Biofuels

Photo credit to treehugger.com

Electric cars may be a great option, but when biofuels come into the picture, they seem needlessly complicated.  Why would we go to the trouble of building entirely different motors and driving plug-in cars when we could just fill up our same old gas tanks with a different fuel?  Some racing series use blends, which contain a percentage of corn-based Ethanol fuel.  Not long ago, Indy Car used 100% Ethanol.  Just yesterday, I filled up my Jetta at a gas pump with a sign that said, "May contain up to 10% Ethanol."  It can't be hard to move to an entirely plant-based fuel, can it?

It turns out, there are several reasons why we can't, and on top of that, several reasons why we shouldn't. Chances are you've seen gas stations that sell Ethanol blends as well as those that advertise Ethanol-free gasoline. Those people aren't necessarily looking to avoid Ethanol on anti-environment principle.  Maybe some are, but biofuels do make engines perform differently and can cause problems. Who am I to blame someone for not wanting to use a product that doesn't work for them?

Biofuels do have environmental benefits, of course. This type of fuel is made from plants like corn or sugarcane, and since those crops can be replanted again and again, it is renewable if we use it wisely.  The funny thing is that biofuels are carbon-based, just like fossil fuels are; burning them releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.  But there are two important differences between biofuels and fossil fuels: First, fossil fuels come with a lot of other harmful emissions, such as sulfur, that biofuels release in insignificant amounts. Second, the carbon dioxide emitted through the burning of biofuels was absorbed by that plant recently. Unlike fossil fuels, which have stored that carbon for millions of years, biofuels don't add new carbon dioxide to the atmosphere; they just replace what was already there.  This means they aren't technically contributing to climate change.  

As nice as these benefits are, however, their are plenty of technical, social, and even environmental disadvantages that come with biofuels. As I mentioned earlier, many car owners don't like Ethanol because it can wear away rubber and metal and leave residue in the engine, and preventing that wear and tear means replacing injectors, gaskets, and fuel lines. In colder climates, different fuels can turn solid before the temperature reaches the freezing point and the driver may not be able to start the car at all.

We have bigger problems than just user-friendliness, however. In the last century, our boom in population was accompanied out of necessity by commercial agriculture. The ability to produce extremely large amounts of food has prevented widespread famine, but there is still an unacceptable number of hungry people in the world. This is partially caused by the demand for beef in the developed world, and as it continues to rise, diverts more food and water to feed livestock. If we can't feed everyone now, how can we expect to produce biofuels on a sufficient scale without causing severe starvation around the world?

The environment could face serious consequences with biofuels, too. Currently, a lot of our food is produced through monoculture, which is when farmers grow very large crops of only one type of plant. Not only does this strip nutrients from the soil creating a need for more fertilizer, it also leads to an increase in pesticide use. In the natural world, you won't find acres and acres of only one type of plant; different species interact and this helps them survive. Without this help from other species, crops are more vulnerable to pests, which necessitate the use of pesticides. But pests develop a resistance to pesticides, and each season, that means more has to be used. Overuse of fertilizer and pesticides can cause dead zones downstream--areas in water ecosystems where nothing can grow due to a lack of oxygen. This is a death sentence for that ecosystem as well as coastal economies that rely on the fish that live there. Read about more biofuel disadvantages here.

So--will biofuels completely take the place of fossil fuels? I don't think so. Nor do I want them to, unless we can find a way to make them more car-friendly, produce them on a large scale in an eco-friendly way, and keep them from taking food out of people's mouths. That said, I don't want biofuel research to stop by any means. While biofuels aren't likely to become the sole source of fuel for our cars, there's no reason they can't help us get away from fossil fuels.

Electric Cars

When we think of alternative sources of energy for cars, the first thing that comes to mind is often the electric car.  Electric cars have been on the market for a while now and have been growing, if slowly, in popularity.  The range and quality of electric options are also increasing modestly but surely.  Around the world, research is being done to make electric batteries lighter, longer lasting, and more affordable. The Formula E series is one of many indicators of curiosity about electric cars and determination to make them work for our lifestyle.  And since we're interested in this option for our personal vehicles, car companies are interested, too.

