This article is solar powered.

It was written from a laptop powered by one of Brunton's mind-bending Solaris solar panels: foldable, flexible, and incredibly portable. In this particular case, it's flowing to a Brunton Solo 15, which, in turn, is charging this laptop.

The particular Solaris model we're previewing is a Solaris 26, which is capable of outputting 26 watts of power using cutting-edge CIGS technology. CIGS is the new flexible panel technology that recently set a 20% efficiency record for thin-film panels. 26 watts won't power your air conditioner, but it's enough juice to completely light up two or three standard CFL light bulbs.

Brunton, which has a history of putting out portable solar panels, has really outdone themselves in the new Solaris models. The Solaris 26, for example, folds into a packet with the footprint of a sheet of paper and about an inch thick. The panel is water resistant and highly flexible, with a smooth nylon coating encasing it. We've tested it charging laptops and batteries, and it easily handled the task, even in the shade.

We'll post an update shortly describing the new Solo. In the meantime, we're going to go enjoy the sunshine.

Howdy folks, we've been gearing up and accumulating test miles on our fleet of "gap transportation" in preparation for the good weather up here in the northern hemisphere.

The review is looking pretty complete: we have our trademark and extremely detailed raw reviews on rides like the new Dahon Mu P8, the REI Novara Buzz Flyby folding bike, the high-tech Ross Motors 2000XR, the elite Riese und Muller Birdy 2 Monocoque, the affordable Schwinn Stealth scooter, the Bladez 450 electric scooter and a very rare appearance from the endangered Riese und Muller Frog.

Dahon is a big name in folding bikes, and we're very happy to report that they will be participating with the new Mu P8. As far as we know, this will be the first official review of the hot new ride. We'll update here when it arrives. We'll also be reviewing the new Jetstream P8 when it's available later this year.

Brompton is across the pond, so we'll need to give them some time. We'll update here as things change. Stay tuned for the review this Spring!

An interesting article from BusinessWeek, it describes how several large US corporations are trying to have their cake and eat it, too.

Apparently, it's cheaper in many cases to spend PR and advertising money on appearing green to the unsuspecting public than it is to actually take action.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/0809/b4073000596425.htm?campaignid=rss_daily

"High-performance vehicles such as this may actually be legislated out of existence," Tadge Juechter, GM engineer, bemoans.

"Highly habitable planets such as this may actually be destroyed out of human stupidity," RawEco writers note.

If the regular 400 HP Corvette is truly not fast enough for you, here's a crazy idea: keep making your gas guzzling ZR-1 Corvettes and stop selling Hummer H2 SUVs, Suburbans and Tahoes. Oh, right, you're only saying this to put a dramatic spin on CAFE regulations that GM opposes (big surprise, from the people who also brought you the death of LA's Red Car mass transit system and the EV1. We're waiting to see if/how they deliver the Volt.) Keep in mind this is total BS. We're not opposed to having 4-wheeled fun, but idiotic statements like Tadge's really seem myopic and represent GM poorly.

Mourn the loss of $100,000 gas guzzlers here: http://www.kansascity.com/382/story/411332.html

Send GM and Tadge your love here:

General Motors Corporation
P.O. Box 33170
Detroit, MI 48232-5170

Right on cue, as they shill their so-called "hybrid" Porsche from the previous centuries, Porsche goons have descended on Capitol Hill to petition a change in CAFE standard calculation rules to allow it to avoid being regulated by the standard.

Shame on you. Dr. Porsche is rolling over in his grave.

Here's an interessting tidbit: Porsche is claiming that their very own Dr. Ferdinand Porsche invented a line of "green" cars known as Lohner-Porsches.

Today, Porsche offers a full line of... um... gas guzzlers. Unfortunately for the planet, he apparently didn't pursue the idea very far.

BusinessWeek recently published an article "Is GM's Green Tech Better Than Toyota's?"

Here at RawEco, we believe that hybrids are simply a gas saving measure that are really just a stepping stone to a fully fossil-fuel-free transportation system that involves battery/capacitor electric cars and solar or wind-generated electricity. We really aren't partial to Toyota, Honda or GM in terms of their current halfway technology.

However, we are partial to accurate reporting.

The article claims: "The advantage of GM's so-called two-mode system, points out GM's Larry Nitz, who has headed the automaker's venture with the other three companies, is that the engine speed remains constant when the gears of the vehicle are changing. This is extremely important in the performance of a pickup or SUV when it is carrying loads or going uphill. The power is sent to the wheels mechanically through a series of clutches and gears. In a conventional hybrid, such as Toyota's, power is sent to the wheels electrically, which is less effective for bigger vehicles."

This is a very odd statement. First of all, Toyota's Prius/Camry hybrid systems use a CVT transmission along with multiple electic motors/generators. By definition, a CVT can maintain engine RPMs at a constant rate while vehicle speed varies. So the statement "The advantage of GM's so-called two-mode system... is that the engine speed remains constant when the gears of the vehicle are changing" is not only inaccurate, but misrepresenting Toyota's Synergy system.

