Slashdot Mirror


Japan Striving For Energy Efficiency

diamond writes "The NYT has an article on how Japan is squeezing to get the most out of the costly fuel. 'The government recently introduced a national campaign, urging the Japanese to replace their older appliances and buy hybrid vehicles, all part of a patriotic effort to save energy and fight global warming.'"

28 of 540 comments (clear)

  1. New trend? by teh+moges · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Hopefully this starts a global trend

    1. Re:New trend? by TorKlingberg · · Score: 5, Funny

      Nah, saving energy is unamerican.

    2. Re:New trend? by evilpenguin · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Clinton administration signed the Kyoto treaty, which the Bush administration withdrew from. The Clinton administration set up the "million solar roofs" program. Those are just two things I know off the top of my head.

      That said, I don't think any American administration has taken energy seriously. Oddly, I think the Bush administration does, but only because the oil peak is something the oil-industry connected administration understands well.

      Make no mistake. I like much of what is in the Bush energy bill (although I don't think it goes nearly far enough and my personal repulsion for the man and his politics is boundless). Before you assume too much about me from these statements, one of the things I wholeheartedly endorse is streamlining licensure of nuclear power plants (despite the fact that he [Bush] continues to call them "nucular" plants).

      The oil supply is going start shrinking soon folks. When it does, the price is going to shoot up and the oil companies will make even more money than they do today, but not for too much longer. We have very few alternatives to oil. Yes, solar and wind can supplement. And we'll build that. But they aren't there all the time. Yes, coal is there. But it is just as exhaustible as oil and we'll face the problem again in the future.

      Splitting those atoms is the only sure way we have to keep our economy alive and to do so without destroying our climate. Yes, the waste is a problem, but nothing compared to inaction when the oil supply begins to shrink.

      The other big thing to do is go after EFFICIENCY. The good news is that the price of energy will force it (again, this left-leaning liberal might suprise you by saying "markets work."), but the bad news is that we might not be able to make the needed changes quickly enough.

      I'm genuinely worried about the next 25 years and energy. I'm far more worried about this than the "terrorist threat." Why? Because when gasoline rises to $10+ USD per gallon it will affect many more people than any suicidal maniac possibly could, even with NBC weapons.

      A world without oil (or oil prohibitively expensive) is a world where everything you have must be made and moved with your own hands. Take a look around you and ask yourself how much of what you have now you could have in such a world?

      Obviously human ingenuity and engineering skills won't disappear. We'll come up with things. The new computer controlled phase driven electric motors being developed might very well give us a way to do our transport and civil engineering with electricity instead of oil. Other developments will come. But how soon?

      I can imagine a return of regional food production. The return of railroads for the bulk of freight and interstate travel. Etc.

      Our present just-in-time economy is based on cheap oil. It won't be with us much longer.

    3. Re:New trend? by despisethesun · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Splitting those atoms is the only sure way we have to keep our economy alive and to do so without destroying our climate."

      So what happens when we hit peak uranium? There are two major uranium isotopes, only one of which is suitable for use as nuclear fuel. It's also the one that there is the least supply of. The two isotopes together can be used to create vast amounts of plutonium, but nobody considers that a viable alternative because it could mean the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The only REAL alternative is not splitting atoms, but fusing them. That technology is being developed, but it won't be ready till mid-century. When it gets here, the use of deuterium and tritium as fusion fuels will provide us with enough energy for several million years (though our lithium supplies will run out much earlier, still well beyond even our great-grandchildren's lifetimes), but we need something to sustain us till then. Fission may help as a stopgap measure, but it's no replacement for oil.

      And of course all of this ignores oil as used in the production of goods, such as plastics. Processes such as thermal depolymerization may assist in this, but that's still largely unproven technology.

      It's gonna be a rough couple of decades, children. Better buckle up.

      --
      This poo is cold.
    4. Re:New trend? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Funny

      You mean LIBERATED.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    5. Re:New trend? by evilpenguin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Those time projections are based on *US Supply*. But I agree, the nuclear option is just another holding measure.

      The somewhat hyperbolic site I link to in my parent post gets one major thing wrong, IMHO. He points out that the energy return on energy invested in making hydrogen from water by is 1/1.7, which he says makes it impossible. If solar photovoltaics are used to provide that electricity, however, it becomes totally feasible. Hydrogen can be the storage medium and transportable form for renewable electricity.

