“Live to Ride, Ride to Live,” is perhaps one of the most well know slogan of Harley Davidson and is the motto that many of us live by as we sit astride our bikes each day. The feeling of wind in our faces, the glorious rumble of the bike beneath us and the smell of leather are just a few of the perks that make riding a motorcycle one of the most thrilling and enjoyable experiences.

Riding is of course fun but it is also considered one of the most dangerous pastimes. Of course, the good thing is that a variety of safety precautions can be taken that ensure this fun is just a bit safer. Most of the gear on the market today is not only fashionable but also is designed to keep us safe when we are on the road.

Gear aside, of course the bike must be well maintained to avoid faulty components that might cause you to lose control of the bike. In the past, motorcycle manufacturers thought bikes were just meant to be faster. After a couple of accidents, though, it was time to change their view. They turned to making bikes that went faster but were safer. In addition to making sure your bike is in top condition, here are just a few ways that motorcycle fashion trends have evolved with safety as the concerning factor.

Head Protection

The government also tightened the rules of motorcycling. That’s why you must wear helmets in most (but not all) U.S. states, which help to reduce the impact of a fall. Helmets were put into particular focus as the most important safety staple. Early helmets were bigger and uncomfortable. Sometimes they were themselves the cause of some accidents due to poor visibility and breathing difficulties. Designers came up with smaller headgear that could reduce chances of a concussion and were fun to wear. They were more padded and had proper ventilation. Wasn’t that a blessing!

Transparent Covers

Decades ago, you would be a good candidate for respiratory ailments, such as pneumonia due to the rush of cold air you sucked in as you rode your bikes. It was necessary for the helmets to evolve and mitigate this problem. Earlier made helmets would fully cover your face without room for breathing. Now they have transparent covers on the front side of the helmets. At first, the transparent covers were immovable. With time however, the designers replaced these with retractable transparent covers, which could be used to cover your face whenever you needed to. Others use only goggles to cover your eyes and stop flying insects from blinding you. Now thankfully, you can let air in without having to remove the whole helmet. Helmets are now stylish and safe.

Body protection

Apart from the head, the rest of your body needs protection from falls, impact or extreme weather. The clothes manufacturers are making motorcycle apparel that helps you withstand the rush of cold air and falls. The clothes are more colorful and stylish. They come in different designs for the jackets and the pants. With time, riding boots and gloves were added to protect your hands and feet. The gloves were initially very big but due to difficulties in gripping the handles, the sizes were reduced but were more padded. The elastic gloves now fit your hands perfectly.

Remember always be safe and ride on!

Sam grew up on the back of her dad’s Harley and while she lives in a state that doesn’t have a helmet law, she never rides without one. She is also a contributing writer for Jafrum, a site that offers the latest riding clothes including the safest and stylish motorcycle helmets the industry has to offer.

Kazakhstan’s international energy image is now that of one of the world’s rising oil exporters, an extraordinary feat given that, two decades ago its hydrocarbon output was beyond insignificant when the USSR collapsed. The vast Central Asian nation, larger than Western Europe, has now quietly passed another energy milestone.

Kazakhstan produces 33 percent of world’s mined uranium, followed by Canada at 18 percent and Australia, with 11 percent of global output. Kazakhstan contains the world’s second-largest uranium reserves, estimated at 1.5 million tons. Until two years ago Kazakhstan was the world’s No. 3 uranium miner, following Australia and Canada.

Together the trio is responsible for about 62 percent of the world’s production of mined uranium.

According to Kazakhstan’s State Corporation for Atomic Energy, Kazatomprom, during January-September, the country mined 13,957 tons of uranium. “The volume of uranium mining in the Republic of Kazakhstan (for January – September) comprised 13,957 tons, which is 11 percent higher than the same period last year.” Even more impressive, Kazatomprom’s revenues soared 72 percent year-on-year. Kazatomprom is the state-owned Kazakh national operator for the export of uranium, as well as rare metals, nuclear fuel for nuclear power plants, special equipment, technologies, and dual-purpose materials.

