We’ve Got 35 Times More Horsepower in Our Cars Than in Our Power Plants
In the wake of the Depression, FDR created a succession of government groups that were to look into and plan for the future. Tasked with understanding the American economy and its social impacts, the National Resources Committee wrote a report in 1937 that was “the first major attempt to show the kinds of new inventions which may affect living and working conditions in America in the next 10 to 25 years.”
The Technological Trends and National Policy serves as a kind of technological State of the Nation address. I could probably pull out a million interesting factoids, but I was particularly struck by the commonsense way they thought about power. The “power available” to someone wasn’t just what came out of the wall, it was all the systems that used power, particularly cars, planes, etc.
“Transportation systems, which include motor vehicles, railroads, marine propulsion, and airplanes usually carry their own power generating equipment,” they wrote.
In other words, they recognized a car for what it is: a gasoline fueled power plant attached to wheels. Thinking of a car this way, the committee included vehicle engines’ horsepower in a table of other power sources. That doesn’t seem particularly interesting, but take a look at the numbers; they’re eye-popping.
Cars were a horsepower reservoir almost 15 times larger than the combined output of the country’s central and industrial power plants.
I decided to run the numbers for today’s overpowered vehicle fleet. (The math is below.) Turns out we have something on the order of 51 billion peak horsepower sitting in our driveways. That’s an incredible 38,276 gigawatts of power available. That absolutely dwarfs the nameplate capacity of our electrical power plants, which total up to a mere 1,087 gigawatts. In fact, each week of 2008, a horrible year for car sales, almost 38 gigawatts of capacity rolled into the streets of America.
Just to be clear, every week, cars with a total 52 million horsepower are sold. That’s 80% of the horsepower available to American industry in 1935. And that economy defeated Hitler. It’s not quite an apples-to-apples comparison, but it should make us think.
There are three things that I take away from this. One, the current size and power of our cars and trucks is just stupid. The Tata Nano, with its 33 horsepower engine, is the way to go. (If all of the world’s cars looked like that, going electric would also be a lot easier.) Let’s merely note here that the average American passenger car has 7.5 times as much horsepower as the Nano and yet both vehicles will get you to the grocery store or to Nevada or wherever.
Second, the people of just one hundred years ago would be awed by the amount of horsepower every American has access to. The funny thing — the irony, perhaps — is that we no longer need that amount of horsepower to do anything useful. The people of the prairie were scratching and clawing for every kilowatt hour of useful work they could wring out of some oil or the wind. The people of Omaha these days don’t need anything like the direct energy services of their forerunners. Regular folks produce little of their own food or goods or housing and yet they energy falling out of their pockets.
Third, and here’s the hopeful part — no sane country would encourage its consumers to get on the technical and performance treadmill that led us to this point. Who would want this piece of the American technological infrastructure and set of consumer expectations? It’s resource inefficient and expensive. I wouldn’t expect the Chinese to follow our path to the American car anytime soon.
Calculations: It’s hard to figure average horsepower of all American cars because it changes from year to year and the vehicle fleet is a mix of ages. So, let’s just make some simple assumptions based on Christopher Knittel’s data from an Institute of Transportation Studies report.
Let’s simplify a bit and say that cars are 55% of the fleet and light trucks 45%. The average new car has 247 horsepower now and had 110 hp back in 1980. Let’s just say the average car has about 200 horsepower. The average light truck’s got 236 horsepower now, up from 138 in 1980. Let’s call that an average of 210. Do the math. 51 billion horsepower sitting in our driveways.
Very impressive. Never did think of cars that way. However, if its all the same to you i would rather keep my economy car. I have children, groceries, a daily free-way commute to deal with, and horrible snow storms.
So if I’m understanding this correctly, the deal is that the power capacity of the automobile fleet has doubled relatively to the increase in the power of the rest of the energy infrastructure?
@Tim: Well, that’s one part of it. Actually, tripled relative to the rest of the energy infrastructure. To me, though, it’s just a sign of how ridiculously out of control our transportation system is. Why should we use two hundred horsepower to move a single human being? A horsepower is a very human measurement, derived from actual horses. A horsepower is generally considered to be about 10 humans worth of muscle power. Can you imagine being pulled down the highway by 200 horses or 2,000 human beings? Obviously, there are some benefits to having a higher level of power than 10 horses, but human perception and motor skills say about 60, maybe 70 miles per hour are about the best we can do. Then why not have cars with a max speed of say 85 that weight half as much as our current vehicles and have half the horsepower?
i like to go FAST!! I have 425hp in my car. i like to be pulled by that many human beings. What does that translate into your equation? To about 4250 human beings?