      That said, all the energy density problems and economies of scale issues are still there. We will all have to do with less. Right now oil's EROEI is about 30/1, which is just phenomenally good. That free ride is coming to an end.

      Still, I tend to be an optimist. I do believe we will shift resources. I do believe we can get public-spirited conservation. I do believe we can actually substantially reduce oil demand (we will have to) and the market will make us do it. I'm not sure there will have to be "oil panic" scenario the doomsayers paint. The price will make us do things differently. They (the peak oil doom crowd like the site I referenced) assume that the peak itself will be a catastrophic moment. I'm not sure I believe that. I think we've just seen the start of a steady, perhaps accelerating rise in prices. But I promise you, that will reach a point where it reduces demand and where it will drive investment in new technologies.

      As for the other uses of oil in making plastics, drugs, paints, etc. Well, the switch to alternatives will "free up" some of that supply. Also, it is possible to synthetically produce many of those products from more basic organic compounds, it is just too expensive to o so right now.

      No, my big worry is fertilizer and the food supply. I don't see how we can avoid a decrease in food production. Still, from Paul Erlich onwards, those who have given us predictions of doom by such-and-such a time have been consistently wrong. And I think that is only because their predictions are based on an "all things being equal" basis. The trouble is things change. New technologies, new efficiencies, clever ideas. That won't stop happening.

      The one thing we can be sure of, however, is that the world 50 years from now will not look much like the world of today. And I'd say that might be a very good thing. Sure, it might be an epoch-shattering disaster. But I'd prefer to work on making it a good thing.

      It is going to be a challenging time. I sure agree with you on that!

  2. Woah! by Randy+Wang · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hey! Maybe they'll make up for Australia and the USA not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol!

    Or not. You never know.

    It's extremely impressive, though, that they could manage to triple the output of their industrial sector for the same energy consumption - makes me feel guilty about doing nothing at all about climate change in my own home.

    --
    --- Egads, I glow in the dark!
  3. In addition... by The+Slaughter · · Score: 5, Funny

    In addition to other energy conservation techniques, they've asked Godzilla to take fewer showers. That guy, like, he uses a lot of water, man.

    1. Re:In addition... by hey! · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There's a theory I've read that Gojira (Godzilla) symbolizes Japan's perception of America, on one hand rising out of the ocean and dealing out crude destruction to Japanese cities, on the other hand having a kind of elemntal fascination for them. In some movies Gojira is painted in a tragic, or even heroic light.

      So, what we're talking about is more like an oportunity to sell Godzilla a more energy efficient water heater.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  4. Encouragement? by Nakanai_de · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I admit I just skimmed TFA, but what qualifies as a "national campaign?" Is it just adverts on TV, or are there tax breaks involved as well? During the Carter administration in the US, there were numerous tax breaks for individuals who did things like convert their houses to solar power. The percentage of solar powered houses (whether for electricty or water heating) in Japan greatly outpaces that of the US, but do they get tax rebates from it, or is it just regular Japanese environmentalism?

    --

    Sono koro, bokura wa, sore ga sekai no shinjitsu da to shinjite ita.

  5. and boost their economy by tota · · Score: 5, Insightful

    let's not forget that,
    Japan is a leading car manufacturer (especially when it comes to "green" vehicles) so this would also benefit their economy.

    --
    TODO: 753) write sig.
  6. This is not news. by MtViewGuy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    After all, Japan always had to import 100% of their petroleum needs, hence the reason why they've always emphasized high energy efficiency. That's why Japan has such excellent public transportation and why Toyota embarked on that research project in the early 1990's that resulted in the groundbreaking Prius hybrid drivetrain vehicle.

    Also, because of Japan's very high population density and its huge demands on water, it's also the country where much of today's water-efficient plumbing originated. After all, it was the Japanese plumbing fixture company TOTO that helped originate the concept of not only low-flush toilets, but also toilets where you can choose the amount of water to use per flush for even higher water efficiency.

  7. Tax increases by MarkByers · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The easiest way to encourage people to use less energy is to tax energy consumption heavily.