The Simpsons test drive the Elec-Taurus and subsequently
drive it into the ocean. (Please don't drive your
electric car into the ocean.) 

For some reason, the general consensus is that the economy and the environment are at odds. But nothing could be further from the truth! Economic and environmental interests agree in numerous ways, but when it comes to electric cars, the most important one is this:  globally, climate change is accepted as science and many countries are addressing it.  Technology comes into play with this kind of problem solving and the greenest options are likely to win out.  If the United States can't keep up with this ecologically friendly innovation, we're kicking ourselves out of the global market.  

Even in just the US, though, electric cars can benefit our economy. We as a society are learning about our environmental impacts and want to assuage them.  We want alternatives to fossil fuels, and automakers are listening.  It isn't just environmental scientists doing research with grant money who want to build a better battery.  GM, Nissan, Tesla, and others are working hard to respond to the problems of electric cars, because if they can, we'll buy them.  It doesn't matter if we want to save the planet, quit foreign oil, or just stop having to go to the gas station. If we want it, car companies want to sell it to us.

According to GM, 40% of car buyers would consider going electric if improvements are made, compared to the current fraction of only 5%.  What sort of improvement?  It comes down to manufacturing an electric car that keeps the consumer's peace of mind intact.  Hybrids are great for mpg but can be filled up at a gas station.  True electric cars, which use no gasoline at all, can only go a certain number of miles before they have to be recharged.  On top of that, recharging can take several hours and there aren't many convenient places to plug it in.  Even though most electric cars can easily cover the average person's daily miles, it may not be easy to commit to a car that is difficult to recharge once it runs out of power.

Unfortunately, it's hard to sufficiently increase the range of the current lithium-ion battery technology without it being too large to fit in a personal vehicle.  For this reason, some think the lithium-ion battery is on its last legs. The goal is to increase the density of energy generated by a battery, meaning a smaller battery can produce more power.  At the same time, electric cars need to be mass produced to make a difference, so the materials must be accessible, abundant, and ideally, renewable. Sulfur, magnesium, oxygen, or sodium could make up the next generation of electric car batteries.  

But what's all this research worth if electric cars aren't actually that green?  At first glance, sure, it's great that  an electric car produces absolutely no emissions itself.  The problem is that you have to plug it in, and if your grid energy comes from coal, than the electric car you thought was eco-conscious really just runs on coal.  If that's the case, shouldn't you just go for a hybrid?  At least you'd be burning gasoline instead of lignite, the extremely dirty-burning variety of coal we're resorting to as our stock runs out.

I'm going to vote no.  Go electric!

Here's why:  Yes, your brand new environmentally friendly car could pollute just as much as a gas-powered car.  But only at first. As power companies transition to renewable sources of energy, your coal-powered car can become a solar or wind car.  This makes an electric car a better investment than a hybrid because it can become completely carbon neutral itself.  You won't have to buy a new one when technology catches up; you just have to wait for your energy provider to get off fossil fuels.  We also have to keep telling automakers we like electric cars and the loudest way to do that is with our wallets.  When companies create products we like, we reward them by giving them our business.  Capitalism--the system works!

My final assessment?  The issues with electric cars won't last long.  Electric cars are relatively popular even now, so it's no surprise to discover that this is a great option for the car of the future.

The Car Question

When we talk about energy, we are often debating what the best form of energy is.  That question is often incomplete, however.  In most areas of life, we can't respond to every situation in exactly the same way. There is no best form of energy, period.  What we have to ask is, what is the best form of energy for this application?

One of the best examples of this is the heating and cooling of buildings.  Many modern buildings and residences use energy from the grid--often generated by the burning of coal--for heating and air conditioning. But this needlessly wastes our finite supply of coal and adds to the excess of carbon dioxide emissions. Why? Because geothermal energy works just as well in this case.  To access geothermal energy, pipes are sent underground to draw up air that, depending on the season, is warmer or cooler than the air on the surface.

