There is this sort of belief floating around that the increasing
costs of energy are going to drive increases in efficiency, and
so this is a good thing.
This is a belief that is held by economists, tree huggers, joe
public, and in fact just about everyone who isn't an actual
engineer.
All it takes is US$200 bbl oil and Ford will stop making Suburban
SUV's and start making Volkswagen Rabbits... The ONLY reason
Ford don't make a VW Rabbit now is no one would buy one...
allegedly... no engineer believes this for a second.
It really doesn't matter what the object is, the electronic
point of sale checkout system at your local supermarket, your
home PC, the humble light bulb, the private vehicle, efficiency
isn't something that you can just stop the production line
for a few hours, change a few parameters, and start the
production line up again.
Engineering is a physical science, bound by the physical laws and
properties of the materials it has to work with, and so
engineering is quite limited.
In the example above, stopping the production line for a few
hours while some "extra efficiency" mod was built in,
almost like this mod was just like a different shade of paint,
isn't even fiction, it is purest fantasy.
In the real world you stop the production line, raze the factory
to the ground, sack all the workforce and dispose of the entire
materiel supply chain, then start from the ground up on a new,
more efficient model of lightbulb, computer, or automobile.
To some extent proving this to the layman is like asking a
surgeon to prove that a brand new technique will save many lives,
you can more or less prove things to the layman after the eveny,
by showing him a thick pile of data, for example surgeons washing
their hands and instruments between operations.
Hands up everyone who really knows what a lipid is, and hands up
again if you think that link actually enabled the average layman
to fully grasp what a lipid is.
Unfortunately we live in an age where the average man on the
street actually believes that simply googling the recipe for
Canard
a l'orange is sufficient, after all you have all the
data, if you cannot produce something the equal of a top chef it
must be down to your crappy kitchen equipment and utensils, or
ingredients, after all, you've got all the data, right?
Or maybe there is a shortcut, you can learn just how to cook the
one dish, without having to acquire all the essential background
knowledge... (I was friends with a top chef once, that guy could
fry a bloody egg and leave you stunned at the gap between what
you produced and what he produced, in your kicthen, with your
equipment and utensils and ingredients)
It is almost like a children's TV programme, where they make
stuff out of double sided sticky tape and old metal coat hangers
and poster paint... cuts to male presenter before closing credits
"..and next week children, we will show you how to build a
box girder bridge, and Cally will show you how to solve world
hunger (grow enough food to feed everyone, simple, innit) and
bring world peace.... bye bye."
Well the bad news is the real world just isn't like that.
Ford cannot build a VW Rabbit equivalent any way short of
bulldozing their existing factories, shutting down the entire
materiel supply lines that feed them, laying off the workforce,
and then building a factory exactly like the one VW uses to build
the Rabbit in, together with appropriate supply chain and
appropriately trained workers.
Bring the bulldozers in today and go really balls out, screw
health and safety and planning and the environment, and maybe the
first Ford Rabbit will roll off the production line some time in
2011 or 2012, assuming of course a 70 mph diesel runabout will
actually be a saleable item with whatever fuel prices are in
2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, or were you planning on only making the
Ford Rabbit for 6 months?
Make the Ford Rabbit more efficient?
Yeah, bulldoze the Rabbit factory, shut down the supply lines,
lay the staff off, start again.
That's cars, if you think home computers or supermarket
checkouts or the humble light bulb are any different, think
again.
Then, if you are an engineer, there is another side to
efficiency, not just efficiency in operation, the other side of
efficiency is efficiency in production.
No good making super efficient electric cars if they all have to
be thrown away every year.
It is quite possible to get to the point that even if efficiency
were a theoretically and practically impossible 99%, production
efficiency could be so low (shipping the stuff everywhere) that
overall the system was less efficient than a 1950's big block
V8, which at least can be made to last 50 years and which is
robust enough to be run on different fuels such as wood gas or
suchlike.
So while Joe Public may harbour some notions about back room
boffins with pens and slide rules in their pockets coming up with
some answers that will allow us to continue more or less as we
are, despite the rising energy costs, simply by replacing our
current, energy inefficient gear with more energy efficient gear,
then buying some ocean front property in arizona is likely to be
the better bet.
