Slashdot Mirror


Cool-Factor Predicted To Spur Energy Conservation

An anonymous reader writes "Panelists at a recent technology expo argued about how to motivate people to conserve energy, dragging out all the usual suspects, from financial incentives to emotion appeals to 'save the planet.' However, one panelist trumped the status quo by noting that adding the 'cool factor' could make energy conservation fun via apps on smartphones and tablets. By making energy conservation as fun as a video game, the fickle on-again, off-again of human nature might just be overcome."

130 comments

  1. Doom light switch? by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 2

    Will I be able to use a Doom interface to shutoff the lights in my house?

    --
    If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    1. Re:Doom light switch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean launch Doom -> lights off, quit Doom -> lights on?

    2. Re:Doom light switch? by tmh+-+The+Mad+Hacker · · Score: 1

      Gives new meaning to the phrase "kill the lights", doesn't it?

  2. Cool-Factor? by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

    Are they implying that Apple will be designing the new energy conservation technology?

  3. Because Smartphones... by m.shenhav · · Score: 1

    ...are much more energy efficient then normal phones!

    1. Re:Because Smartphones... by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      Considering that mine regularly prevents me from turning on a desktop or laptop I would agree with you.

  4. Keeping it Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously, Blizzard should do it! After all, aren't they fighting Azeroth's version of Global Warming right now too?

  5. Population by kwr760 · · Score: 1

    I doubt population control was even mentioned. Soon the crap from humans will be causing too much methane, no matter how much we converse it will be futile.

    1. Re:Population by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nuke africa?

    2. Re:Population by kwr760 · · Score: 1

      I was thinking of tax credits for small families, and tax burdens for large families. And trying to get the message that until we start to colonize other worlds we need to limit the family size.

    3. Re:Population by superwiz · · Score: 1

      anything else "they" can do so that "we" can have our priorities satisfied?

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    4. Re:Population by flightmaker · · Score: 1

      I wrote to my MP about this a while back. They acknowledge the fact that population is a problem but as far as I can tell none of them has the balls to do anything about it.

    5. Re:Population by TarMil · · Score: 1

      Hem... This applies to everyone, he was not restricting it to any people (as opposed to the stupid AC he was answering to).

    6. Re:Population by Medievalist · · Score: 1

      Methane is an energy source, and methane from shit can be used to replace fossil fuels.

      http://www.google.com/search?q=methane+digester

      Methane biogas is the future, baby! Renewable, far more cost-effective than nukes and obviously more environmentally friendly than fossil fuels.

      Sadly, your major point is still right... it's unlikely we can continue to increase our population forever without triggering some kind of extinction event.

    7. Re:Population by vux984 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I was thinking

      I'm not sure you were. ;)

      tax credits for small families, and tax burdens for large families

      People with large families aren't doing it for the money. Having kids is already a significant expense, and the tax breaks for kids don't really amount to squat in comparison to the expense.

      The childless families are rolling in money by comparison. Both can work...

      No diapers, no day care expense, no extra mouth to feed and clothe, birthday presents to buy, constant school fundraising/fieldtrips/hotlunch days/bookfairs, haircuts, dental work, glasses...

      Nobody has kids to save moeny.

      And throwing a tax burden on them won't stop them from having more kids.

      The trailer park squad is having them because they make bad decisions... and they aren't going to consider the tax ramifications of unprotected sex if they failed to consider the pregnancy ramifications of unprotected sex.

      The no contraceptives for religious reasons group isn't going to stop having sex or having kids due to a tax burden either... they'll just be poorer thanks to you... perhaps driven to live in trailers with the first group.

      Finally its not like large families can 'right size' in response to the burden either, even if they wanted to.

      Meanwhile... the childless couples will putter around in their sports cars and vacations with their disposable income augmented by tax breaks until they get old and apparently have to be looked after by someone elses kids. ;)

      That said.. you said tax breaks for small families... so maybe you mean families of 3 to 5, instead of childless couples. And that's less caustic... but tax breaks for childless couples is demented.

      If you want small families though, taxes isn't the way to do it.Education and prosperity is the path to smaller families.

    8. Re:Population by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      the problem with voluntary population control is it selects for selfish bastards.

      all the earth-minded people will willingly reduce their numbers, everyone else will continue to breed like rabbits.

    9. Re:Population by next_ghost · · Score: 1

      Yeah, right. Developed countries already have only about 60% of bare minimum natality required to maintain stable population. Let's make the problem even worse.