    --
    I'll probably be modded down for this...
    1. Re:Tax increases by TERdON · · Score: 5, Insightful
      He's not trying to take your SUV from you. All he suggests is charging you an arm and a leg for driving it, as it costs the rest of us our environment...

      In my eyes, you certainly aren't paying the environmental costs (ie the approximated costs of restoring the destruction you've caused) of burning the fuel you use (I've seen calculations in the 2-3 per liter range - would be around $15 per gallon, I think). Even you aren't from the US as I think, but a co-european of mine, you certainly aren't paying those gas prices.

      --
      I have a really elegant proof for Fermat's last theorem. If this sig was only a bit longer...
    2. Re:Tax increases by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Funny

      You can pry my SUV from my cold dead fingers

      With pleasure.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    3. Re:Tax increases by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      and of course the poorest are the hardest hit by tax increases

      Depends on how the tax is structured. If you just put a flat tax on gasoline, yes that is unfair. But if you tax by efficiency of the vehicle, and set a zero tax level at something reasonable like a 1.5L engine, then the impact should be small,

  8. Government in bed with manufacturers again? by Gurezaemon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I can't open the article (link down?), but I would not be surprised if this is yet another shady deal between the Japanese government and major manufacturers to keep people buying new products.

    The compulsory registration fees already make it expensive enough to run a car here, and suspect this is more of the same - "keep people purchasing, and keep the economy afloat." After all, it has worked for the last 50 years here.

  9. Go Japan! by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As a geek, I love clever solutions. Japan has a great track record at applying technology to day to day problems. But a lot of Japan's creative energy has gone into miniaturization, which makes sense for a gregarious people who also happen to live on an island. But there's only so far you can go with that.Also, for us Americans, diminishing returns with diminishing gadget size comes a lot sooner than it does for the Japanese.

    I also don't think as a country you can look to Americans to develop much in the way in efficiency technologies. Our mentality when faced with shortage is to go out and find or create some more. But efficiency is just as valid a sphere for creativity as production, and it works just as well I think; better in some scenarios.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  10. Huh? Where? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I live in Japan and I haven't seen any national campaign. Besides, it's not like anyone keeps anything for more than 2 years here anyway. People are already replacing their old stuff with new stuff too frequently. As much as Japan loves to say how energy efficient they are, I have to wonder what all this facination with new products ends up costing energy-wise.

    And it's not like the newer products have any reason to exist sometimes. I just got done fighting with my oven for an hour because my idea of an oven (a box that gets hot into which you put raw food and remove it when it's cooked) is very different from what the Toshiba marketing department came up with (a box with a million digital buttons on the front that ultimately control a big heating coil and a frickin' timer--but does so in the most circuitous and bizarre manner possible, so you know it's advanced).

  11. Re:Does Buying Hybrid Vehicles Really Help? by October_30th · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm sure the oil industry has already produced several reports showing that hybrid vehicles don't help in reducing pollution. Just like the tobacco industry used to publish reports showing that smoking and lung cancer are not related.

    --
    The owls are not what they seem
  12. 1-liter houses in Germany? Bah. by TERdON · · Score: 4, Informative

    In Sweden, experimental 0-liter houses (without heating at all except inhabitants and appliances) have already been built (sorry, Swedish only). Sweden is a bit colder than Germany (have lived in both countries so I have own experience about that one). Go figure. Or maybe we Swedes just tend to be more nerdy and more often have our own Beowulf clusters as heaters. :P

    --
    I have a really elegant proof for Fermat's last theorem. If this sig was only a bit longer...
  13. Hooray for energy saving by jesterzog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe they'll make up for Australia and the USA not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol!

    Whatever happens with Kyoto, I think it's great to see a few governments here and there finally leading by example, and getting involved in encouraging and providing incentives for saving energy. Hopefully it'll get some power saving technologies and industries much more established than they were before, and some people might actually begin to realise that there are more benefits to being efficient than possibly reducing the effects that power generation might have on the environment. Some of it may even carry over into countries that initially didn't sign on to Kyoto.

    In New Zealand, where I am, finding ways to save energy has almost become a necessity, albeit one that the general population is noticing very slowly. (The main theme at the moment is everyone wanting to build more power stations, but nobody wanting them in their back yard.) Call it lack of planning if you like, but the power situation here is at the state where we're presently on the edge of getting brown-outs.