Of course, this does present an opportunity for the outsourced
manufacturing of the West, these new factories for new energy
efficient replacements of ALL of our everyday objects have to be
built somewhere, why not just skip the bullozers and build
them here, where the supply side chain is shorter anyway?
Why not?
Because it takes vision, and because it takes a complete
disregard for the entire concept of annual shareholder dividends
and next quarters profit margin and the board of directors new
health spa.
It takes looking at literally every single energy consuming
device that we either encounter directly or rely upon at a
distance, and replacing the whole lot within say five years with
stuff that is at least a factor of five more energy efficient.
For Ford this is "you may not sell any vehicle that does
less than 120 mpg urban cycle after 1st January 2010"
For Dell this is "you may not sell any computer (of any
kind, to include screen etc) that draws more than 10 watts peak
after 1st January 2010"
For EPOS Inc this is "you may not sell any checkout system
(complete) that draws more than 15 watts peak after 1st January
2010"
For Edison this is "you may not sell any lightbulb that
draws more than 2.5 watts after 1st January 2010"
For Householders this is "you may not dispose of (unless you
pay commercial rates) more than 1 kilogramme of household waste
per occupant per week after 1st January 2010"
You can still sell paper newspapers and magazines, but you have
to sell them as energy sources that just happen to have text
printed on them, so their primary function is they must lend
themselves to efficient conversion to energy.
The Model T Ford had highly efficient, very narrow tyres, I can
go out into the street and spend a very long time looking for
another vehicle that has the same size and profile tyres as my
car, it is sheer madness, and none of them are efficient narrow
profile tyres, they are all performance wide profile tyres with
low efficieny which basically drops through the floor as soon as
the correct inflation pressure drops off.
The disk brake relies on small area and high pressure, and it
outperforms the drum brake at higher wheel RPM, but the drum
brake requires a lot less power to operate, a simple cable will
do, and at low wheel RPM is more than good enough, and since it
is a low pressure high area device it lasts a long time.
In my old Pug 405 diesel I change gear at 1,500 RPM, and on a
long journey cruise at 2,500 RPM, in town I usually burble along
at 1,200 RPM, yet, amazingly, I keep up with all the traffic,
quite easily, I don't waste fuel and I don't prematurely
wear out the running gear or engine. Fast is not fast, smooth is
fast.
At one time I could drive around town and almost never have to
hit the brakes or come to a complete stop, slipping past the
ricers stopped at the lights having coasted down to 20 mph just
as the lights turn green again. Not so easy now because they have
completely screwed up the traffic system, completely and utterly,
but even so I still get in excess of 50 miles per (imperial)
gallon in City driving, in a 20+ years old full sized saloon car.
My brother has a new diesel TDV6, computer in the dash, it says
"26 mpg", he points at it, not bad huh?
I tell him, You do realise that that is no more than an estimated
figure based upon throttle position sensor and speed, don't
you? You do realise it is not in any way actually metering fuel
and ground speed and giving an actual reading?
He just looks at me, this obviously has not occured to him.
It's not even like it has to be within 10% accurate by Law,
like, say, the speedometer, which means in reality it is always
going to read high for a feelgood factor, so it is no more use
than measuring inlet manifold vacuum... I continue.
I mention this because it is a classic example, efficiency
literally does not feature anywhere in the engineering design or
manufacture process of this vehicle, except in the advertising
material, where efficiency, eco-friendliness and image are all
addressed quite thoroughly in words and images.
Do NOT expect big business and multinationals to engineer
significantly more efficient systems in time for you to be able
to continue your present lifestyle in a world of increasingly
expensive energy.
Due to the sheer scale of their operations they are like
supertankers under way at sea, they simply cannot change course
quickly enough.
If you want more efficiency in time for you to continue your
lifestyle then YOU have to take charge and DIY.
Driving with a very light right foot will make a huge difference,
as will daily tyre pressure and braking system inspections, as
will removing all excess weight from the vehicle.
At home, buy quality CFL lamps and throw away the incandescents.