Geothermal energy can both heat and cool homes.  Photo credit to 22degres.ca

Obviously, geothermal energy is impractical for transportation and needs to be extremely hot to produce electricity, so that is out in most places.  But it works quite well for heating and cooling, so retrofitting homes with geothermal heat pumps could decrease carbon emissions.  It also reduces costs for the consumer. Fossil fuel prices will go up as the supply decreases, but geothermal energy is reliable and does not have to be mined, transported, or refined.

Let's take a trip back to sixth grade science and remember what energy is:  it is simply defined as the ability to do work.  In terms of transportation, we want energy that can get us from point A to point B.  This could come in the form of our moving legs or in wind currents propelling a boat.  When it comes to cars, we want a type of energy that can be used to power an engine.

Cars are the backbone of the transportation system in the developed world; all other options--walking, biking, subways, buses--are considered "alternative" methods of transportation.  While environmentalists (including me) advocate choosing these alternatives as often as possible, I think it has to be accepted that when it comes to cars, we are in too deep.  Our infrastructure is built around them.  They give us freedom from long distances and public transportation schedules (so long as one can afford to have a car, of course). And we can't forget that for many people--probably for you reading this now--cars are much more than just a tool.  I'm not going to debate whether cars would exist in a perfect world because I don't think they're going anywhere either way.

The United States' national highway system is extremely large and complex; we can't just drop it and start over.  Photo credit to fhwa.dot.gov

I think it's safe to say that there are going to be cars for the foreseeable future.  But if that's going to be true, we'll have to find a different way to power them.  We may like fossil fuels now because we're comfortable with them.  They're familiar. We understand them. The bad news is that we don't have much left.  But there's good news, too--more good than bad, I daresay.  Firstly, there are all kinds of other energy sources up for grabs. Second, many of these sources aren't rudimentary theories that could potentially be possible--they're actual, reliable technology ready to be put to use.  And the best part, at least to me, is that these sources are cleaner and renewable, so they won't run out and leave future generations scrambling for new ideas.

Some options are cleaner than others.  Some are more reliable, some are more cost-effective, and some are more realistic than the rest.  In the coming weeks, I'll look at different energy sources for personal vehicles and weigh their benefits and impacts. Now, we won't find a source that can be consumed at our current rate; the energy solution is half the source and half the way we use it.  But it should be reassuring that technology isn't what's standing in our way.  We are standing in our own way, and more people are realizing that every day. The car question is answerable.  The options are there.  Now it all comes down to determining the right one.       

Sauber F1: Closing the Loop

Photo credit to sauberf1team.com

As sad as I was to hear that Simona de Silvestro was leaving Indy Car at the end of last season, it seems that she has embarked on an ideal partnership with Sauber Motorsport in Formula One.  In Indy Car, de Silvestro has worn Nuclear Clean Air Energy colors and, with the help of AREVA, was the only carbon neutral driver on the paddock.  She drives a Chevrolet Volt, a plug-in hybrid electric car, which features an electric battery supplemented by a gasoline engine.  For several years, she has promoted sustainability in motorsports and her new home of Sauber Motorsport shares her mission.

An appreciation for science ought to go a long way in the technologically advanced world of F1--all the way to the effects racing has on the environment.  Sauber definitely notes those effects and has even gone so far as to craft an environmental policy for their organization.  Environmental awareness in its most basic form is a plus, but Sauber seems to take a thoroughly scientific approach to its policy.  I love words like solar and wind, but the two I'm happiest to see in Sauber's environmental policy have a lot less buzz about them right now:  "closed loop."