To put Kazakhstan’s accomplishment in context, a mere five years ago Kazakhstan produced 5,279 tons of uranium.

While the March disaster at Japan’s Fuskuhima nuclear complex has caused several European nations to reassess their commitment to nuclear power, Kazakhstan’s regional markets seem assured in Asia’s rising economic powerhouses China and India. While Beijing has reacted to Fukushima by ordering thorough inspections of the nation’s nuclear power plants, China’s Commission of Science Technology and Industry for National Defense in its 11th Five-Year Plan for the Nuclear Industry announced China intended to produce 40 gigawatts of nuclear power electrical generating capacity within a decade, even though nuclear power currently accounts for just 1.4 percent of China’s electrical power generation.

If China follows through with its ambitious nuclear power plant construction plans the country will need an estimated 44 million pounds of uranium annually, as by 2020 the country will have a total of 77 planned and proposed new reactors. Of China’s 11 current nuclear power plants, the oldest, Qingshan-1, only came online in 1991.

India’s nuclear ambitions parallel China’s. While nuclear power currently accounts for only 3-4 percent of the country’s electrical output, India has 19 planned and proposed nuclear power reactors on the drawing board.

But the specter of the Japanese nuclear crisis has even overshadowed Astana’s optimism.

Speaking at the Minex conference in Astana on 5-7April, Kazatomprom president Vladimir Shkol’nik stated that the Fukushima debacle would not greatly influence the Kazakh state atomic company’s plans.

Despite Shkol’nik’s optimism, immediately after the Fukushima disaster the world uranium spot price plummeted from over $70 per pound to just $49 per pound, but has since rebounded to roughly $55 in November.

But Kazakhstan is moving beyond the mere mining of uranium to producing nuclear fuel rods. On 4 November French Industry and Energy Minister Eric Besson signed a contract with the Kazakh government allowing France’s Areva to open a nuclear fuel plant with Kazatomprom. A statement from Besson’s office noted, “This deal commits to the creation in Kazakhstan, the top global producer of uranium, of a nuclear fuel production plant dedicated to the Asian market. The construction of this plant could start as soon as the feasibility study is completed by the end of the first quarter of 2012.” According to the agreement, the facility will consist of a new production line at Kazakhstan’s ULBA metallurgical plant that will be 51 percent owned by Kazatomprom and 49 percent by Areva.

And flush with cash, next year Kazatomprom may buy into the Russian Federation’s Urals Electrochemical Integrated Plant (UEIP), the largest uranium enrichment facility within Russian State Nuclear Energy Corporation Rosatom. Last month Rosatom CEO Sergei Kirienko told journalists, “We are involved in purely technical procedures now, taking into account the organization and relevant restrictions (of a closed nuclear facility). We are moving within a set timetable. We have a plan – to complete all work in 2012. And we should begin working with Kazatomprom in 2012.”

Earlier this month, the International Energy Agency released its 2011 “World Energy Outlook,” which states that if the world is serious about global warming, it should consider the continued use of nuclear power to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. With Kazakhstan’s oil exports currently running at 1.74 million barrels per day and the nation being now the world’s largest uranium miner, it would seem that Astana is going to continue to rake in the cash no matter what energy policies the world adopts in the short term.

By. John C.K. Daly / Syndicated from Oilprice.com

The good news is that on 8 November the International Energy Agency released its 2011 “World Energy Outlook.”

While it will cheer nuclear advocates, overall the report makes for grim reading.

Pulling no punches, the report states at the outset, “There are few signs that the urgently needed change in direction in global energy trends is underway.”

Stripped of its cautious language, the IEA report essentially noted that should present trends continue, the world’s governments through a lack of progressive initiative embracing alternative energy sources would continue to rely on ‘tried and true” fossil fuels, resulting in increased pollution, more fossil-fuel dependency and increasingly upward energy prices.

For environmentalists, this is all good news, but the report contained a caveat virtually anathema to all green movements, that accordingly, governments should reconsider their reluctance to embrace nuclear power, as it does not generate greenhouse gases.