Quartz IR electric heaters, not resistive types.
Computers, shut down when not in use, also all your other passive
and standby loads (some of you will remember the shocking results
of running everything in my house through a kill-a-watt meter).
Trust me on this, NOBODY from Ford or Dell or Shell or WalMart is
going to come around and do anything to help you increase your
energy efficiency. Nor is the bloody Government.
Food is another one, we eat once per day, no snacking, no
nibbles, no nothing apart from that one meal a day. Much as
I'd like to claim that being fitter than a butchers dog at my
age is down to fabulous genetic heritage and a strict regimen of
excercise, I can't. It is down to giving my intestines enough
quality food to fully digest in one day, and no more.
Credit / Debt of all kinds is another one, avoid it at all costs,
no matter what you think it is giving you, throw that baby out
with the bath water and start living strictly within your
means.
We live really well (in the UK with UK prices and that includes
>10 bucks a gallon gas) on less than 200 bucks a week, I
can't think of a damn thing that I go without, tomorrow
I'm throwing my mum, missus and the boy in the car and
we'll have a day out in Plymouth, eat fresh caught Fish,
I'll no doubt buy some alu / brass / acrylic for stock, and
an 80 mile round trip worth of diesel.
I used to say "I'm not cynical mate, just
experienced." and I also used to say "I'm not mean,
just careful"
But the fact is what I am is efficient. I use my money
efficiently. I use my energy efficiently. I use my time
efficiently. And no, it doesn't make me a boring old twat who
never does anything. On the contrary, it is half past three on a
Monday afternoon and get to please myself what I do.
You don't think consumers are already changing or will change
their behavior to be more efficient as their budgets get squeezed
by higher costs, particularly for fuel?
IMHO, consumers are currently making little changes that
aren't going to really matter. A lot of it is minor
stuff. What Guy is talking about is a major lifestyle
change.
It doesn't sink in. I saw it happen to a few friends
back in 2001, when they were laid off. They had some
savings, and some severence, but thought they would get another
job in a couple weeks. It was just a vacation to them, so
their habits didn't change.
Mom still drove the kids to soccer, dance and karate after
school. Shopping was still 3 trips per week because no one
planned properly. Forgot something? Just run back 5
miles to get it! We like the chuch 20 miles away, where my
parents go.
After a couple months, they started to cut back to "just the
essentials". You know, carpooling the kids to their
activities with other moms. Shopping only twice a week.
When they couldn't find jobs for 6-9 months, reality hit them
like a brick wall. One car repossessed by the bank; house
either in foreclosure or sold at a loss, just to reduce the
payment; no more after school activities at all; carpooling to
shop with a planned list, once every two weeks; etc.
In the U.S. Government, it is like carping about the "Bridge
to Nowhere" in Alaska. Wow! Look at the
government waste! A $10 million bridge servicing maybe a
town of 1,000! What gall!
Reality is it works out to about 0.00001% of the federal budget,
and is nothing more than a red herring. But, it makes
people feel like they're actually doing
something. Cut that pork and we're on the right
track! Now we won't need to cut medicare,
medicaid, social security or the military!
So, no, I don't think most consumers will do enough until it
is too late.
Geez, you are being SOOOO cynical and negative about people's
behavior.
Also, as far as I can see, you are quite correct. It'll take
serious pain for the majority of folks to a) realize there IS a
fundamental problem here, and b) stop denying it and start
adapting to it. By which time, serious avoidable harm will have
become serious inevitable harm.
I had several friends and acquaintances lose everything when the
dot-com bubble burst. They all thought they could get right
back to work after a short hiatus. None of them showed any
concern until about month 3 -- and it was too late.
I also lost it all thanks to that bubble and a VERY poorly timed
disagreement with the IRS. I was prepared for everything
but that.
Some of the talk I hear from people now is just like I heard back
then -- this will blow over and it isn't any big deal.
Any day now we'll start drilling in ANWR and gasoline will
drop to $2 a gallon.
