Date: May 26, 2007
Dear Jason,

I looked into our discussion a bit more regarding the mass of CO2 emitted by burning a gallon of gasoline. As it turns out the number is less than 20 pounds as you suggested, but not by much. The number I came up with based on this source I found from Wikipedia is 19.19 pounds. For a diesel engine the number is 23.4 pounds. We did a few back of the envelope calculations in class with the physiology team and came up with similar numbers based on our stoichiometry calculations.

This is what I obtained from Wikipedia:

A further related measure is the amount of Carbon dioxide produced as a result of the combustion process. (Units: CO2 g/km) a petrol engine will produce around 2.3 kg of Carbon dioxide for each litre of petrol consumed [1], a diesel engine, 2.8 Kg per litre[2] (although this appears more, a diesel vehicle typically is more economical and therefore in terms of CO2 g/km it is less than an equivalent petrol car)



Thanks again for keeping the discussion lively and good luck with your studies next year.

Talk soon,
BEL
Date: May 12, 2007

Dear Mike Smith,
Regarding the conversation we had this morning, I hope you understand that my words came from a place of cooperation rather than confrontation. After you and I discussed the policy that Drexel Facilities has regarding idling of its combustion engines, I had further discussions with other owners and operators of several other vehicles that were allowing their engines to idle on the Drexel campus and realized that the decision of whether or not to turn off one.s ignition is frequently based on one of several assumptions:
  1. "It won't be running that long."
  2. "Look, that guy is running his engine too!."
  3. "It takes a lot of gasoline to start an engine. Keeping it running will save fuel."
  4. "What's the big deal? Gasoline is cheap."
  5. "It's hot outside and I need to keep cool."
  6. "If I turn off the engine, the police will think I am parked and give me a ticket."
  7. "I'm listening to the radio."
While each of these may seem like great arguments for allowing an engine to run indefinitely, I feel that there are several other arguments that make it a better idea to turn an engine off when a vehicle is not moving:
  1. When a car is idling, it is burning fuel, but not serving the purpose for which it was built: to move people from one place to another. It is thus producing only thermal noise, not usable work.
  2. When fuel is being burned without the vehicle moving, it is getting ZERO MILES PER GALLON, not something you would advertise on a sales sticker.
  3. When carbon dioxide is being pumped into the air, it is increasing the probability that the earth's average atmospheric temperature will continue to increase. If this happens, cities like New York and states like Florida may soon need to build expensive systems to keep their real estate from turning into water parks.
  4. Days that are very hot in the summer frequently require us to supply cooling systems to a growing population. If these cooling systems fail because of blackouts, many people and computer clusters become vulnerable to death or demise.
  5. I have a nephew in Iraq right now who is fighting to keep Halliburton in business so that we may continue to enjoy cheap gasoline. If we were to be more conscientious about the amount of fuel we waste, we might become less dependent on foreign oil and not need to "spend young American lives" and "spend political capital" to maintain our access to cheap oil.
  6. The exhaust from combustion engines is smelly, especially in an area such as the place where Drexel's lunch trucks park, where students are buying their lunches.
  7. The noise from combustion engines is disruptive to conversations that people are having in the heart of the campus.
I hope you will join me in a cooperative effort to diminish the use of combustion-based energy sources from Drexel's campus, so that we may become a model for engineering efficiency, and globally conscientious action to increase our national security by reducing our reliance on foreign oil, reducing the emissions of radiation-trapping gasses, and encouraging healthy physical activity.

This moment in history will allow us a unique opportunity to show the region and world that Drexel University is in a position to exemplify what is great about a small number of people who took the opportunity to foresee the future and to make a conscious decision to make it better.

Recently I had the opportunity to listen to MIT president, Susan Hockfield who said that "The next growing challenge of humanity will be meeting energy demand." I sense that the best solution to meeting this challenge is to educate our fellow citizens about what they can do to secure a future for our children and to secure the future of our planet, (our garden). The best thing we can do is to tread lightly upon it. The bigger the splashes we make in the stream, the more we will muddy the waters.

I am not on a mission against the exquisite technology of the internal combustion engine. It is one of the most remarkable creations of humanity. I am against the abuse and misuse of any technology gone awry, used for ill-intent, or used with disregard for things of true value such as clean air and a quiet moment.

I am willing to make the concession that there may indeed be an argument for inefficiency. There may indeed be an argument for burning up as much of the available fossil fuels as possible in a manner as frivolous as possible. These may include an unspoken desire to boost the profits of oil companies, or a compulsion to support a campaign to create half a billion refugees by making large regions of the earth uninhabitable, but these goals seem less than admirable and are perhaps not worthy of our efforts.

Mike, I know we can do this together, and I look forward to a cleaner, safer and more sustainable future for us and for future generations of humanity and life on earth.

As a leader on our campus, I hope that you have a conversation with your colleagues to reduce their reliance and frivolous use of a precious resource that has given us so much, but which has recently begun to ask for something in return.

Collegially,
Bradley Layton
Bradley E. Layton Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Mechanical Engineering and Mechanics
Drexel University
3141 Chestnut St
151G Curtis Hall
Philadelphia, PA 19104-2884
215.895.1752 (w)
215.895.1478 (f)
layton@coe.drexel.edu
http://layton.mem.drexel.edu
http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~bel23/links.html
August 12, 2006

Dear Mike McGrath,

I am an avid listener and always enjoy listening to your chemical-free solutions to the various problems other listeners call in with. I was disappointed though today to hear of your solutions for weed control. Burning propane torches pumps CO2 into the atmosphere Spraying soap on the ground results in detergents in our natural water supply . Mike, propane and soap are both chemicals. To remove the weeds, use the mechanical solution: put on some gloves and pull them out, or just barehand them out. You can also use a tool: These weeds are responding to the elevated heat and CO2 levels, in a green unconscious effort to put the atmosphere back into balance. When we pull them, we allow the heat to reach our pavement and reflect into the atmosphere, rather than allowing it to be absorbed by the leaves in the weeds.

I look forward to hearing my response on your show.

Thanks,
Brad

Bradley E. Layton Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Mechanical Engineering and Mechanics
Drexel University
3141 Chestnut St
151G Curtis Hall
Philadelphia, PA 19104-2884
215.895.1752 (w)
215.895.1478 (f)
blay@alum.mit.edu
http://layton.mem.drexel.edu
http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~bel23/links.html
January 26, 2006

Dear Representative Sestak,

I am writing on behalf of an environmental group with whom my views are highly aligned. As a citizen of your district, and Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Drexel University I am making efforts to reduce global warming by encouraging my students to create engineering solutions to environmental problems. One project we recently began involves the design and implementation of a human-electric vehicle which we are close to unveiling on Drexel's campus. This project was supported by Pennsylvania State Representative James Roebuck and by the Department of Community and Economic Development. We are also in the process of submitting a proposal to the Department of Energy and to the Department of Transportation and to the Environmental Protection Agency to build an enhanced bicycle infrastructure in Philadelphia that will promote fitness, reduce our Country's dependence on foreign oil, and help to keep our skys and waterways clean for generations to come.

Kind regards,
Bradley Layton, PhD.
blay@drexel.edu
blay@alum.mit.edu