    The geographic isolation makes it necessary to be entirely self-reliant with power generation, and saving energy becomes a definite alternative to generating more. (Not all the time, but certainly much of the time.) Being someone who's quite enthusiastic about reducing light pollution, it's helpful to finally have some government bodies to deal with whose actual purpose revolves around finding new ways to save energy, such as this one.

    My understanding, from having spoken to people there, is that the US Federal government is comparably hopeless at implementing energy efficiency schemes, for whatever reason. (That'd mean less jobs for all those americans in the power generation industry, right?) Apparently it's a much healthier economy when a few billions of dollars extra are circulating, even if it is for energy that's not actually necessary... but whatever.

    If you happen to have an interest in energy efficiency, though, I've heard that state governments and more local authorities in general are often a lot more receptive about promoting it. I presume that it's probably much easier in states that buy more energy from neighbouring states than they sell. eg. Calgary (okay, that's Canada but it's in the same direction as the US from here) recently went through a programme of replacing every one of their street lights. It's expected to pay off entirely within six to seven years, through operating costs of the lights alone.

  14. Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt by Colin+Smith · · Score: 5, Informative

    What are you, marketing department for one of the big oil companies? Hybrids aren't perfect but you're talking out of your *arse*.

    The batteries used in hybrids last as long as the vehicle, 150,000 - 200,000 miles at least and are guaranteed for at least 8 years. The batteries are NiMH, not lead acid or Nicad.

    e.g.
    http://pressroom.toyota.com/photo_library/display_ release.html?id=20040623

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt by dattaway · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And when the batteries are spent, they are traded in for new ones. The old ones are sent to the smelter, melted down and made into new batteries. Its cheaper to recycle than to prepare a bunch of ore.

      I thought the Prius batteries were warrantied for 10 years, not 8.

  15. Australia and Kyoto by nounderscores · · Score: 4, Interesting

    FWIW, australia's state level governments (such as the Victorian Bracks government) are all imposing tough emissions controls in line with the kyoto protocol.

    The reason why australia didn't ratify kyoto is because kyoto also counts all forest fires as emissions of CO2, because, well, they are emissions of CO2.

    Australia has forest fires larger than engliand in the western australian forests every year. If australia ratified kyoto and got on the emissions trading scheme, australia would be economically crippled by having to buy emissions credits all the time. So Howard looked after the bottom line and refused to sign.

    Now, if only we could find a way to prevent forest fires. I have a friend who is trying to get a job as a postgraduate research assistant at the Victorian Fire Prevention Center with her very good botany degree... maybe she can help.

  16. Re:Does Buying Hybrid Vehicles Really Help? by Bazzalisk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the car runs on ordinary petrol then 100% of its energy input comes from fossil fuels - for electricity production in Japan a significant amount comes from other sources (mostly nuclear). Add to this the fact that a large power-station has certain economies of scale allowing it to burn more efficiently than a car's internal combustion engine and it becomes aparant that this is very likely to produce some improvement - though perhaps not as large a one as might initialy be assumed.

    --
    James P. Barrett
  17. Re:Does Buying Hybrid Vehicles Really Help? by kfg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am not aligned with the oil industry. I'm aligned with the electric car and bicycle industry. I have been personally promoting the idea of hybrid cars since the 1970s, although I do not currently own a car at all, because I am "anti" oil industry.

    As they exist today electrics and hybrids do not help in reducing overall pollution or save energy, although they could be a great boon to cities such as New York, Los Angeles and Tokyo for local reductions. That simply means that the pollution goes where there is less of it now though.

    And they're not as much of a boon as bicycles. In LA it is usually sunny and pleasantly warm; and the last time I looked up the statistics 90% of the population lived within 5 miles of work.

    It takes 20 minutes to drive to work, and 15 to bicycle. Thank God for modern time saving devices that threaten our lives and effectively bankrupt us pursasing, maintaining, fueling and insuring ourselves against the damage we're going to do with them. What would we do without them?

    KFG

  18. 25000 sq km? by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 4, Funny

    Call that a fire?
    This is a fire.

    --
    Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park