that give the same output when using either gasoline or hydrated ethanol.
For maximum use of ethanol's benefits, a compression ratio of nearly 15:1 should be used, which would render that engine unsuitable for gasoline usage. When ethanol fuel availability increases to the point where high-compression ethanol-only vehicles are practical, the fuel efficiency of such engines should be the same or greater than current gasoline engines. [wiki]
Want to know what is REALLY green?
Mass Transit, Bicycle travel, Walking...
Taxis, hybrid or otherwise are still creating more pollution than any of the above methods of transportaion...
and hybrid SUVs getting 30mpg are a joke... a compact station wagon in 1990 got that kind of gas mileage without the hybrid technology...
this stuff is just greenwashing to create a higher percieved environmental profile without tackling the issue head on...
Hybrid SUVs? Ford is clueless. We'll all be better off if the Big 3 becomes the Big Zero.
They've been in collusion with the oil industry and our federal government for decades...wake up. 30mpg was EASILY attained in 1980. Why, nearly 30 years later, is 30mpg something to be proud about?
Another thing: due to their weight, none of those hybrid SUV's are legal to cross the Brooklyn Bridge.
Self-hate, cabbies are mandated to buy new vehicles every five years, so by the time the car's time is up, there may be some sort of upgrades that have to be purchased at that time.
I heard a cabbie say on the news yesterday that he use to fill up for about $40 per day, and that his cash consumption have been cut in half with his new hybrid. The costs for the cars should be equaled out by the raise in prices, I think.
Ford would make some money doing a hybrid Crown Victoria. The fleet market sales alone would justify the expense.
Ford does produce a CNG Crown Victoria for fleet sales, and I do know there is at least one of these in New York. Other cities use CNG Crown Vics for taxis.
God, who takes taxis anyway?
how about vegetable oil?
www.myspace.com/greasenotgas
mass transit also consumes oil, less than cars but still, oil.
everyone jumps on the 'big 3'...guess who makes the landcruiser, FJ ,Tacoma, RX470 among other huge vehicles... i could go on -- Toyota. they just have better add compaigns, so go jump on some other bandwagon. Every manufacturer has SUVs at this point... people want them, you cant shove small vehicles down the pipe if no one buys them. High fuel costs will eventually phase out most of these over time, but get real.
More than a few scientists have said that even if we were to eliminate all CO2 emissions today, the earth would keep warming for another 50 years. The idea that switching the nation's auto fleet to hybrids by 2020 is going to make any difference is ludicrous. If you just bough a waterfront condo, I suggest you buy flood insurance. The Chinese keep building coal fired electricty plants. They are buying millions of new cars every year. And don't think for a minute the Russians are going to get on board with climate change treaties. Their entire economy is dependent on exporting oil and natural gas. And 90% of their country is under ice. They don't give a damn about global warming. In fact, they most likely welcome it. Less ice in Siberia means more drilling and mining possibilities. Same thing under the Arctic ice. Don't think people haven't noticed. Canada's military has stepped up activity in the Arctic to send the proper signals.
tim - you are partly right, but toyota also leads the industry in hybrid production and their over-all mpg average is WAY beyond Ford, GM or Chrysler.
drop the smug - yeah. setting a good example is always a bad idea.
if an engine was to be designed soley for ethanol the fuel efficiency would rise rendering ethanol as efficient as gasoline
Ethanol = 21.1 MJ/liter
Gasoline = 35 MJ/liter
How are you going to get more energy from same volume of ethanol?
self hate -
Taxis do about 70k miles per year (as opposed to the 15-18k for a personal vehicle). 70k is about the break-even point on hybrids, so the next few years with the car are all cost savings. There are real-world Ford Escape hybrids and Priuses uses as taxis that have logged over 200k miles without incident (or battery problems).
Mike
Put a measly 3 ounces of acetone in your tank for every 10 gallons of gas, and you'll get a 10-20% increase in fuel economy.
Put an extra 5lbs of air in your tires on top of using acetone and you can improve your MPGs by as much as 30%.