What is it that separates us from other animals--opposable thumbs?  Language?  Complex social structure? Despite those things, the concept of a closed loop system is where other animals have us beat.  A closed system is one that generates no waste, forming a loop instead of a line.  Think of the water cycle:  water comes down in the form of precipitation.  It evaporates back into the atmosphere as a gas.  That same water then condenses and returns to the earth as precipitation again.  But humans, nowadays at least, use an open system in almost everything.  If the water cycle was an open system, it would be like receiving water from an outside (and finite) source and never reusing the water that evaporated.  Imagine how quickly we'd run out of water if that's how the water cycle worked!  We'd never just throw water in the garbage can, but that's how we're treating a lot of our other resources.  The most dangerous part about our open system is that we are separated both physically and psychologically from waste.  We don't often see the environmental degradation that comes from producing Styrofoam cups, nor do we come into contact with the mountains of Styrofoam cups in landfills.  They're out of our sight, so they're out of our minds; that's why we continue to stick with a system that's destined for failure.  Unfortunately, most of our energy also moves along a straight line.  We drill for oil, burn it in cars, and the emissions are released into the atmosphere, unable to be used as source of energy again.

So what do we do?  It's hard to imagine a world that's not based on disposable products, but Sauber Motorsport seems able to look in that direction.  As expressed in their environmental policy mission statement, "An environmental management system--developed as a closed-loop concept--embraces our operational activities as a whole and serves as an effective and efficient management tool."  Natural systems are closed; efficient systems are closed; efficient systems are most effective in the long term.  Therefore, it seems that Sauber will model its operating system after systems found in nature.  The mission statement does not give specifics as to how they will implement this, but closed-loop systems in nature fill certain criteria.  Most importantly, energy comes from the sun and waste remains part of the system to be used again.  Both of these bases are covered at Sauber already:  the team has built a solar park and is contributing to the construction of a wind farm in India.  (Wind power is actually generated by the sun because the sun is responsible for creating wind currents.)  The team also reuses and recycles its materials in as many areas as possible.  Of course, with the way our world is set up, Sauber would be hard pressed to have a completely closed system.  But it is a good start to close off as many outlets as possible, and I believe that the team's informed approach will further their progress.

But there's a problem:  Clean Air Energy, the organization that is partnering with Simona de Silvestro and Sauber Motorsport, is part of the nuclear power industry.  While there are undeniable perks to nuclear power, there's still that little issue of nuclear waste.  I know a little something about this. The Shearon Harris nuclear power plant operates not far from my home.  There's only one reactor, but there were plans to build more; before they were scrapped, however, the storage facility was built large enough to hold the waste from those other unbuilt reactors.  As a result, nuclear waste from other power plants is shipped and stored there. The problem of nuclear waste storage is local for me.

We're producing more nuclear waste every day and don't know what to do with it.  If something goes wrong at a nuclear power plant, dangerous radiation could permeate surrounding cities and ecosystems. Nuclear power is cleaner in important ways and that may make us want to build more.  But as my environmental studies professor liked to say, "There's a funny thing about probability."  The more we build, the more likely it is that something will go wrong, potentially allowing nuclear radiation to harm us.  That's not exactly a closed system, is it?

So no, I don't support nuclear power.  But I do support clean air.  I do support talking honestly and in depth about the problems we have and which solution is the best.  We may want our systems closed, but our dialogue?  That should be wide open.  I'm behind Sauber and Simona de Silvestro's mission all the way and I believe they're great spokespeople for our environment.               

The Race to Reforestation

I admit it--I don't follow NASCAR.  I inherited my Indiana dad's preference for Indy Car and for open wheel racing in general.  But I do live in North Carolina and I'm familiar with the series and its audience, so when I first heard about a program called NASCAR Green, I was in for a bit of a shock.  I didn't expect NASCAR to be the series with the biggest and best sustainability program.  I don't mean anything negative toward those who like NASCAR, of course.  It's just that I wouldn't think of sustainability as something the NASCAR audience would care about; therefore, I didn't expect it to be on the series' agenda.  