Like many discussions in Western economies since 2008, when the global recession first began to draw blood, the issue of reliable energy production ultimately devolves down to dollars and cents issues.

The grim reality for environmentalists is that no single renewable energy resource, from wind power to solar energy through biofuels, has remotely become competitive with kilowatt hours of electrical energy generated by coal or oil-fired power plants. The debate pits those opposed to a transition to greener technologies to those considering the bottom line, despite greenhouse gas emissions.

Even worse for the environmentalists, the IEA report advocates that as a short-term solution, governments ought to reconsider nuclear power, as it produces zero CO2 emissions. Projecting into the future the report notes, “A low-nuclear future would also boost demand for fossil fuels: the increase in global coal demand is equal to twice the level of Australia’s current steam coal exports and the rise in gas demand is equivalent to two-thirds of Russia’s current natural gas exports. The net result would be to put additional upward pressure on energy prices, raise additional concerns about energy security and make it harder and more expensive to combat climate change. The consequences would be particularly severe for those countries with limited indigenous energy resources which have been planning to rely relatively heavily on nuclear power.”

But while sketching out a bleak scenario should governments remain largely disengaged to the larger issues involved in energy production, the IEA report nevertheless ends on a cautiously optimistic note, with its authors concluding, “International concern about the issue of energy access is growing. The United Nations has declared 2012 to be the ‘International Year of Sustainable Energy for All’ and the Rio+20 Summit represents an important opportunity for action. More finance, from many sources and in many forms, is needed to provide modern energy for all, with solutions matched to the particular challenges, risks and returns of each category of project. Private sector investment needs to grow the most, but this will not happen unless national governments adopt strong governance and regulatory frameworks and invest in capacity building. The public sector, including donors, needs to use its tools to leverage greater private sector investment where the commercial case would otherwise be marginal. Universal access by 2030 would increase global demand for fossil fuels and related CO2 emissions by less than 1%, a trivial amount in relation to the contribution made to human development and welfare.”

Accordingly, what is most notable about the IEA report is two things.

First, energy options beyond dependence on traditional fossil fuels such as coal and oil not only exist, but are available in significant amounts to make a serious contribution.

Secondly, as Germany’s experience in weaning itself off nuclear energy is showing, the alternatives are more expensive than current power production modes.

According to the IEA’s scenarios then, the issue of global power production over the next two-three decades devolves upon two major issues.

The first is cost, which will undoubtedly be an uphill struggle for many governments seeking to meet the population’s rising energy demands, who will be loathe to endure increasing energy bills.

The second consideration is the contentious issue of global warming, and the impact of traditional fossil fuel-fired power plants belching vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

While even the most diehard proponents of traditional power plant electrical generation to not deny that their facilities emit significant amounts of carbon dioxide, they denigrate the concerns of environmentalists as ‘fuzzy science.”

So, at the end of the day, the two fundamental issues facing the world’s nations seeking to satiate their population’s demand for reliable and inexpensive power devolve down to cost and scientific projections. We’ll leave the final word to the IEA, which laid out three scenarios, ranging from best- to worst-case – “The wide difference in outcomes between these three scenarios underlines the critical role of governments to define the objectives and implement the policies necessary to shape our energy future.” Accordingly, the major question is whether global governments will have both the cash and political will “to shape our energy future” to the best possible ends

By. John C.K. Daly / Syndicated from Oilprice.com

What a difference fifteen months makes.

In May 2010 Israel’s cold peace with Egypt was viable, the country was celebrating massive Mediterranean natural gas finds and Tel Aviv enjoyed a military alliance with Turkey, an overwhelmingly Muslim nation.

Two events have changed that picture beyond all recognition – Israel’s 31 May 2010 attack on the peaceful Gaza-bound “Freedom flotilla,” during which Israeli Shayetet 13 Naval Special Forces commandos killed eight Turkish citizens and an American, Furkan Dogan. Outraged by the assault, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan demanded an apology and compensation for the unprovoked attack.