If in addition to all this you want to get real fancy and put a chin spoiler on your ride (a do it yourself chin spoiler made from garden edging works fine, and can be placed far enough back from the bumper so nobody even sees it), 35-40% improvement is possible.
All these modifications provide an immediate return on investment. IOW, you save gas and money right away!
Let's see... 20% (acetone) + 30% (over inflate tires + 40% (spoiler) = 218% increase gas mileage = TOTAL BS!
I've got a fuel line magnet to sell you!!
uh, i thought that 20+30+40=90. Not that I disagree that his numbers sound a bit inflated (pun intended), if you're going to attack him, at least get your math right.
I would read that to claim that the tires trick gets you get an extra 10%, and the spoiler an extra 5%-10%. You do all 3 and you get your 35-40%.
A have no idea if any bit of it is true, mind you.
Get YOUR math straight son!
1.2 x 1.3 x 1.4 = 2.184 = 218.4%
Ethanol has a much higher octane rating (octane rating of 105 for E85 versus 87 for regular unleaded gasoline). Because currently marketed flex-fuel vehicles must be capable of efficiently burning both gasoline and E85, their engines must be designed to tolerate lower octane rated petroleum-based fuels. Typically this means that the engine must be designed to operate at a lower compression ratio. However, engines that are designed to run on E85 or higher ethanol alone can be designed to better exploit the higher octane rating of the fuel by incorporating higher compression ratios. This results in higher energy efficiencies, though those engines are no longer able to burn conventional gasoline.
The higher energy efficiencies of these engines offsets the lower energy content of the alcohol, resulting in approximately the same number of miles per gallon of ethanol fuel as a similar engine designed to run on gasoline. Designing an engine that is capable of running on both E85 and gasoline while changing the compression ratios of the stroke cycle to make maximum use of either fuel is possible, but so far not feasible on a mass-produced scale. [wiki]
Energy Balance:
In the case of production from corn in the US the U.S. Department of Energy has concluded that it does, stating in a recent report "the net energy balance of making fuel ethanol from corn grain is 1.34; that is, for every unit of energy that goes into growing corn and turning it into ethanol, we get back about one-third more energy as automotive fuel.*
*: www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/net_energy_balance.html
On an environmental note: Ethanol has received much support on environmental grounds primarily because of its role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Those numbers are in comparison to the base mileage, not in accumulation with each other. you fucking moron.
SP: I re-read the OP, and you're right. My apologies on exaggerating the math to make my point. Thought no one would pick up on that.
But the point is still valid - the savings figures are much too high.
edEx, edEx, edEx.
First, you're not taking into account energy density. Sure, you get a bit more total energy by making ethanol. But that's contained in a larger quantity of ethanol. To put it simply, you'll get lower MPG with ethanol, even if you can up the engine efficiency a bit.
Second, haven't you noticed that food prices are going up faster than inflation? Source after source after source says we can't grow enough corn to feed ourselves and our livestock as well as make lots of ethanol. Something has to give, and right now, that's food prices. Here's only one of the latest in a long line of articles that talks about the corn situation.
money.cnn.com/2007/05/17/news/economy/bc.food.ethanol.prices.reut/index.htm
Don't believe every wiki you read.
If you're going to criticize someone's criticsm of math, make sure you have your own math right.
A 40% improvement on a 30% improvement on a 20% improvement leads to a 118% improvement ... not a 218% improvement
Take a dollar investment.. get a 20% return on it, you have $1.20... get a 30% return on that, you have $1.56... get a 40% return on that, you have $2.18 ... your total return is $1.18 which is 118% of your original investment ($1).
reducing emissions and finding renewable energy sources are both extremely important, but thats only half of the problem. and as difficult as both of those challenges are, that's the easy part. the real problem is consumption. we consume too much, and our rate of consumption has done nothing but rise. the scary thing is, cutting our consumption, not just of energy but of all things, is neigh impossible. population is exploding, and the earth is a finite resource. it's simply a matter of running out, of water, of fossil fuels, cultivatable land, food sources, raw building materials. either there needs to be less people or we need more resources. it's one or the other. a grim forecast, but it's unescapable.
drop the smug - yeah. setting a good example is always a bad idea.