Since then, Nardelli (Chrysler CEO) has announced he'll
stop selling four of the carmaker's 25 models: the Chrysler
Crossfire, Pacifica and PT Cruiser convertible and the Dodge
Magnum. He's unveiled plans to slash 12,100 jobs on top of
the 13,000 DaimlerChrysler executives targeted before he
arrived.
``It has been made very clear to Mike and me how important
this project is,'' says Scott Kunselman, vice president
of truck projects, referring to chief engineer Michael Cairns.
``Everything depends on it.''
The new version of Chrysler's most popular vehicle comes
with satellite TV, a carlike ride and a
bin in the cargo box for hauling 10 cases of
beer. It's set to go on sale in September, not the
best time for a pickup that gets about 15 mpg in
city driving and can cost more than
$40,000. It goes on sale in September.
THAT is what Chrysler is banking on saving the company?! I
wish they were still public so I could short some of their stock.
The town I'm moving to has two automotive plants owned by
Chrysler, employing 10,000 people -- about 25% of the
population. "Chrysler will pull thru" is one of
the more common refrains I hear.
In their defence, most of the people just don't know what
else to do. They're in denial because they feel
trapped.
Chrysler is dying because it's time. The company has
been bled to death, and its current owners, Cerberos (named for
the dog who guards the gates of Hell; that's a clue about who
they buy up), are carrion crawlers, sucking the marrow out of the
bones. The previous management (under Daimler) figured out
that their highest-profit items at the time were big cars,
trucks, and SUVs, so they focused on the big end of the market,
which did okay when gas was $1.50/gallon. Oops.
Short-term (optimize this quarter, and make investment decisions
based on a very high discount factor) thinking -- the best that
American B-schools turns out -- essentially guarantees that
companies have a limited lifespan. Toyota makes decisions
differently.
Nonetheless the OP's concepts are a bit extreme. I
don't think a plant has to be razed to change products.
Remember the Edsel? $150M down the tubes building a new (in
1957) plant, BUT they recycled it to produce the relatively
successful Falcon, part of 1961's wave of compact cars.
(GM had the Corvair. AMC specialized in them, with the
Ramblers. In 1961, something over 80% of American cars were
HUGE V8s; that era's "compacts" were basically
Camry-sized, with a small-block V8 or a six.)
We're not going to get 10 watt full-sized-screen computers --
even LED backlights will eat much of that. Nor 2.5 watt
room light bulbs -- at 100% efficiency they would be too
dim. What we do need is a marketplace public realization
that energy won't be cheap any more, so we can decide how to
best use less of it. We had this in 1974 (that really led
to the downsizing of cars, at least until huge SUVs took over)
but the crisis ended and we got lazy again.
Edsel > Falcon is not a change, efficiency wise. Doesn't
apply.
We're not going to get 10 watt full-sized-screen
computers -- even LED backlights will eat much of that.
Yes we are, initially neither the CPU nor the display refresh
rate will be fast, but it will be fast enough for most uses.
Nor 2.5 watt room light bulbs -- at 100% efficiency they
would be too dim
Not so, no need to spread spectrum, put it where the eyes work
best and better still focus and track, better reflective paints
for walls and ceilings, full moon is only a quarter lux.
Backlighting has nothing to do with refresh rate; it applies to
still pictures too. It's just the (nowadays usually
fluorescent) light that's behind the LCD, which is a
variable-conductivity device. My laptop is set to get
dimmer as the battery gets lower, to conserve those joules.
An illuminated screen of any given size needs a certain amount of
light to keep it bright enough.
I don't believe that we'll want to live in dimly lit
caves with teensy-weensy spot lights for our immediate tasks at
hand. Sure, there's the "little bitty book light",
though it's a real pain for reading a broadsheet.
Dinner by candlelight? Romantic once in a while, but no way
to feed the family. I want the table lit. A couple of
13-watt CFLs will do it, not 2.5 watts.
Switching from standard incandescent to CFL reduces lighting
power draw by about 75%. Even the way I do it, leaving
every third or fourth bulb an incandescent (preferably halogen,
which is more efficient), saves a ton, while avoiding most of the
unpleasantness of pure fluorescent lighting. So scrambling
to get from 75% savings to 95% savings is not terribly
productive. Scrambling to get to 98% savings is really not
productive.