    

Even knowing that the program existed, I didn't think it would amount to much.  Maybe it's the pessimist in me, but I tend not to get too excited about products touted as "eco-friendly" or businesses turning "greener" because it often seems like more of a marketing tactic than a real step toward sustainability.  Water bottles with leaves on the labels are examples of this--that particular company may have started using less plastic, but that doesn't make bottled water green.  It makes it slightly less harmful.  Now, don't get me wrong:  I support any move in the eco direction, no matter how small or superficial it may seem.  But NASCAR Green is neither small nor superficial.  NASCAR Green's actions include using a 15% Ethanol blend, LEED certified office buildings, solar power, a large recycling program, and more.  But the best step they're taking?  I would argue it's planting trees. 

Recycling is great, but it only targets the solid waste problem.  And that is a problem, of course; we're going to run out of places to put our trash soon!  But unfortunately, unless a recycling plant runs on renewable fuel, it's contributing to carbon pollution, too.  Everyone should be recycling, but the greenest thing a racing series in particular can do is try to offset its carbon emissions.  That's what the NASCAR Green Clean Air Program is all about.  This program plants 10 trees for every green flag dropped at a race, and NASCAR claims this captures every bit of the carbon emitted during races.  

How does this help?  Remember, plants produce energy the opposite way we do--they take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen.  This is part of the process of photosynthesis. You might remember the photosynthesis formula from biology class: 

 6CO₂ + 6H₂O + Light Energy = C₆H₁₂O₆ + 6O₂

or

Carbon dioxide, water, and light energy produce glucose and oxygen.

This means that the more trees we clear away for strip malls and subdivisions, the more unabsorbed carbon dioxide we have to deal with in the atmosphere.  Conversely, if we plant trees, we allow more carbon to be absorbed, mitigating the effects of climate change.

Now it's important that we plant trees at all, but it's not the last step.  Once we plant them--and this seems to be the hardest thing for humans to do sometimes--we have to leave them alone.  Until about six years ago, it was believed that forests that have been left to grow for long periods of time, called old-growth forests, were limited in the amount of carbon they could take in.  This, however, is not the case.  Subsequent research has shown that old-growth forests are even better at capturing carbon than younger forests.  If the hundreds of trees planted by NASCAR Green really do offset 100% of NASCAR's racing-related emissions, imagine the capturing capabilities of those trees if we let them grow.

Maybe racing and sustainability don't seem to go hand in hand at first glance, but it turns out that there's more than one reason they do.  One of them is innovation, of course.  But there's also this:  if people are passionate about racing, it means they have something to care about.  Maybe those who instituted NASCAR Green realized that unless we change how we do things, we'll lose the things we love.  Environmentalism is really about preserving what we care about, whatever that may be.  There's no reason motorsports enthusiasts shouldn't protect the environment for all sorts of reasons, including motorsports itself.  Green racing isn't just for Formula E; I'd love to see all racing series follow the promising lead of NASCAR Green.     

Formula E: It's Not What You're Used To

Two months out from the very first Formula E "ePrix" on the streets of Beijing, it is becoming more and more clear that this all-electric series is like no other that's come before it.  While racing is racing and it is sure to attract many types of people, Formula E is going to be an entirely different experience.  But the attitude seems to be that if it's inherently going to be different, it's better to embrace the changes and be truly unique.  I was a huge proponent of the series before I knew a thing about it, and although I still am, some of these differences are a bit scary even to me.  But I'm keeping an open mind; I welcome sustainable changes in our everyday life, so I have to be ready for whatever Formula E throws at me too.  Here are a few details about this groundbreaking series--some quite interesting, some a little disappointing, and some just plain odd.