He’s still waiting.

The second regional game changer has been the startling events of the “Arab Spring,” which following unprecedented massive public demonstrations, on 11 February led to the resignation of Egypt’s President, Hosni Mubarak, who had been in power for 29 years.

One of Israel’s greatest benefits from the 1973 Camp David Accords was its ability to import Egyptian natural gas through Egypt’s $500 million East Mediterranean Gas Company Ltd. (EMG) pipeline. EMG was established in 2000 and jointly owned by Egyptian General Petroleum Corp. owning 68.4 percent, the private Israeli company Merhav a 25 percent share and the Ampal-American Israel Corp. the remaining 6.6 percent.

Following Mubarak’s downfall a series of attacks were made on the EMG pipeline, which supplied about 40 percent of Israel’s natural gas imports, until an assault on 12 July led to its shutdown.

Switching gears, the Netanyahu government downplayed the importance of the pipeline shutdown, obviously looking forward to the swift development of its Mediterranean natural gas assets, the Tamar field, discovered in 2009 and Leviathan, discovered the following year. In June an Israeli company announced the discovery of two new natural gas fields, Sarah and Mira, about 45 miles off the city of Hadera.

Initial prospecting estimates of the Tamar and Leviathan fields, off Haifa, concluded that the two sites between them could hold as much as 688 billion cubic meters of extractable natural gas. In 2010 the U.S. Geological Survey estimated that the Levant Basin Province, covering parts of Israel, Lebanon, Syria, and Cyprus, could contain as much as 3.4 trillion cubic meters of gas and up to 1.7 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

The energy assets have focused the Israeli government’s attention – on 9 August The Jerusalem Post reported that the Israeli military had deployed drones to patrol its gas fields off its northern coast in water contested with Lebanon.

The sites have already raised tensions with Lebanon, which contests Israel’s self-proclaimed maritime borders giving them possession. On 4 August Lebanese President Michel Sleiman said, “We will not allow anyone to lay his hand on our wealth, which our children and grandchildren deserve. We will not only pass debts to them but also a wealth that will guarantee them a better future so that they remain in Lebanon.” It should be noted that the two countries remain technically at war and will not negotiate directly with one another.

Now the wheel has taken another turn, as Turkish Energy Minister Taner Y?ld?z said earlier this week during an official visit to Egypt that Turkey intends to cooperate with Egypt in searching for natural gas in the Mediterranean.

It is one thing for Israel to take on Hezbollah, based in southern Lebanon and Lebanon’s modest military forces – it would be quite another thing to mix it up with Turkey’s military, the second largest in NATO, or Egypt’s forces.

A change that should give Israeli military planners pause are reports this week in the Turkish media that Turkey’s Military Electronics Industry (ASELSAN) has produced a new identification friend or foe (IFF) system for Turkish jet fighters, warships and submarines and the new software, contrary to the older, U.S.-made version, does not automatically identify Israeli planes and ships automatically as “friendly.” The new IFF has already been installed in Turkish F-16s and is expected to be installed shortly in all Turkish Navy ships and submarines. It’s notable that that Turkey never participated in a single one of the Arab campaigns against Israel from 1948 to 1973.

Quite aside from the ominous regional implications, there is the possibility that the U.S. could become involved in the looming dispute, as Texas-based Noble Energy has partnered with Israel’s Delek Group Ltd. to develop Israel’s Leviathan, Tamar, Dalit, and Noa offshore natural gas fields, and also has a concession to Cyprus’s Bloc 12 offshore Mediterranean field, located near Leviathan.

All eyes are now turning towards next week’s UN General Assembly meeting, where the Palestinian Authority is to press forward with a motion for recognition as an independent nation, though the final form of the petition is yet unclear. Up to 15 months ago, Tel Aviv could reliably assume that U.S. influence could prevail upon both Egypt and Turkey to shy away from supporting such a move – no longer.