It's the same problem with MPG ratings. What counts is
fuel/distance, not the other way. So going from 35 to 40
MPG sounds like a big deal while going from 12 to 14 doesn't,
but the former is going from 28.5 to 25 gallons/thousand miles,
saving 3.5, while the latter is going from 83 to 71 gallons,
saving around 12.
In other words, the big savings are at the high-usage end.
Hair-shirt solutions just make it all very unpleasant, for little
gain, though it makes some eco-freaks feel righteous.
The OP wrote about the entire computer's using no
more than 10 watts, including the screen. So a 7
watt screen -- oh hell, let's allow 5 watts -- leaves only
watts for the processor, graphics, memory, storage system, etc.
I actually did a study for the US Department of Energy on the
power consumption of home IT devices, including computers.
Looking at the components, it seemed quite reasonable to budget a
desktop PC 30-50 watts for the main system (basically, a laptop
with external screen). Going lower is possible but
performance really starts dropping off, and at some point you
lose a hard drive, etc. At some point monitors dominate the
power. CRTs eat 60+ watts; LCDs use less of course but
there's a huge difference between a total load of 10 watts
(workable for a slow diskless system with a mini-laptop-sized
screen) and a total load of 30 watts (an economic laptop), and
you don't get a big 19"+ screen plus a CPU (huge
variation; happily the P4 is dead), hard drive (11 watts), memory
(about 4W/stick if not pushed), and graphics (huge variation).
Do you know about Hitachi Cinemastar disks, drawing as little as
3W under load? Those are aimed for camcoders and are also quite
quiet and endurable (one-platers).
Speaking as someone who really likes their cars, Sebring and
Crossfire, reading that makes me want to kick their CEO in the
nuts for five solid minutes. How could they have not learned from
the stupid Aspen?! I am also beyond confused as to why they would
cut the Pacifica and not the hulking Aspen.
I imagine both of these decisions are geared on the quarterly
profit analysis and not on any common sense.
While the changes aren't MASSIVE, they appear to be existand
based on the car lots around here. Packed w/ SUVs because
they didn't sell and bereft of small cars because they
were all sold out.
It was just yesterday that GM announced $7,000 cash back on those
big trucks and SUVs sitting on dealer lots. Another option
is 0% financing over a full 6-year term.
Ford has been doing something similar -- employee pricing -- for
a while.
These both end on 6/30/2008 -- end of the fiscal quarter.
The real trick behind the magic increases in efficiency is that
production methods and goods that were uneconomical at the former
price point with cheap energy become economical without cheap
energy.
Or I guess you could just paint the walls at the Ford plant,
maybe add a rear wing to a front wheel drive car or something
like that.
Maybe you can enlighten me here. When it comes to turning
electron flow into heat I don't see how anything can be
better than a pure resistive load. Pretty much by definition
energy lost due to inefficency turns into heat, so an inefficent
heater is in fact a very good heater.
Does your intention include keeping your furniture warm or
keeping YOU warm?
I would try to heat the air directly, rather than generating
radiant heat directly, so I would use a fan to blow air across
the resistor. All of the power used by the fan becomes heat
anyway.
For the best result I would use the temperature of the resistor
to control the fan so that when power is removed the fan
continues to blow heat into the air.
Yeah, I do want my furniture to be warm, at least until your
radiant heater can pass heat directly through it.
Sitting on a freezing cold couch is uncomfortable and unhealthy.
If you don't address that issue, you raise the legitimate
question of why you're bothering heating anything at all.
As a non-engineer (just a lowly programmer), it seems like you
would be hard-pressed to design a transportation system less
efficient than individuals using personal 200hp machines for
every trip. Also, it would seem like the one entity in a position
to "raze and rebuild" this system would be national
governments. Am I wrong?
Not only are national governments good at certain tasks, they are
exclusively suited for some tasks (like a transportation system).
As for the Detroit automakers: I have no sympathy. They have
repeatedly misled those who are susceptible to marketing in order
to sell their highest-margin (read: lowest technology) vehicles.
