The latest is of the journal Science is devoted to hydrogen as a fuel and to other aspects of the energy equation. I've appended the titles; for access to full articles, you must be a subscriber. In the meantime, I'll post the series' editors introduction. ------------------------------------------------------------ Not So Simple Robert Coontz and Brooks Hanson Seen up close, hydrogen looks like a recipe for success. Small and simple--one proton and one electron in its most common atomic form--hydrogen was the first element to assemble as the universe cooled off after the big bang, and it is still the most widespread. It accounts for 90% of the atoms in the universe, two-thirds of the atoms in water, and a fair proportion of the atoms in living organisms and their geologic legacy, fossil fuels. To scientists and engineers, those atoms offer both promise and frustration. Highly electronegative, they are eager to bond, and they release energy generously when they do. That makes them potentially useful, if you can find them. On Earth, however, unattached hydrogen is vanishingly rare. It must be liberated by breaking chemical bonds, which requires energy. Once released, the atoms pair up into two-atom molecules, whose dumbbell-shaped electron clouds are so well balanced that fleeting charge differences can pull them into a liquid only at a frigid -252.89 Celsius, 20 kelvin above absolute zero. The result, at normal human-scale temperatures, is an invisible gas: light, jittery, and slippery; hard to store, transport, liquefy, and handle safely; and capable of releasing only as much energy as human beings first pump into it. All of which indicates that using hydrogen as a common currency for an energy economy will be far from simple. The papers and News stories in this special section explore some of its many facets. Consider hydrogen's green image. As a manufactured product, hydrogen is only as clean or dirty as the processes that produce it in the first place. Turner (p. 972) describes various options for large-scale hydrogen production in his Viewpoint. Furthermore, as News writer Service points out (p. 958), production is just one of many technologies that must mature and mesh for hydrogen power to become a reality, a fact that leads many experts to urge policymakers to cast as wide a net as possible. In some places, the transition to hydrogen may be relatively straightforward. For her News story (p. 966), Vogel visited Iceland, whose abundant natural energy resources have given it a clear head start. Elsewhere, though, various technological detours and bridges may lie ahead. The Viewpoint by Demirdöven and Deutch (p. 974) and Cho's News story (p. 964) describe different intermediate technologies that may shape the next generation of automobiles. Meanwhile, the fires of the fossil fuel-based "carbon economy" seem sure to burn intensely for at least another half-century or so [see the Editorial by Kennedy (p. 917)]. Service's News story on carbon sequestration (p. 962) and Pacala and Socolow's Review (p. 968) explore strategies--including using hydrogen--for mitigating their effects. Two generations down the line, the world may end up with a hydrogen economy completely different from the one it expected to develop. Perhaps the intermediate steps on the road to hydrogen will turn out to be the destination. The title we chose for this issue--Toward a Hydrogen Economy-- reflects that basic uncertainty and the complexity of what is sure to be a long, scientifically engaging journey. ============================================================ SPECIAL ISSUE: Toward a Hydrogen Economy --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Toward a Hydrogen Economy: Introduction to special issue -------------------- Not So Simple Robert Coontz and Brooks Hanson http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/305/5686/957?etoc p. 957 Toward a Hydrogen Economy: News -------------------- The Hydrogen Backlash Robert F. Service http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/305/5686/958?etoc p. 958 The Carbon Conundrum Robert F. Service http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/305/5686/962?etoc p. 962 Choosing a CO2 Separation Technology Robert F. Service http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/305/5686/963?etoc p. 963 Fire and ICE: Revving Up for H2 Adrian Cho http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/305/5686/964?etoc p. 964 Will the Future Dawn in the North? Gretchen Vogel http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/305/5686/966?etoc p. 966 Can the Developing World Skip Petroleum? Gretchen Vogel http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/305/5686/967?etoc p. 967 Toward a Hydrogen Economy: Viewpoint -------------------- Sustainable Hydrogen Production John A. Turner http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/305/5686/972?etoc p. 972 Hybrid Cars Now, Fuel Cell Cars Later Nurettin Demirdoven and John Deutch http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/305/5686/974?etoc p. 974 Toward a Hydrogen Economy: Review -------------------- Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies S. Pacala and R. Socolow http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/305/5686/968?etoc p. 968 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Malibu really does get great mileage. The 3.5 liter V6 is, as others have said, nearly as efficient as the 4-cylinder, and it has lots of power, too. This is proof that "high-tech" engines are not necessarily better. This 3.5 in the Malibu is a fairly old tech engine, it's an OHV design, doesn't have 4-valves per cylinder. But it performs very well and gets excellent mileage. Compare the mileage of the Malibu with this engine that the car magazines say is "old fashioned" to some of the newer design engines with overhead camshafts and more valves per cylinder. What do you see? The "high tech" engines produce comparable power out of small displacements than the Malibu's V6, so they have more horsepower per liter. Okay, but then look at performance and fuel economy, and you see that the bigger engine is no less efficient than the high-revving little one. Plus the bigger one will probably last longer because it doesn't have to be run so hard to produce its power, and as a side bonus there's no timing belt to break and strand you in the middle of nowhere.