Some diplomatic flexibility is called for – surely 3.4 trillion cubic meters of gas and up to 1.7 billion barrels of recoverable oil could satisfy the energy and fiscal needs of all interested parties.

The alternative is too dispiriting to contemplate. While predicting events in the Middle East is a clouded prospect at best, one thing is clear, from Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s scorched earth policy in withdrawing from Kuwait during in 1991 – oil and natural gas fields are flammable and Israel does not have enough drones to protect its offshore fields.

By John C.K. Daly, syndicated from OilPrice.com

China, arguably the world’s most influential and dynamic economy, is beginning to eye renewable as a partial solution to its voracious and growing energy needs. If Beijing determines that biofuels represent the future, expect to see the current modest western investment field to change dramatically.

As yet, China’s involvement is modest. According to a PetroChina company official, the firm intends to increase its production of biofuels by 2015 to 1.1 million tons and import and additional 470,000 tons. PetroChina, a traditional hydrocarbon company, is clearly thinking outside the box to increase its alternative energy portfolio.

According to PetroChina’s Petrochemical Research Institute deputy chief engineer Fu Xingguo, China is looking at generating 933,000 tons annually of fuel ethanol and 165,000 tons of biodiesel.

According to Fu, China is looking to import biofuel from countries such as Brazil, the world’s largest producer of ethanol, which will then be blended with regular hydrocarbon-derived traditional fuels and sold to southern Chinese provinces.

Looking towards the future, Fu added that some PetroChina Jet A-1 civilian aviation biofuel will be used in a test flight next month, but gave no further details, such as the feedstock used to produce the fuel.

Finally, Fu noted that China has around 1.52 million tons of fuel ethanol capacity, which mainly use grains as feedstocks.

In those accustomed to reading between the lines, Petrochemical Research Institute deputy chief engineer’s last comment is the most significant.

Grains as feedstocks.

The United States now devours approximately one-third of its corn output to produce ethanol, thanks in large part to a bloated bureaucracy and an influential farm lobby sucking down subsidies.

China has no such luxury to shift agricultural land from food production to renewables, as its arable land is needed to support the appetites of approximately 1.3 billion people.

Chinese indigenous production of domestic biofuel will accordingly remain marginal at best.

That said, should China determine that renewable biofuels are an important future component of the country’s diversified energy portfolio, the fiscal resources that it could throw at the issue would completely transform global biofuel production, particularly in the Third World.
A number of issues are blunting the introduction of increased biofuel production in developed countries.

First and foremost is that no one has yet figured out how to produce biofuel on an industrial scale that could compete with oil prices, even at $100 a barrel. Like solar and its kilowatt issues, biofuels at present remain a more expensive option.

Secondly, particularly in the United States, the biofuel market has been captured by the ethanol lobby, which provides farmers not only with subsidies, but crop insurance as well.

Last but hardly least is the fact that no single potential biofuel feedstock has emerged as a clear winner, although camelina seems to moving increasingly into first place.

That said, even in the U.S., a slow groundswell of support for renewable biofuel production is emerging, with both the Carlyle Group and Goldman Sachs selectively investing in various projects. Neither firm is overly adventurous in risk-taking, which indicates that eventually biofuels will receive the funding which it currently lacks.

Should China exercise its immense fiscal clout, particularly in the developing world where it has spent decades cultivating governments and contacts, the picture could change quickly. A major focus of Chinese investment over the past decade has been Africa, and if Beijing decides that biofuel is the way to go to diversify is energy portfolio, given the land constraints within China itself, expect to see a major drive to produce renweables on the Dark Continent.

Furthermore, expect to see China completely ignore environmentalists’ concerns about shifting land from food production to biofuel.

Amongst China’s many economic accomplishments, an overriding signal concern for human rights, either in China or in the countries it invests in, is notable by its absence.

by John C.K. Daly, syndicated from Oilprice.com

The worldwide implications for nuclear power advocates in light of the 11 March disaster at Japan’s Daichi Fukushima nuclear complex, battered first by an earthquake and a subsequent tsunami, are slowly unfolding.