Also, I'm pretty sick of seeing the little spots of whatever
biochemical cleaner they use to disinfect the roads near my home
after people are torn apart in perfectly avoidable accidents. I
live next to a meat-grinder (as do most US citizens). As far as I
am concerned, the CEOs of the big three have blood on their
hands.
Oh, and btw, I am another high-skill/modest-means person.
The first paragraph is an honest question. Even a regional busing
system would be better than this.
Presented here is of course point of view from someone who is in
American living in UK (A VERY inefficient countries in
opinion of Dutchman who owned companies in the good ole' USA
and in Great Brittain).
So allow me to present a point of view from continental Northern
Europe.
We DO have laws that have put an expiration date on conventional
light-bulbs and Philips is happy, their shareholders are happy,
consumers are happy (even if they are paying 2-3 times more for a
comparable bulb that lasts 10 times more).
We DO pay for garbage disposal per unit of weight. And people
LOVE it.
We DO have companies supporting tele-working, providing quality
bicycles to their workers (interest free loan on 12 months +
subsidy), and improving efficiency, lowering use of resources
EVERY single day and everyone is supporting it.
Why no one here is sharing this point of view? Because we do not
complain - we WORK on solutions, inventing new ways to do less
with more and most of all - we do NOT destroy complete
systems (again that is
an example of philosophy of waste) of
factories and supply chains because those systems here are
flexible and are designed from the start with constant change in
mind.
- - -
Anyhow I find it very typical that the people who protest the
most are people who are those that need change the most. My
message to esteemed writer of this article: please come visit
Denmark, Netherlands, Germany or Sweden (in any particular order)
and educate yourself.
Something to keep in mind is that your country (Netherlands) is
smaller than many (most?) of our States. Specifically, your
country is about 4.2% the size of the U.S., and it makes a big
difference.
The amount and availability of natural resources and open space
are unimaginable to most Europeans. Consider something like
all of Europe, minus Russia, and with just over half the
population. And that doesn't include Alaska!
You've had generations of people and centuries of time to
develop efficiency because you HAD to. We didn't, so it
will take time for things to adjust.
Hmmm...I'll bet your nation's relaxed attitudes (vs the
U.S.) on sex, drugs and life in general also plays a big
part. The U.S. is more, shall we say, high strung and it
shows.
off-topic first: tolerance in Netherlands is skin-deep and
most probably stems from the fact that we all need each other (to
pump the water from the polders and no one can allow themselves
to alienate their own neighbours). Also we are nation of
merchants and pragmatists so being tolerant on the surface at
least is good for business. <end off-topic>
As for USA being a big country - with all due respect I find that
a questionable argument. Perhaps you might like to come to
Netherlands and join me for a glass of Heineken beer in one of
cafe's on the canals in Amsterdam - where we can discuss the
finer points of geography and efficiency. (see, this is how
tolerance is used to sell more stuff - ha ha - three product
placements in single sentence).
Engineering more efficient systems
There is this sort of belief floating around that the increasing costs of energy are going to drive increases in efficiency, and so this is a good thing.
This is a belief that is held by economists, tree huggers, joe public, and in fact just about everyone who isn't an actual engineer.
All it takes is US$200 bbl oil and Ford will stop making Suburban SUV's and start making Volkswagen Rabbits... The ONLY reason Ford don't make a VW Rabbit now is no one would buy one... allegedly... no engineer believes this for a second.
It really doesn't matter what the object is, the electronic point of sale checkout system at your local supermarket, your home PC, the humble light bulb, the private vehicle, efficiency isn't something that you can just stop the production line for a few hours, change a few parameters, and start the production line up again.
Engineering is a physical science, bound by the physical laws and properties of the materials it has to work with, and so engineering is quite limited.
In the example above, stopping the production line for a few hours while some "extra efficiency" mod was built in, almost like this mod was just like a different shade of paint, isn't even fiction, it is purest fantasy.
In the real world you stop the production line, raze the factory to the ground, sack all the workforce and dispose of the entire materiel supply chain, then start from the ground up on a new, more efficient model of lightbulb, computer, or automobile.