I also have a truck with over 750hp.
So,what you are saying is that this is stupid to have that much horse power??
Lets get real here, there is a direct relationship to weight versus power, also a relation to gearing of said power.
It depends on what you want or need in the area of vehicles.
The power consumption of your home may/may not be a direct comparison of said subject. Which is almost a constant.
why not have a max speed of say 85mph??
’cause i don’t want that!!!!! My vehicles do around 170mph!!! That’s just pure fun…
Don’t worry,i will not be back so say what you will about my comment…
Later..
[...] individual little power generators on wheels, a fact pointed out here by WIRED staff writer Alexis Madrigal. [...]
Without even fully reading this, the entire argument is flawed.
It’s misleading (as it is intended to be misleading by auto manufacturers) to measure peak horsepower of an ICE, it’s a BS power rating! Auto makers simply never provide constant power rating or energy efficiency figures for what they sell (energy efficiency is is ALOT different to fuel efficiency)
Powerplants and industrial generation are measured at ‘constant’ power, i.e like a diesel locomotive that can run at full power all day under load. Peak power is approx 2.5x ‘constant’ power so your figures are instantly exaggerated by a magnitude of 2.5. I guarantee if you ran an automotive ICE at full power under full load it would blow in a couple of hours (witness motor racing of all kinds… and they run super expensively rebuilt versions of the same… and they still blow up regularly when used at full power)
Also, power plants are measured in kilowatt hours per annum, try that calculation with automobile engines that sit silent for 80% of the time!
Economy cars are the way to go. The trend just needs to be towards smaller vehicles with more realistic performance attributes. Right now, it’s like everyone is recruiting Mark McGwire to play Little League. It’s overkill.
@Paul: Thanks for taking the time to comment. All of what you say is true. And I also wish that manufacturers disclosed the energy efficiency of their ICEs. And yet. The point still stands. Fine, our cars have 14x the horsepower of our power plants. As for the capacity factors in utility-speak of cars versus powerplants, you’re right: cars sit idle a lot of the time. I thought that was too obvious to point out as a caveat, and it’s also not really the point.
It’s still a fascinating way of thinking about the *availability of power* to the average person. Only people who have grown up with infinite access to power wouldn’t think of this as an important fact about modern times.
Is the power we have available matched to the current or conceivable needs of humans? My answer is not really. It’s just never a characteristic that we’ve tried to optimize for. In fact, as you suggest, selling more and more power has been a common tactic, even when the people using the actual car were unlikely to ever use that real or manufacturer BS rated peak horsepower.
[...] level that cars and trucks are individual little power generators on wheels, a fact pointed out here by WIRED staff writer Alexis Madrigal. Interestingly, when viewed in that light, the United States [...]
[...] level that cars and trucks are individual little power generators on wheels, a fact pointed out here by Wired staff writer Alexis Madrigal. Interestingly, when viewed in that light, the United States [...]
[...] level that cars and trucks are individual little power generators on wheels, a fact pointed out here by Wired staff writer Alexis Madrigal. Interestingly, when viewed in that light, the United States [...]
[...] level that cars and trucks are individual little power generators on wheels, a fact pointed out here by Wired staff writer Alexis Madrigal. Interestingly, when viewed in that light, the United States [...]
[...] level that cars and trucks are individual little power generators on wheels, a fact pointed out here by Wired staff writer Alexis Madrigal. Interestingly, when viewed in that light, the United States [...]
[...] level that cars and trucks are individual little power generators on wheels, a fact pointed out here by Wired staff writer Alexis Madrigal. Interestingly, when viewed in that light, the United States [...]
[...] 2009 John Q. Public Leave a comment Go to comments Science writer Alexis Madrigal put together an analysis showing we have more power in our garage than in our power plants. The data is interesting but the [...]
[...] Better efficiency is a good thing, but so is comfort, safety, and reliability. People in India aren’t buying Nanos because they’ve made the conscious decision to limit themselves to 33 HP, they’re doing so because they can’t afford anything else. They’re going in the opposite direction by trading the efficiency of bikes and motorcycles for something bigger. Americans can afford bigger, nicer, safer, more powerful cars for the simple reason that we, as an economy, have sought out progress, not rejected it. [Greentechhistory] [...]