When it's a completely futile gesture it doesn't entitle one to a sense of superiority. The whooshing sound was the point flying over your head.
The only thing hybrids are good for is keeping a few fewer dollars out the hands of Chavez, the Russians, the Iranians, and the Saudis. Face facts people, without a huge technological leap global warming is inevitable. Every gallon you save this year will be burned 100 times over next year by the rising middle class in China and India. Even if the take "our example" and drive hybrids it is all just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
"Source after source after source says we can't grow enough corn to feed ourselves and our livestock as well as make lots of ethanol."
maybe the gov't should tell the farm lobby to f-off and allow some of the sugar-based product (which is much more efficient to produce, btw) into the country without first artificially increasing its cost.
i get your point on energy efficiency, however my initial post was about ethanol vs electricty which is also powered heavily by oil, not water, not wind—and mainly for use in auto's.
while i do respect your point on miles per gallon/litre I cannot understand why you think corn is the only source of ethanol...
here's a partial list of more commonly used ethanol sources...
barley
hemp
potatoes
sweet potatoes
sunflower
mollasses
wheat
straw
cotton
as well as cellulose waste.
--
food prices are rising for one reason only: oil.
dear smug,
please move back to kansas, where they actually equate closedminded conservative rhetoric (of the non-ecological sort) with pragmatism.
ps.
i got your point the first time around. i just think you're full of shit and republican talking points.
If you're going to legislate something, legislate the minimum per mile the cars can get. Legislating the type of engine reeks of a lobbyist's goal.
So, what, if a new type of super-efficient, 100 mpg engine comes out that isn't a hybrid, we can't use it?
Hey SP! Re-read the Oh-P. He sez:
Put an extra 5lbs of air in your tires on top of using acetone and you can improve your MPGs by as much as 30%.
If in addition to all this you want to get real fancy and put a chin spoiler on your ride (a do it yourself chin spoiler made from garden edging works fine, and can be placed far enough back from the bumper so nobody even sees it), 35-40% improvement is possible.
He's claim a total savings of 35-40%. So, cram it.
you have the reading comprehension skills of an 8 year old crack baby. I'm not the one trying to prove to the world that each one of those modifications mentioned above has, respectively, 20%, 30% and 40% improvement, and that they will compound themselves giving you a 118% or 218% or whatever super duper magical improvement to your mileage. jeesus christ, get a life will you?
maybe the gov't should tell the farm lobby to f-off and allow some of the sugar-based product (which is much more efficient to produce, btw) into the country without first artificially increasing its cost.
I'm pretty sure the corn growing locations in the mid-west don't have the weather to grow sugar cane. I could be wrong about this.
forget reading comprehension skills, SP has the temperament of an 8 year old crack baby!
As if cabbies now days don't snap your head back when leaving a stop light, a Prius has like 300lb-ft torque from 0-1000rpms, our necks are not going to enjoy this.
Otherwise, I think it's a pretty good idea.
OK fine, SP, you don't have to cram it.
The issue with rising corn prices is unbelievable FUD coming from the Bush administration.
The questionability of corn subsidies aside, Corn is pretty much the WORST crop possible to harvest for Ethanol production.
Soybeans and switchgrass produce almost an order of magnitude more ethanol than corn does. In areas where it's possible to grow, algae can produce 8,000 gallons of ethanol per acre. As a bonus, switchgrass is ridiculously easy to grow just about everywhere with minimal impact to the land.
Don't forget biodiesel either. With new emissions standards going into effect, diesel is slowly becoming a viable enviornmentally friendly fuel source.
I'm glad we're (finally) moving in the right direction despite the best efforts of Bushco.
edEx,
Most experts say we don't have enough land for the cultivation of ANY crop that can generate the amount of ethanol we need. And cellulosic ethanol is a wet dream. Nobody has been able to mass-produce that, which is why research labs around the world are all working feverishly on it.
schmod,
Biodiesel can be a great fuel, except that it needs to be run in diesel engines, which are virtually nonexistent in America outside of tractor-trailers, buses, farm equipment and other commercial vehicles. The several hundred million cars and pickup trucks Americans own can't use it. And it still doesn't do anything about global warming since you're still burning hydrocarbons and thus creating carbon dioxide. See above about switchgrass and cellulosic ethanol.