Photo credit to fiaformulae.com

Format

In mid-September, when other racing series will begin to wrap up, Formula E will just be getting started. From September 2014 to June 2015, we will see one race a month occurring in major cities throughout Asia, Europe, North America, and South America.  The Formula E championship will draw to a close in London on June 27th.  Both a driver and a team champion will be crowned that day.  See calendar
          Formula E, unlike most other racing series, is cost conscious, so practice, qualifying, and the race will all take place in one day.  Drivers will have just one hour of practice, an hour and a half divided into groups for qualifying, and about an hour for the race.  At first glance, this set up may seem to take away some of the fanfare that usually surrounds races, but it also provides an opportunity for race goers who can't take a Thursday or Friday off to see all three types of track activity.  Formula E is already proving to be a fan-friendly series--admission for the tests at Donington Park in England is free.
          What about pit stops?  Two are required for every race, and while these electric engines obviously won't be taking fuel, they won't even be changing tires.  It will be the driver who climbs into a second car with a freshly charged battery.  Slow to warm up to this?  I doubt you're alone.  What bothers me about it is that the drivers won't be forced to deal with the same car all race long.  Of course, the reason for this is battery life, and it would foolish to pause the race for however long it takes to plug in the batteries and wait for them to recharge.  It also adds another element of competition--instead of streamlining tire changes and setup tweaks, the drivers will have to learn to strap in and go as quickly as possibly.  They will also have to adjust quickly to potential differences between cars.  But extended battery life has been named as an innovation goal for the series; as it progresses, we may see changes in this part of the format.

Real World Applications

Street races are one of my favorite parts of racing.  It's always been fascinating to think of work-a-day pavement transformed into a race track.  Unlike other series, however, Formula E will race on street circuits specifically because it is the environment of the passenger car.  The hope is that the discoveries made over the course of the season can be applied as closely as possible to passenger vehicles, right down to the place they're driven.  Another bonus to races right in the city is that it will get the attention of people outside racing circles.  You can ignore a race that's tucked away at a track, but one that runs right through the middle of the city demands your attention.
          Perhaps more important than the location is the focus on the engine over the aerodynamics of the chassis.  Many racing teams in other series sink millions into chassis design, increasing speed by reducing wind resistance rather than adding engine power.  Since street cars don't depend on lap times and qualifying speeds, the idea is for improvements to come in the form of longer lasting and more dependable batteries.  Perhaps that will result in more tangible improvements in electric street car engines.

Push to Pass

One thing we're all going to have to get used to when it comes to Formula E is talking about engine power in kilowatts.  At the maximum level of power, the engines will produce 200 kilowatts, which is equal to about 270 brake horsepower.  We will see this setup only in qualifying, however.  Race speeds will be slower, but rather than this being due to added downforce, the lower speeds will be because of reduced engine power for the purpose of battery conservation.  In this setting, the engines will produce 133 kilowatts of power, or approximately 180 brake horsepower.
          Here's where it gets interesting:  in each race, three drivers will be given Push to Pass, which adds an extra 67 kilowatts, bringing them to maximum power for 2.5 seconds.  How will these three drivers be determined?  Fans will vote via social media, the Formula E website, or the Formula E app (launching September 1st) and the three drivers with the most votes will have "Fan Boost" for that race.  This is different from Indy Car's Push to Pass concept--each Indy Car driver starts with the same number of Pushes to Pass at every race.  Could a vote-determined Push to Pass interfere too much with the results?  Formula E chief executive Alejandro Agag expects it to interfere just enough to add another layer of excitement.  "If you're last you're not going to win the race with fan boost," he told the Guardian, "but if you're second you may win at the end."  The question is, will the same few drivers consistently win the popular vote, skewing the results over the entire season?  It seems likely that the popular drivers will stay popular.  Should personality be rewarded with racetrack advantages?  That may depend on how much of an advantage Push to Pass turns out to be.  