As I said, I liked the Ranger drive a bit better than the Colorado, but the Ranger they had for me to drive was a V6, I'm looking for a 4Cly. Interestingly there are many 2.3L 4Cly manual trans Rangers available. They all come with the "employee price" minus a $2,500 cash back (have to pay sales tax on this rebate), and they are giving the A/C ($850) away for free, and on the base XL model. Now we're taling some real savings. The Colorado has a similar, but less, program, and the A/C is standard. But the end result is a very competitive price with the Ranger. I am leaning toward the Colorado as I can get it with Stability Control and the Locking Differential, almost as good as 4WD without the weight and cost. I can't say I know how well it works, but in theory it looks good.The 2.8L Colorado is also more powerful, I've look it is 175hp@5+K while the Ranger is 143hp at a similar rev. And the torque: 185@2800RPM Colorade and 154@3750 for the Ranger. This says a lot more "pull out of the hole" for the Colorado. Another reason to go with the Colorado, especially if one pulls a trailer at times. Funny, I have been defending Consumer Reports in a couple of threads and now I find CR telling me the engines in the Colorado are: "a bit crude and noisy" a negative and "Cabin is fairly quiet, and the ride and handling are more accomplished than in other compact pickups." a positive. My tests left me thinking the Colorade rides like a truck too (frame) and the engine (the 5cly in this case) wasn't particularly noisy, and I have not idea what CR means by "crude". So, there is a big question in my mind on CR in this case of their testing.

vj Lovely home! Just went through this - our home is 1930 Dutch Col Rev. We live in Fairfield County Ct where everything is overpriced - I got several paint quotes lowest was 10K - highest 17k Still in the final phase - we'll end up about 13k Went from this Almost done Same door - minus yrs of paint The prep was lengthy - stripping, stripping, stripping (see cedar shake roof which was painted!) - The owners attn to detail & help w/color was incredible - 1st day all storms came off, all shutters, all hardware each time he was on the job he found more to be done - the far left side of house was an addition in 50's he dug dirt away fr. foundation & painted foundation - the re- chaulked all windows - stripped entire garage (not in pic), stripped 2 exterior doors totally & repainted inside of doors, stripped down front & back porches, stripped shutters (in really bad shape) and many areas of trim & siding - painted all shutter hardware - removed sconces, house #, - did metallic paint to them - as well as knocker, door bell - the repaired EVERY single hole, painted all gutters w/enamel paint - mailbox Came in rain storm to re-apply the leaders (see pic) so, my answer to you is really depends on what type of job you are getting - I think we got a really good deal BTW - don't want to open can of worms but a 1920's home does have lead paint - unless there was an abatement which would mean the entire house trim, doors, siding, porches, windows etc... were stripped totally - This stuff does find it's way into your house - despite precautions, taping, plastic - Not much came into ours but enough that we did a huge clean up from the attic to basement - lots of wiping w/TSP & vacuuming - Good luck