[...] writer Alexis Madrigal put together an analysis showing we have more power in our garage than in our power plants. The data is interesting but the [...]
[...] level that cars and trucks are individual little power generators on wheels, a fact pointed out here by WIRED staff writer Alexis Madrigal. Interestingly, when viewed in that light, the United States [...]
[...] of every coal, nuclear, wind, solar, and hydroelectric power plant in the country. Alexis Madrigal does the math. What are we doing with all this extra muscle under the hood? Couldn’t it be put to better [...]
The hostility toward large vehicles is impressive. I certainly would not want to take my wife & 3 kids camping in a “Tato Nano”, much less worry about what parts of me will still be around for the paramedics to save after an accident.
Now, if there were a way to use some of this “extra” power I’d be all for it. But I suspect that just because a car has 250hp at a particular rpm doesn’t mean that 250hp is available all the time. I guess we could always run our cars at the optimal rpm and put the extra power in a battery, but I doubt that would maximize mpg or minimize air (to say nothing of noise) pollution.
Again, I would just point out that any quibbling over the technical details of the horsepower numbers misses the point. It’s just impossible to argue that the horsepower available to Americans in their cars is necessary for any purpose. It might be fun — I mean, who doesn’t like a fast car? — but it’s worth considering how much that fun is worth. How it might compare to other choices our society might make? Or even other sources of fun.
“One, the current size and power of our cars and trucks is just stupid.”
The decision to purchase each and every one of those cars and trucks was made by a rational reasonable human being. They could have bought a big car, a small car, a powerful car or a 36 horsepower 1962 VW Beetle. Or a bicycle. Are you saying that those people are all stupid?
You are assuming these decisions were made in a vacuum. They weren’t. There are a system-level effects that a) emerge unexpectedly or b) are deliberately caused by government policy and corporate imperatives that influence what is considered “rational” by human beings. The humans can be smart while the system ends up stupid. See also: traffic, fisheries collapse.
You are going to need a better alternative than “everybody should drive small, unsafe cars that don’t meet their needs” if you want people to listen to your arguments.
I bet if everyone did drive those small, “unsafe” cars, there wouldn’t be as many fatalities caused by traffic accidents. I’m really only in danger on the road because some people choose to drive oversized vehicles.
Good grief! So many people are taking issue over these nitpicky little details. Even with all the most conservative estimates and assumptions about US vehicles, they’re grossly oversized and overpowered.
Look at the highway: single humans commanding thousands of pounds of steel each. The energy to move just the human is a pittance. So we’re all damaging the earth and emptying our wallets in order to move piles of inert metals to and fro. I’m not saying we can do without cars. But 247 hp/person is, pardon my french, fucking stupid. We can certainly improve the ratio of humans to metals moved, and save a buttload of energy in the process.
Matt-
I think the notion that small cars are unsafe is itself something you ought to rethink. Smaller, lighter, less powered cars are a great deal SAFER than big, heavy, high horsepower vehicles, as long as they don’t have to deal with the latter! Force, after all, still equals mass times acceleration. And in collisions, Force is the enemy.
Nanos (as an example) are only dangerous if they might have the misfortune of getting in an accident with a big American car or truck (which would be ugly, of course). But if we’re talking about a theoretical reshaping of the entire national auto supply (or about the choice facing, say, China), then there’s nothing unsafe about contemplating a nation full of Nanos.
To follow up on Matt’s perspective, and Speed’s comment, what we have here is a decades-long collective action problem. At any given moment, if one individual is looking to buy a vehicle for themself, they will rationally want one that’s just a tiny bit faster, a tiny bit safer (ie heavier), and probably a bit more comfortable than the other cars on the road. This will, they think, give them advantages over the other folks out there – able to pass slow drivers more easily, win the race on the onramp, and of course survive their eventual accident at the other guy’s expense.
But over time, millions of these individual decisions only end up negating them all. When we’re all driving cars that are faster than we can safely move on the highways, and that are heavy enough to smash through barriers and obliterate little cars, no one is getting ahead of anyone and none of us is really any safer or happier. And yes, that’s pretty stupid. But not because of individual stupidity.