Nice try whoa,
You completely fail to even rebut my argument. Instead you resort to calling me a Repunlican or conservative and using "talking points" I understand "talking points" in this insult du jour around here but what I said is reality. It's science. People like you are always saying science should rule the day. Here it is: the planet is going to keep warming and hybrids aren't doing anything. Emitting 25% less CO2 means the planet will warm a fraction slower meaning possibly you will be dead by the time the shit really hits the fan. Congratulations. You should be so so proud of yourself.
The reality is YOU are the problem. You think insulting me and driving a hybrid cab makes you a better person. Go f yourself.
*See above about switchgrass and cellulosic ethanol.*
I'm very aware of switchgrass etc. and there's plenty of land to grow it all on. sugar-cane can be grown inthe south, not just the mid west where corn is grown. the problem here is, most of these so called experts are lobbied by the oil company's and the oil companies bought up most of the patents for fuel efficient engines back in the 70's.
nothing will change over night and the environment has along way to go to "better itself". but thinking of the future, we do in fatc need very fuel efficient engines. oil is here to stay for now, but not for long.
I was telling schmod about his mistaken impressions about cellulosic ethanol and switchgrass. You apparently have the same mistaken impressions. It's always some vast corporate and/or government conspiracy for people like you. If it was really that simple to make cellulosic ethanol, what makes you think the oil companies could keep it down? Is this another "100mpg carburetor" story? There are real, technical reasons why the world isn't peppered with ethanol refineries. Your "awareness" of ethanol and energy in general seems to be very limited, based on your very first statement here that "ethanol is more practical than electricity which still takes oil fuel to make." Several people have taken you to task for saying ethanol doesn't take any oil to process, and that's not taking into account that electricity can and does come from sources that don't contribute to global warming like hydro, wind, solar and even nuclear, which tears up the second part of your incredible statement. I honestly don't know how much more wrong you can be. Googling a few articles on ethanol doesn't make you knowledgeable. Obviously, oil won't be around forever. I'm of the school of thought that peak oil is very, very close. But I'm also a realist who doesn't have rose-tinted visions of magic ethanol curing everything.
brightliner, thanks for the insults—very educated.
you read it wrong. what i did say was ethanol is more practical than electric cars, now. not in 50 years cuz who knows.
where do you think the electricty comes from? trees, like money?
electricity is oil generated for the northeast grid. electricty bills rose almost 50% in the last 2 years for one reason, oil.
and in terms of my "conspiracy theories" i have none. i didn't mention one. and dislike people who have them.
you know very little about oil. perhaps if you had some stock in oil you'd be more educated. oil companies own many of the patents for fuel efficient engines why do you think there are barely any on the road? oil at this point in time is just way more profitable. in their eyes: why fix what aint broke?
also, you may not have rose-tinted visions, but neither do i. i was just stating the many benefits of ethanol... no one here except you and maybe a few trolls disagreed. i'm not asking for egg timer inventions just intelligence...
My god, will you listen to yourself?
...oil companies own many of the patents for fuel efficient engines
Oliver Stone couldn't sound more looney. Do you even know anything about the patent system? You say "the oil companies bought up most of the patents for fuel efficient engines back in the 70's." Patents don't last forever. Even if such patents existed (which I sincerely doubt), the newest of them would have expired well before the turn of the millennium and anybody could have used the tech for free. That nobody does tells any reasonable person that none of it works.
brightliner: enough with the arrogance and condecension. if you wanna take this off-line to email ok, but seriously, enough.
you need to reread some of your paragraphs, they difficult to follow. anyway, i know how the patent system work, but patents can often get quashed. meaning locked up. it's not a conspiracy it's what happens at the discretion of the patent agency...
why do people like you think, that whenever someone knows somehting you do not, it's a conspiracy...
currently in another thread:
what happend with WTC 7? did it collapse by the windfall of the north tower or did the government secretly use explosives to bring it down? i know you're intelligent and will not agree with the latter, i can only hope.