Sound

Some may consider Push to Pass to be the most controversial aspect of this series, but the most eyebrow-raising piece to me is the sound--or perhaps I should say the lack of sound.  At 80 decibels, they'll be slightly louder than a street car.  To think I was upset when I went to the Indy 500 in 2012 and the DW12s were  a little quieter!  In fact, these cars are so quiet, they had to design a sound for when the cars are entering the pits for safety.  Formula E expects that to turn people off, however, and counters that it will be easier to hear the commentators.  I guess that does mean the race will be a bit easier to follow.
          But, of all the new things about the series, I would say this is the strangest:  Formula E is actually using the relative quiet to dramatize the racing with music.  This is the part I just can't get over.  A soundtrack has been composed for the most intense points in the race, like the green flag, passing, Pushes to Pass, crashes, and the finish (listen here).  It makes sense to want to entertain spectators for the sake of the series' success, but I wonder if this is the best way to do it.  I don't want to get the feeling that the race I'm watching is choreographed, that there are people ready for the music cue on lap twenty-two, that the winner was picked out of a hat at the drivers' meeting that morning.  When I'm watching a race, I want to believe that anything can happen.  Will dramatic music add too much theatre to the sport?


Changing cars, Push to Pass, special music...the changes are big, and big changes aren't always easy to swallow.  But on the other hand, an all-electric racing series is going just going to be different and there's no way around it.  I'm nervous to see what these changes will actually look like, but I also respect the approach that if it's going to be a little different, let's make it a lot different.  Who knows?  Formula E may be an entirely different product from what racing fans are used to, and that may be what keeps it from blending into the background.

Bright Future for Indy Solar

Words like "renewable," "sustainable,"  and "clean" have a way of jumping out at me when other words blend into the background.  As I stared blankly in front of me in the first turn of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway while waiting for Carb Day to start, the video screen in the infield scrolled through the usual list of products and businesses that sponsor the Speedway.  Most of them went unnoticed by me and I'm sure those who surrounded me, but as soon as I saw the words "Official Renewable Energy Provider," I started paying attention.  This company was called Blue Renewable Energy, and along with IPL and SunWize Technologies, Inc., it recently opened a solar farm at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway.

Photo credit to bohlsengroup.com

As we all know, Yankee Stadium, Churchill Downs, the Colosseum in Rome, and other landmarks can all fit inside the Indianapolis Motor Speedway.  It makes sense, then, that this new IMS solar farm is larger than any other at a sports venue.  Located just outside the back stretch, the IMS solar farm covers 68 acres and can produce 9 megawatts of electricity.  Read more

I know what the next question is:  so what?  Wondering how the general population would answer that question, I took a look at the Facebook comments on the Speedway's article about this new solar installation. I was equal parts shocked and elated at the overall positive reaction to the news.  Of course, there was plenty of negativity to go around--some opponents claimed solar power "doesn't work," while others questioned why money would be spent on something Speedway goers didn't care a thing about.

But on the whole, IMS patrons do seem to care--and they like it.  I support this solar project wholeheartedly because the environment is my personal focus.  But the common theme in the positive comments was a bit different from that.  Many expressed the belief that this relatively new source of energy is interesting, and this kind of innovation belongs at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway.  IMS president J. Douglas Boles saw the connection between embracing solar energy and the original purpose of the Speedway as a testing ground for the automobile.  “Today," Boles said at the solar farm's ribbon cutting ceremony, "IMS is honored to be part of a partnership with IPL, SunWize and Blue Renewable Energy where innovation and technology are coming together to bring diversification of generation resources to this community."  Innovation has always drawn people to racing and continues to do so today.  Why wouldn't we enjoy witnessing progress in energy production as well?    

 Now, for those who say solar power doesn't work or isn't worth it, I'll say this:  solar power isn't perfect.  But coal and oil are far less perfect.  Both pollute our air and water and both will be depleted sooner than we think.  When the Indianapolis Motor Speedway was built, the automobile was new and had a much longer list of flaws than it does now; the Speedway helped us get where we are today in that industry.  There's no reason IMS shouldn't continue that tradition with renewable energy sources.  As Ernest Hemingway said, "The shortest answer is doing the thing."  The Indianapolis Motor Speedway has been "doing the thing" for over a hundred years, and with this new solar farm, continues to lead progress in other areas of society as well.