I don’t think the “Tato Nano” is unsafe just because it’s small. I think it’s unsafe because it lacks basic safety features like air bags. (If it had those features, it would be more expensive and heavier, and need a bigger engine with more horsepower … In short, it would look more like a hyundai or other econo car on the market.) And the safety aspects of small cars can be addressed (although not by entering some fantasy land where there are no big cars on the road.)
The bigger problem with small cars is that they don’t meet most American’s needs because they will not comfortably hold a family of five, plus friends. And it won’t hold a lot of luggage for when said family wants to go on vacation. And it won’t hold cargo when the somebody in the family wants to help a friend move. Or buy landscaping supplies, or furniture, etc.
I’m glad small cars are available. I own one. It is zippy, fun to drive and gets pretty good millage. However, saying “everybody should drive small cars” is unreasonable. When we want to go camping, or on a big shopping trip, etc, the small car stays in the driveway and we drive the larger vehicle. If I couldn’t afford 2 vehicles, I would just have the larger one because it meets my needs a larger percentage of the time.
And to address the comment about people buying large cars because they want to “one up” the other cars on the road, I think you are ignoring the more significant factor that people buy the car that meets their maximum expected needs. If you think you will sometimes need to transport 7 passengers, you are going to look for a car that holds 7 passengers. Looking at cars that only hold 5 passengers would be silly. If you anticipate hauling landscaping equipment around, you are going to look at a vehicle that can do that. It doesn’t matter that 95% of the time you are not hauling landscaping equipment. As another commenter pointed out, most cars are not even running 80% of the time. You buy the car that meets your maximum expected need, not the car that meets your average need.
@matt: That is a good point. People do buy cars like that, but I’d argue that no matter what size you’re looking at, the car is *still* overpowered.
Another question to consider — and I don’t know the answer — is what type of service could eliminate the need to buy all that peak capacity? (Because that’s what it is.) What if you could buy a small car with a certain number of Zipcar truck uses per year baked into the price?
And thanks to all the thoughtful commenters on this post. Your insights and critiques are much appreciated. Know that this discussion is worming its way into my brain and — likely — the book, too.
One thing that has always bothered me about the “energy crisis” isn’t that we have an energy crisis, especially with relationship to the transportation fleet is that we don’t have an energy crisis. What we have is a portable storage crisis.
First, you have to have enough power to get the vehicle moving, which is orders of magnitude greater than required to keep the vehicle moving. That’s why you have those huge horsepower requirements. It’s starting from a standstill that makes those horsepower needs so great.
Which leads to another issue. The wasting of energy required to stop the vehicle. There is an enormous amount of energy generated by brake heat in stopping a vehicle. Think about it. If a car goes from zero to 60 in 500, the “horsepower” the brakes generate when stopping it in 200 feet is much, MUCH greater. If we could trap the heat that is used in braking into some other form of lightweight energy storage device (which is all a gas tank really is), then the horsepower requirements of the engine would plummet.
Finally, and this is perhaps the most important issue, it’s the lightweight storage of rapidly refilled potential energy. The ability to put a bucket load of energy into a storage device in a short period of time that makes gasoline such a perfect fuel. Nothing else has this capability. According to the folks at the Auto X-Prize, whose goal is to reward someone for inventing a high mileage car [the same folks who paid that huge prize for a non-government entity getting a man into space] the energy that you’d get from plugging a car into a home electric circuit over an eight hour period is equal to 1/3 of a gallon of gasoline. As John Shore of AXP said, “This shows why gasoline has remained king. In five minutes, you can put a sh*tload of energy into a car.”
You want to solve this issue? Store the energy from deceleration so that you can use it to get the vehicle moving again, and figure out a way to get a sh*tload of energy into a lightweight storage device in 5 minutes.
@Don: Ultracapacitors have very fast charge/discharge rates, but their energy density is low. Some scientists hope that new materials can be found that will allow ultracaps to have li-ion battery-like density rates along with the ultracap-like charge/discharge rates, but they remain a bit of a pipe dream.
Alexis Madrigal,
“You are assuming these decisions were made in a vacuum.”
I am not.
Purchasing decisions are made based on many factors such as how many people do I need to transport, how much stuff do I need to carry, how much can I afford for gasoline and repairs, how much time do I spend in the car every day, what will my peers think, what is my experience with this brand, what kind of car did my father drive, am I a good/bad/fast/slow driver. And of course these often depend on things like how far have I chosen to live from work, how many kids have I chosen to have, how good/bad/fast/crowded are the roads where I have chosen to live, how far do I have to drive to buy a loaf of bread from where I have chosen to live, what are my transportation alternatives where I have chosen to live and work and how much can I afford to spend on the vehicle.