To some extent proving this to the layman is like asking a surgeon to prove that a brand new technique will save many lives, you can more or less prove things to the layman after the eveny, by showing him a thick pile of data, for example surgeons washing their hands and instruments between operations.
Hands up everyone who really knows what a lipid is, and hands up again if you think that link actually enabled the average layman to fully grasp what a lipid is.
Unfortunately we live in an age where the average man on the street actually believes that simply googling the recipe for Canard a l'orange is sufficient, after all you have all the data, if you cannot produce something the equal of a top chef it must be down to your crappy kitchen equipment and utensils, or ingredients, after all, you've got all the data, right?
Or maybe there is a shortcut, you can learn just how to cook the one dish, without having to acquire all the essential background knowledge... (I was friends with a top chef once, that guy could fry a bloody egg and leave you stunned at the gap between what you produced and what he produced, in your kicthen, with your equipment and utensils and ingredients)
It is almost like a children's TV programme, where they make stuff out of double sided sticky tape and old metal coat hangers and poster paint... cuts to male presenter before closing credits "..and next week children, we will show you how to build a box girder bridge, and Cally will show you how to solve world hunger (grow enough food to feed everyone, simple, innit) and bring world peace.... bye bye."
Well the bad news is the real world just isn't like that.
Ford cannot build a VW Rabbit equivalent any way short of bulldozing their existing factories, shutting down the entire materiel supply lines that feed them, laying off the workforce, and then building a factory exactly like the one VW uses to build the Rabbit in, together with appropriate supply chain and appropriately trained workers.
Bring the bulldozers in today and go really balls out, screw health and safety and planning and the environment, and maybe the first Ford Rabbit will roll off the production line some time in 2011 or 2012, assuming of course a 70 mph diesel runabout will actually be a saleable item with whatever fuel prices are in 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, or were you planning on only making the Ford Rabbit for 6 months?
Make the Ford Rabbit more efficient?
Yeah, bulldoze the Rabbit factory, shut down the supply lines, lay the staff off, start again.
That's cars, if you think home computers or supermarket checkouts or the humble light bulb are any different, think again.
Then, if you are an engineer, there is another side to efficiency, not just efficiency in operation, the other side of efficiency is efficiency in production.
No good making super efficient electric cars if they all have to be thrown away every year.
It is quite possible to get to the point that even if efficiency were a theoretically and practically impossible 99%, production efficiency could be so low (shipping the stuff everywhere) that overall the system was less efficient than a 1950's big block V8, which at least can be made to last 50 years and which is robust enough to be run on different fuels such as wood gas or suchlike.
So while Joe Public may harbour some notions about back room boffins with pens and slide rules in their pockets coming up with some answers that will allow us to continue more or less as we are, despite the rising energy costs, simply by replacing our current, energy inefficient gear with more energy efficient gear, then buying some ocean front property in arizona is likely to be the better bet.
Of course, this does present an opportunity for the outsourced manufacturing of the West, these new factories for new energy efficient replacements of ALL of our everyday objects have to be built somewhere, why not just skip the bullozers and build them here, where the supply side chain is shorter anyway?
Why not?
Because it takes vision, and because it takes a complete disregard for the entire concept of annual shareholder dividends and next quarters profit margin and the board of directors new health spa.
It takes looking at literally every single energy consuming device that we either encounter directly or rely upon at a distance, and replacing the whole lot within say five years with stuff that is at least a factor of five more energy efficient.
For Ford this is "you may not sell any vehicle that does less than 120 mpg urban cycle after 1st January 2010"
For Dell this is "you may not sell any computer (of any kind, to include screen etc) that draws more than 10 watts peak after 1st January 2010"
For EPOS Inc this is "you may not sell any checkout system (complete) that draws more than 15 watts peak after 1st January 2010"
For Edison this is "you may not sell any lightbulb that draws more than 2.5 watts after 1st January 2010"
For Householders this is "you may not dispose of (unless you pay commercial rates) more than 1 kilogramme of household waste per occupant per week after 1st January 2010"
You can still sell paper newspapers and magazines, but you have to sell them as energy sources that just happen to have text printed on them, so their primary function is they must lend themselves to efficient conversion to energy.