Nations committed to nuclear power are being subjected to a relentless PR barrage by nuclear construction firms, who stand to lose billions if current contracts are suspended or, even worse, cancelled.

Despite the bland reassurances of the nuclear power industry that “it can’t happen here,” in Europe, Italy has canceled plans to construct nuclear reactors, while Germany’s Bundestag last month passed a resolution to close all 17 of the nation’s nuclear power plants. Seven NPP plants were immediately shuttered with the remainder to be passed out by 2022.

So, where to go for the juice?

Shifting gears since the beginning of the year, a trend accelerated by Japan’s Fukushima debacle, in a statement released by the German Association of Energy and Water Industries (BDEW), commenting on renewable energy input to the country’s national grid since January, “Renewable energies have crossed the 20 percent mark in Germany for the first time.” Last year, Germany’s green energy consumption totaled 18.3 percent of total demand.

Following Fukushima, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that her government’s goal was to draw 35 percent of production from renewable energy sources by 2022. While Germany’s total energy consumption remained stable at 2010 levels of 275.5 billion kilowatt-hours, energy from sources like wind, biomass, hydroelectric plants, solar panels and waste incineration rose to 57.3 billion kilowatt-hours in the first six months of 2011.

Wind power, Germany’s most important renewable energy source at present, rose to 20.7 billion kilowatt-hours of total usage, with biomass contributing 5.6 percent, solar 3.5 percent and hydroelectric power a modest 3.3 percent.

Germany’s new energy policies will depend on the installation of new renewable power capacities with an amendment to the Renewable Energies Act stipulating the doubling of the nation’s share of green power to 35 percent minimum no later than 2020 with an especial emphasis on offshore wind farms.

While these figures are still modest, they conceal an immense but simple truth.

One of the world’s most advanced economies has reviewed its commitment to nuclear energy, which accounted for 23 percent of national electricity consumption, and decided to abandon it, a not insignificant commitment, as its first NPP came online in 1969.

Even more extraordinary, the decision was made not on the basis of an in-country disaster, but watching the experience of others. As Japan is one of the world’s leading technological states and yet was subjected to the Fukushima disaster, Berlin obviously concluded that engineering cannot factor out every natural random event. Like Japan, Germany is a densely populated state, and a nuclear incident and its attendant debris was obviously adjudged as not worth the risk.

Looking at the transition not as a debacle but an opportunity, Chancellor Merkel said that the closure of Germany’s NNP installations, previously scheduled to be shuttered as late as 2036, would give Germany a competitive advantage in the development of renewable energy, commenting, “As the first big industrialized nation, we can achieve such a transformation toward efficient and renewable energies, with all the opportunities that brings for exports, developing new technologies and jobs.”

The consequences of Fukushima on the world’s multi-trillion dollar civilian nuclear energy industry have yet to play out. But some broad issue outlines are becoming clear.

While Germany’s prosperity is unmatched in Europe, which allows it to pursue other energy alternatives, other EU nations will undoubtedly be more circumspect in reviewing their nuclear programs.

Given the German decision however, it seems likely that nuclear energy companies will redouble their efforts in developing countries short of energy, including Turkey, Lithuania, Bulgaria, China and India, trotting out the usual panaceas about zero greenhouse gas emissions, reactor redesign, etc. etc. etc.

Energy deficit countries will be faced with tough calls – build a nuclear plant in 2-3 years and resolve some energy issues, or await Germany’s transition to alternatives.

Much is riding on Berlin’s efforts, but what the future will look like is anyone’s guess, and the global nuclear lobby is most unlikely to go quietly into that gentle night.

Syndicated from Oilprice.com

Hybrids may have become all the rage in recent years, but you certainly don’t need to own a hybrid vehicle in order to see greater fuel efficiency on the road. From replacements to add-on parts, there are plentiful ways to address higher gas prices right now, no matter the vehicle you own. So if you want to substantially reduce your fuel expenditure, either for environmental reasons are because you want to put less of a drain on your wallet, you can try utilizing one or several of the fuel economy-improving upgrades.