In the US we have availale a range of automobiles from the utilitarian Honda Fit and Smart fourtwo to luxury hot rods like the $147,000 510HP V-12 Mercedes S600 Sedan. They all meet the same set of safety standards, travel the same roads and comfortably carry four people over dirt roads, city streets and eight lane highways.
As rational reasonable people we decide which car (or in your terms how many installed horse power) suits us best based on our needs, wants and environment.
[...] We’ve Got 35 Times More Horsepower in Our Cars Than in Our Power Plants [...]
Hey Alexis, That’s right about those ultracapacitors. Lots of power for a very short period of time. And I do hear what it is that you’re saying in all of this.
My point is that we keep talking about an energy crisis, but as you note, we don’t actually have an energy production crisis. We have an energy consumption crisis because we have a fleet that’s powered with engines that give us the potential to produce what each of us needs on a *peak* basis. But most of that energy capacity is only required for acceleration. Once the vehicle is moving, energy requirements plummet. For instance, anybody that buys an 510 HP S600 buys it for the takeoff speed. The difference between 510HP and the 300HP version is negligible once you get up to speed. In fact, the high mileage diesel version easily keeps you moving at 155 mph. The differences are in the acceleration speeds. You get the acceleration part of the equation solved, and people will be elated with the performance of their diesel. And that means you could reduce that peak energy capacity your blog post mentions.
And to me, it all begins with having something that recaptures the energy from braking or going down hill, and then using that energy to supplement the internal combustion engine. Probably won’t help ships and airplanes too much, but it will significantly help cars and trucks.
If they can ever figure out how to capture and store energy in a lightweight portable device, then the peak gasoline-based horsepower needs drop … a lot. You can power a fast vehicle with a small diesel or natural gas engine operating efficiently at a constant speed, and drastically cut the fossil fuel energy consumption. Easier said than done.
@Speed: You are clearly a reasonable guy. :) But I fail to see how picking a car based on what kind of car your parents had is reasonable or rational. It’s certainly a factor in economic decision-making, but it’s exactly the kind of thing that puts the lie to Homo economicus. Similarly, I would say that buying a car based on a once-a-year or once-a-month maximum power need is not rational or reasonable.
People’s needs have changed very little over the last fifty years and we have a lot more horsepower. What’s changed is their perception of utility and need, which is to a great degree based on manufacturer’s increasing technological capabilities and marketing imperatives. Most (non-electronic) consumer products have been “good enough” for decades and since then, it’s been a lot of gloss and hype.
And let’s not get started on the various historical governmental decisions that have tilted the economics of “where I have chosen to live and work” in favor of a long-distance commuting lifestyle in a personal vehicle, despite ample evidence that this reduces human well-being as reported by the selfsame people who have chosen where they live and work.
It is Tata Nano, not Tato.
Alexis: I bring up “my father’s car” because more than once I’ve been told, “My father always drove an X.” All else being equal (and what are the material differences between equivalent models of from Ford and a Chevy? Honda and Toyota?) and after all the big needs are met (number of doors, seats, warranty, price, audio system etc.) “what dad drove” sometimes tips the balance. It is not an important part of the argument and I will concede the point if you will address the rest.
People’s needs have changed a lot over the last 50 years. We can no longer walk to the neighborhood bakery, grocer, butcher, hardware store, bar, florist, shoe store, church, movie theater, pharmacy, dress shop or library. Instead of small shops with limited selection we now have the much maligned “big box” stores (and churches and libraries) with a far better range of products and services. In the early 1950s there were many “working families” that had no car. Now we’re willing to spend money on an automobile in exchange for all those better products and services. Start counting horsepower.
And work has moved from the big dirty centrally located industrial section of town or the crowded “downtown” to geographically dispersed, modern, clean, air conditioned industrial and office parks. So we need another car (assuming the standard two parent 2+ children nuclear family — then there’s always grandma that just moved in). Just doubled the horsepower total.
Now we ask, how much horsepower is enough or in your terms, how much is too much? I’ll concede that 500 HP per car is too much. And I’ll argue (based on experience) that 36 HP is too little. You tell me. Show your work.
