Filed under: Emerging Technologies, AutoblogGreen Exclusive
It's Friday: is a cat bus green?
Recently, Korean scientists created glow in the dark cats and scientists have created glow in the dark rabbits and pigs in the past. Glowing animals are novelties but GMO or Genetically Modified Organisms are actually quite common in our food supply and you often see these foods bannned because of concerns over safety. While not technically possible currently, the creation of genetically engineered vehicles is imagined in science fiction and fantasy (like the cat bus in the anime My Neighbor Totoro, which you can seen in the videos above and below the fold).
A living car would mean efficient production, repair, energy collection and disposal because living systems are much more efficient than traditional technologies. However, the impact on the eco-system is unknown and possibly detrimental. For example, a cat bus might escape, grow wild, change the eco-system and endanger the survival of some species. So, while it would be really cute and furry to ride in a giant cat bus, it's probably not a good idea to create these things until we have a much better idea of their impact on the environment.
[Source: YouTube]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Steve 12:28PM (12/14/2007)
I've seen that movie--it's pretty good Anime.
But we already tried living cars. They were called horses. They ate a lot, crapped in the streets, they constantly needed new horseshoes, and if one broke a leg, you had to kill it.
No, the way to go is to co-opt the engineering skills of evolution in our quest to improve our own technology. For all the human arrogance these days, Nature still has us beat by a wide margin: better solar power, more effective energy conversion, better computing capabilities, better aerodynamics, minimal waste, significantly better abilities in chemical isolation and modification, better ability to deal with and eliminate interference with necessary functions, and of course, self-repair.
Honestly, the idea that we know SO MUCH about the universe and all, and that we're SO GOOD at engineering, is ridiculous. As far as knowledge goes, we still have many a steep hill to climb.
Reply
GoodCheer 5:43PM (12/14/2007)
Um, except for the part of efficient energy conversion. The average day of the Tour de France is about 110 miles, the riders eat between 6 and 7 thousand calories, and ride for 4.6 hours.
6500kCal = 7.5 kWh
Last Tour, Floyd Landis averaged 232 W output while on his bike, over an average of 4.6 hour each day (while covering on averaging 110 miles).
7.5 kWh / 4.6 h = 1630 Watts worth of energy burned.
conversion rate 232/1630 = 14%.
I have neglected the time spend not on the bike... but then we are talking about getting useful work out of animals. I have also neglected the overall depletion of resources the riders undergo over those three weeks, which I suspect would more than make up for it.
(Actually I was expecting it to be far lower... Did I miss anything?)
Reply
Chris M 8:49PM (12/14/2007)
GoodCheer: Sounds about right. If so, that means they are using about 68 watthours per mile. The EV1 used about 200 wh per mile, but went faster and was much bigger and heavier!
Reply
Steve 6:35PM (12/15/2007)
Ah, but don't forget that that energy went to a lot more than just the bikes' wheels. The energy in the food those people ate went to maintaining their systems under such strain. I was actually referring to the efficiency of mitochondria in turning glucose to ATP, which is the body's usable energy. I have heard that they're something like 70 percent efficient.
I'm actually quite impressed that 14 percent of the energy in the food was turned into motion. In fact, it seems to prove my point.
Reply