Performance Computer Chips

If you’re looking for one of the easiest and least time-consuming ways to shave off some fuel expenditure, you can boost your car’s fuel economy with a performance computer chip add-on. With only simple automotive tools, you can install a performance chip into your car’s intake sensor/ECU setup in well under an hour. These chips usually cost under a hundred bucks, and can provide you with fuel savings of up to 4-7 miles per gallon. While you certainly can’t turn a Chevy Tahoe into a Toyota Prius Hybrid with a chip, you can make it far more fuel efficient and without too much heavy lifting.

Aftermarket Hoods

If you think the only thing a hood does is cover up the engine, you’re not seeing the whole picture clearly. A stock hood certainly keeps most of the main functioning components in your car’s engine compartment safe from the elements, but a stock hood can also be heavy, especially if dated. Aftermarket hood add-ons, particularly those made of fiberglass or carbon fiber, are lightweight and race-ready. The overall weight loss can be over a hundred pounds when using one, and this lessened strain on the engine can result in faster speeds and less waste. This may not be an add-on, but sometimes a replacement of an original piece can be just as useful as one.

Other Upgrades

Turbochargers and superchargers have been known to increase the efficiency of a vehicle, though these components are quite expensive. Expect to shell out a few thousand dollars for a turbo kit add-on, for instance. From exhaust upgrades to aerodynamic add-ons such as air dams and spoilers, you can increase the performance and fuel economy of your vehicle alike. Every vehicle is different, so you have to know what weaknesses exist in your model vehicle to exploit that weakness and turn it into somewhere where improvement is possible. Once you address issues like heavy hoods and computer performance gaps, getting improved fuel efficiency can be a lot easier than it initially seems.

With the Toyota Prius outselling all other green car competitors with annual sales of approximately400,000 units sold annually worldwide, the Prius has become the face of the green car revolution whileleaving its competitors out of the limelight. This lack of attention from the general public has leadmanufacturers to develop new innovations in electric and hybrid technology that have the means to dethrone Toyota as the new breakout green vehicle.

In a new green car comparison, manufacturers like Nissan with the Leaf and SMART with the ForTwo Coupe have surpassed Toyota’s Prius when put in a side by side comparison. From this comparison, it isclear to see that these new competitors in the green car market are gaining headway on Toyota as theyhave been ranked higher than the Prius in categories such as Air Pollution score, MPG, and overall greenrating.

Although the sales numbers for the Leaf and the ForTwo Coupe are abysmal in when compared to thatof the Prius, they are growing rapidly with cars like the Nissan Leaf selling over 10,000 units worldwidein its very first year of production. With these cars scoring higher in green testing, it is only a matter oftime before we see a new powerhouse in the green car market.

With the electric and hybrid cars making a splash as THE green cars of the future, the hydrogen fuel cell cars seems to have been forgotten.

Here are just some examples of how the Hydrogen car has fallen:

• The current US Govt has plans of cutting spending on hydrogen technology by 40 percent next year.
• California’s plans of a hydrogen highway has gone nowhere.
• Some car manufacturers like Ford and Renault has focused more on electric cars now rather than hydrogen ones.

But people are still hanging on the idea of a hydrogen car in the future.

“Yes, there are a lot of opportunities for battery-powered vehicles, but in many ways, the opportunities for fuel cells are much bigger,” says Herbert Kohler, head of the Daimler AG research unit that is developing electric and other alternative-fuel technologies.

If one compares an electric to a hydrogen car, it totally beats it. An electric vehicle can run at an average of 100 miles before the next recharge, while a hydrogen one can go 240 miles. Fuel cells are much more powerful therefore it can power big vehicles like SUVs and trucks.

Car manufacturers like Toyota has found ways to even further downsizing the fuel cells, lowering its cost. According to them a Toyota hydrogen car may cost around $50,000 and be ready come 2015.

Article via Wall Street Journal | Image via Wikimedia Commons [CC BY-SA 3.0]