And finally, there is a big difference between “needs” and “wants.” We need 2,000 or so calories and some water every day. We don’t need beer, wine or fresh baked bread. Books are useful and important but modern libraries and the internet mean that nobody needs to own one — it is irrational to own a book. Not everything is rational but there is plenty that is reasonable. And the discussion of reasonable is much more interesting than the mathematics of rational.
How many horsepower is reasonable?
[...] http://www.greentechhistory.com/2009/08/weve-got-35-times-more-horsepower-in-our-cars-than-in-our-p... [...]
You’ll also like some of the comments at the Freakonomics link to your post.
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/why-do-our-cars-have-so-much-wasted-muscle/#comments
[...] of every coal, nuclear, wind, solar, and hydroelectric power plant in the country. Alexis Madrigal does the math. What are we doing with all this extra muscle under the hood? Couldn
“People’s needs have changed very little over the last fifty years and we have a lot more horsepower.”
I disagree with this statement. Over the last 50 years we have developed a “need” to survive crashes at highway speeds. This means cars need to survive crash tests and be equipped with air bags and seat belts and tempered or laminated glass, etc. Also, the migration out of the city centers and into the suburbs means that a larger percentage of the populous “needs” to have access to an automobile. And certain regrettable changes in diet, as well as an increase in the percentage of the economy working clerical rather than labor fields means that we are larger around the middle and “need” more room in our autos. Plus we generally live in smaller families than before, with bigger houses (because we are richer than we were) so we “need” more personal space.
Saying that our basic needs haven’t changed in the last 50 years ignores the fact that our needs are driven by where and how we live. And where and how we live have certainly changed in the last 50 years.
Your points on safety are well taken. I didn’t realize how much the fatality rate has actually come down. (A nice overview: http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2007/07/30/good-news-on-auto-accident-trends.html). It’d be interesting to see an analysis of how much the set of safety technologies adds to the cost of a car. Like, how expensive are seat belts — and laws promoting their use — and what role did they play versus much fancier, more expensive safety tech?
I’ve sometimes got to carry my 3 kids plus more people and stuff. So when I got down to one vehicle, I kept the van — it’s cheaper to drive it to work than to pay a second registration and insurance on a 2-seater. (Sometimes I go to work by bus plus bike, but I don’t get any discount on my monthly parking, and I lose about a half hour’s pay for the same time away from home, and my marginal cost is $8 fare versus $4 for gas.) I’m currently one-upping the other drivers with a 1994 G20 with a V6 that I see can make 190hp — and I’ve got trouble maintaining 65mph going up a hill (or 55mph on a longer, steeper hill). It doesn’t seem like I’ve got excess power.
There are obviously circumstances where more power is better. You are clearly running close to capacity a lot, so it would make sense for you to have large amounts of HP. The fact is though that 75% of people are driving to work alone with a 2,000 pound exoskeleton. I don’t want to take away everyone’s car (I kinda love driving, at least outside the city). It’s a question of how to balance people’s everyday needs with people’s perceived peak needs.
Alexis:
“It’d be interesting to see an analysis of how much the set of safety technologies adds to the cost of a car. Like, how expensive are seat belts — and laws promoting their use — and what role did they play versus much fancier, more expensive safety tech?”
The Cost Effectiveness of Airbags by Seating Position
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/278/17/1418
Lots of background material plus a valuable list of references.
You haven’t answered my question … How many horsepower is reasonable?
A week after I bought an emergency 5K watt power generator for my house I listened to the “purr” of my suburban’s engine and wondered why I couldn’t plug my house into THAT.
The other thought is which is more “Rube-Goldbergian” everyone has their own cars as we do now or there’s people mover conveyor belts everywhere with (perhaps) much fewer engines running those conveyor belts than are now powering our cars?
Finally as Obama is seeking to expand high speed rail in the US I gotta wonder if there’s a benefit to allowing cars on to these rail cars (think land based ferrys).
[...] writer Alexis Madrigal put together an analysis showing we have more power in our garage than in our power plants. The data is interesting but the [...]
Advantageously, the post is in reality the sweetest on this precious topic. I agree with your conclusions and will thirstily look forward to your next updates. Saying thanks will not just be enough, for the exceptional clarity in your writing. I will directly grab your rss feed to stay informed of any updates. Good work and much success in your business endeavors!