The Model T Ford had highly efficient, very narrow tyres, I can go out into the street and spend a very long time looking for another vehicle that has the same size and profile tyres as my car, it is sheer madness, and none of them are efficient narrow profile tyres, they are all performance wide profile tyres with low efficieny which basically drops through the floor as soon as the correct inflation pressure drops off.
The disk brake relies on small area and high pressure, and it outperforms the drum brake at higher wheel RPM, but the drum brake requires a lot less power to operate, a simple cable will do, and at low wheel RPM is more than good enough, and since it is a low pressure high area device it lasts a long time.
In my old Pug 405 diesel I change gear at 1,500 RPM, and on a long journey cruise at 2,500 RPM, in town I usually burble along at 1,200 RPM, yet, amazingly, I keep up with all the traffic, quite easily, I don't waste fuel and I don't prematurely wear out the running gear or engine. Fast is not fast, smooth is fast.
At one time I could drive around town and almost never have to hit the brakes or come to a complete stop, slipping past the ricers stopped at the lights having coasted down to 20 mph just as the lights turn green again. Not so easy now because they have completely screwed up the traffic system, completely and utterly, but even so I still get in excess of 50 miles per (imperial) gallon in City driving, in a 20+ years old full sized saloon car.
My brother has a new diesel TDV6, computer in the dash, it says "26 mpg", he points at it, not bad huh?
I tell him, You do realise that that is no more than an estimated figure based upon throttle position sensor and speed, don't you? You do realise it is not in any way actually metering fuel and ground speed and giving an actual reading?
He just looks at me, this obviously has not occured to him.
It's not even like it has to be within 10% accurate by Law, like, say, the speedometer, which means in reality it is always going to read high for a feelgood factor, so it is no more use than measuring inlet manifold vacuum... I continue.
I mention this because it is a classic example, efficiency literally does not feature anywhere in the engineering design or manufacture process of this vehicle, except in the advertising material, where efficiency, eco-friendliness and image are all addressed quite thoroughly in words and images.
Do NOT expect big business and multinationals to engineer significantly more efficient systems in time for you to be able to continue your present lifestyle in a world of increasingly expensive energy.
Due to the sheer scale of their operations they are like supertankers under way at sea, they simply cannot change course quickly enough.
If you want more efficiency in time for you to continue your lifestyle then YOU have to take charge and DIY.
Driving with a very light right foot will make a huge difference, as will daily tyre pressure and braking system inspections, as will removing all excess weight from the vehicle.
At home, buy quality CFL lamps and throw away the incandescents. Quartz IR electric heaters, not resistive types.
Computers, shut down when not in use, also all your other passive and standby loads (some of you will remember the shocking results of running everything in my house through a kill-a-watt meter).
Trust me on this, NOBODY from Ford or Dell or Shell or WalMart is going to come around and do anything to help you increase your energy efficiency. Nor is the bloody Government.
Food is another one, we eat once per day, no snacking, no nibbles, no nothing apart from that one meal a day. Much as I'd like to claim that being fitter than a butchers dog at my age is down to fabulous genetic heritage and a strict regimen of excercise, I can't. It is down to giving my intestines enough quality food to fully digest in one day, and no more.
Credit / Debt of all kinds is another one, avoid it at all costs, no matter what you think it is giving you, throw that baby out with the bath water and start living strictly within your means.
We live really well (in the UK with UK prices and that includes >10 bucks a gallon gas) on less than 200 bucks a week, I can't think of a damn thing that I go without, tomorrow I'm throwing my mum, missus and the boy in the car and we'll have a day out in Plymouth, eat fresh caught Fish, I'll no doubt buy some alu / brass / acrylic for stock, and an 80 mile round trip worth of diesel.
I used to say "I'm not cynical mate, just experienced." and I also used to say "I'm not mean, just careful"
But the fact is what I am is efficient. I use my money efficiently. I use my energy efficiently. I use my time efficiently. And no, it doesn't make me a boring old twat who never does anything. On the contrary, it is half past three on a Monday afternoon and get to please myself what I do.