http://www.airshipzprize.org/

Being worked on now. Probably not cost effective for US but definitely in China, Canada, and Latin America where the infrastructure isn't as defined.

In South America in general it would be great. Planes suck over rain forest because there is crazy bad turbulence. Not necessarily unsafe, but definitely unsettling. I almost pooped myself flying to iguazu. Landing at an airport the size of a football field surrounded by large trees didn't put me more at ease either.

[quote name='ChurchSkiz' timestamp='1311626454' post='4840184']
http://www.airshipzprize.org/

Being worked on now. Probably not cost effective for US but definitely in China, Canada, and Latin America where the infrastructure isn't as defined.

In South America in general it would be great. Planes suck over rain forest because there is crazy bad turbulence. Not necessarily unsafe, but definitely unsettling. I almost pooped myself flying to iguazu. Landing at an airport the size of a football field surrounded by large trees didn't put me more at ease either.
[/quote]

If you think things get a little hairy in a normal fixed wing aircraft in those kind of winds, just think about what it is like after you put a giant sail on one.

Airships have their uses, but also their limitations. Having been in a small but high powered semi that was caught in winds close to ground,... I can't say I would want to be on one that was anywhere near a jungle covered mountain side.

It's really not a necessary bill. This is a self correcting problem, as gas prices go higher, people want more gas efficient vehicles and (intelligent) auto makers respond to that demand. There really is no need to legislate it as that's the direction that automakers are already going.

Gas prices are only 1/3 what they are in the UK but even in the UK people still buy inefficient cars.

I think the distinction should be on engine efficiency, not mpg. i.e how much energy you get from a litre of gas. Then you can still have very powerful cars but they have to be efficient... this is what F1 and many performance production cars are already doing.

[quote name='tstrimple' timestamp='1311217883' post='4838272']
It's really not a necessary bill. This is a self correcting problem, as gas prices go higher, people want more gas efficient vehicles and (intelligent) auto makers respond to that demand. There really is no need to legislate it as that's the direction that automakers are already going.

Gas prices are only 1/3 what they are in the UK but even in the UK people still buy inefficient cars.

I think the distinction should be on engine efficiency, not mpg. i.e how much energy you get from a litre of gas. Then you can still have very powerful cars but they have to be efficient... this is what F1 and many performance production cars are already doing.[/quote]

Of course you're going to have some people continue to buy inefficient vehicles, that will never stop. However the average fuel economy for passenger vehicles in the UK is much higher than in the US.

If you think things get a little hairy in a normal fixed wing aircraft in those kind of winds, just think about what it is like after you put a giant sail on one.

Airships have their uses, but also their limitations. Having been in a small but high powered semi that was caught in winds close to ground,... I can't say I would want to be on one that was anywhere near a jungle covered mountain side.

I don't believe it's the wind quite so much as the random hot/cold/dry/humid pockets of air. I'd still much prefer to be floating and being blown around a bit rather than traveling 500mph and dropping 5 feet in a second repeatedly for 2 hours.