Furthermore, the second statement "In a conventional hybrid, such as Toyota's, power is sent to the wheels electrically, which is less effective for bigger vehicles" is simply absurd. Perhaps this journalist is not aware of modern locomotives or subway systems. Modern diesel-electric locomotives can best be described as "series hybrids" like GM's upcoming Volt. Here, a massive diesel generator creates electricity which is used to power electric motors. It seems that the electric motors do just fine hauling 12,000,000 pounds of freight. In fact, according to the all-knowing wikipedia: "As is the case with any vehicle powered by an internal combustion engine, diesel locomotives require some type of power transmission system to couple the output of the prime mover to the driving wheels. In the early days of diesel railroad propulsion development, electric, hydraulic and mechanical power transmission systems were all employed with varying degrees of success. Of the three, electric transmission proved to be most practical, and, except for some diesel-hydraulic locomotives manufactured for lower power applications, nearly all modern Diesel-powered locomotives are diesel-electric."

Similarly, subway systems are pure-electric drive, and, last we checked, can easily haul more than a gas guzzling BMW or GM Suburban.

Here's some nice coal industry propaganda that we came across:

"Did you know that half of the electricity that heats our homes, lights our schools, and powers our businesses comes from coal?"
Yeah, I'd say that's the problem. :)

Here is some fun facts from their FAQ with our comments [in brackets]:

I saw an ad that said coal plants are now 70% cleaner than they were in the 1970s. Is that really true?

It is true! [in cheesy voice, "Why, I'm glad you asked!!"]

The calculations are based on five pollutants: carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and particulate matter.
Data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency calculates environmental performance per unit of energy produced. That is, the relationship of emissions per billion kilowatt-hours.
From 1970 to 2000, the value for that ratio fell from 30,510 short tons per billion kilowatt-hours to just 8,040 short tons per billion kilowatt-hours — a reduction of 73.66%.


[This one is our favorite: it's kind of like asking, "Why is it better to get beaten by clubs rather than being tortured and then being beaten by clubs?" Either way, you're dead. Kind of like coal and oil.]

Why is coal a better answer to our energy needs than oil?

Put simply, America has more coal than any other fossil fuel resource. In fact, 38 states have large coal deposits. Our abundant supply means that we do not have to rely on foreign imports from politically volatile parts of the world.
In addition, coal accounts for half of our domestic electricity usage, while oil contributes to just 3% of our needs.

There's a saying that the stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones. It can be interpreted many ways (and is sometimes credited to a former OPEC executive), but the way we see it here is: yes, America has a lot of coal. We also have a lot of mercury deposits. Having a lot doesn't mean we should go dig it up and burn it. These fake consumer groups (like those at those fake Consumer Choice groups paid for by junk food companies) push these clean images and fake faqs, but in reality, they'll be remembered as con artists and frauds.

It's funny that the only industry they can claim they are better than is the oil industry. It's sort of like saying you came in second to last. You still suck.

There's simply no way to burn hydrocarbons and make electricity cleaner than methods that rely on existing energy sources like the sun. So just give it up, people. You're not fooling anyone, and you're holding up the train.

Honda's CEO recently went on record to bash GM's new Volt and essentially any car that allows you to charge its drive batteries through a wall socket.

It's a little sad to see this style of old thinking from a car company that supposedly embraces green technology. Here at RawEco, we believe that a "green car company" is an oxymoron; there's no car company today, Tesla included, that is truly ecologically sound, and it's probably because it's difficult to put together several thousand pounds of metal and make a profit without cutting many ecological corners. "Green" cars aren't ecological; they are simply somewhat less damaging that other cars.

That being said, Honda's approach to the hybrid is significantly more conservative than Toyota's; the Honda hybrid system can be accurately described as a "mild hybrid", having a starter motor on steroids wired to a large NiMH battery pack, whereas Toyota's is a parallel (or full hybrid), capable of running entirely on electricity. Up till now, the main stumbling block is that the battery pack in hybrids have been too wimpy to push the car more than a mile or two, and the drive motors aren't geared to allow speeds higher than 25 mph.

In short, while Honda calls itself a green car company, in reality it is quite conservative in its technological approach to reducing its cars' ecological damage. Honda's fuel cell work has been garnering attention, but with the promising new generation of batteries, Honda probably fears millions of dollars of fuel cell research going down the tubes.

The easiest way to combat that is through bad press of its competitors.

Fearing the new and hanging onto the old is a sure fire way to allow upstarts like Tesla to dethrone old establishments, so, in a sense, we welcome Honda's old-school thinking.

The first impression we got when watching CNN's Planet in Peril is that they actually spent some time and money to fly their staff around to cover some hot topics in ecological news.

The second impression is that they let America off a bit too easily. Sure, Madagascar, Thailand and China are destroying the earth, but America has saved the wolves in Yellowstone! Okay, so it's not that one sided, but it certainly didn't discuss our shortcomings, such as how Americans consume more energy per capita than any other country on the planet.

While it's laudable that they are trying to cover this type of news instead of yet another embedded reporter in the Middle East, there should be less finger pointing and more calls to action here at home.

The segment on Houston's atrocious Ship Channel was a refreshing exception, though the blame isn't exactly squarely in the face of ExxonMobil or other operations in the area.

Perhaps that's because Planet in Peril was sponsored directly by ConocoPhillips and BMW?

It's difficult to say if you can produce an unbiased documentary when your bills are paid by one of the largest oil companies in the world, and a car manufacturer that encourages its drivers to "own the road, but leave a little for the others".