    10. Re:Population by dakameleon · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the majority of the methane (which has approximately 20x impact on the greenhouse effect vs CO2) is actually emitted right out the butts of livestock bred for our food & clothing. Either you're going to have to put a pipe up each animal to capture that, or we're about to have the world's biggest BBQ...

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
    11. Re:Population by RussR42 · · Score: 1

      Obama's science adviser is all over it. Behold! _Ecoscience_ Coauthored by John P. Holdren.

    12. Re:Population by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the problem with voluntary population control is it selects for selfish bastards.

      all the earth-minded people will willingly reduce their numbers, everyone else will continue to breed like rabbits.

      Thus weeding out the weak. We have a natural instinct to survive, which some may call "selfishness". Those who willingly sacrifice themselves possess a diminished capacity for survival, whereas those who would selfishly persist have a stronger sense of self preservation.
       
       
      In either case, the plan works: human populations dwindle, greenhouse gasses dwindle, humanity persists. Win/Win

    13. Re:Population by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Childless couples put less burden on society, plus when they get old, they'll help the economy because they'll have to pay someone to look after them.

      What they should do is have a tax break for 1, maybe 2 kids per couple, but after that give them exponentially increasing tax burdens. 3 kids, a very small burden, 4, a moderate one, 5 a large one, etc.

      Families of 3-5 are good, because it's enough people to keep the population stable, but small enough that parents can devote more time and resources to their kids. How many parents can pay for 8 kids to go to college or trade school? It's almost always the big families that are poor and have their hands out for welfare.

      Yes, education is good for encouraging smaller families, but it only goes so far, and takes forever to work. Look at society these days: there's tons and tons of poor people with huge families. Education is free, but obviously they're not getting the message. Plus, education doesn't help when the Church tells you that birth control is baaaaddd, mkay? A lot of the people in the US now with giant families are Catholic.

    14. Re:Population by superwiz · · Score: 1

      "they" are the large families. cause i doubt (and I am taking an educated guess there) that the guy with uid>2mil has one himself.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    15. Re:Population by superwiz · · Score: 2

      People who view other people in terms of how much burden they put on society are generally themselves the ones putting the largest burden. They don't know much about much so they can only view individuals in the same terms that farmers view bovine stock. You want to reduce misery in the world? Make sure every sociology major is required to spend his life with indigenous population rather than just a few years of "research." Yes, I am generalizing. No, I won't take it back. I am ok with not having government subsidies for raising children if you are ok with not having government subsidies for high-risk individual behavior (esoteric college majors, unpopular arts, etc.)

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    16. Re:Population by superwiz · · Score: 1

      Perception of financial security generally leads to people starting families. Baby booms usually follow economic booms. Remove road blocks to prosperity and people who want to raise children will have more of them.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    17. Re:Population by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      Methane is an energy source, and methane from shit can be used to replace fossil fuels.

      http://www.google.com/search?q=methane+digester

      Methane biogas is the future, baby! Renewable, far more cost-effective than nukes and obviously more environmentally friendly than fossil fuels.

      Sadly, your major point is still right... it's unlikely we can continue to increase our population forever without triggering some kind of extinction event.

      it's unlikely we can continue to increase our population forever without triggering some kind of population crash event.

      FTFY

    18. Re:Population by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's alright; at the point when the last earth-minded people die out, there won't be anyone left who gives a shit what everyone else does.

      if a civilisation falls in the universe and nobody gives a shit, does it make a sound?

    19. Re:Population by Eivind · · Score: 1

      At first, yes. The effect is well-understood and well-researched, try asking google or wikipedia about "demographic transition".

      Primitive societies, have high birth-rates, but also high death-rates, then living-conditions improve, and death-rates fall, but birth-rates remain, leading to population-growth. In the next-phase births fall too though, and so the new steady state is low-deaths AND low births.

      Many wealthy nations today have birth-rates *below* the replacement-level, this is true for large parts of Europe, for example.

    20. Re:Population by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      You do realize that this only has effect in 30+ years, right ? (Arguably it only has definitive effect once the current childbearing cohort starts dying off, so that means that if people have kids at 30, and live to 80, we're talking 50 years)

      If you want to have a real effect through changing the population I'm afraid "direct intervention" (think socialist eugenics in the 1930's) is the only viable option.

      But your idea sounds good, it is a horrible idea (because it will lower the amount of productive citizens who have to pay and build the renewable infrastructure a LOT sooner than it will start lowering the population). We can be sure our politicians will implement it.

      Besides, rewarding having no children is essentially putting a reward on leeching of society, such a policy will destroy us long before the population numbers actually start moving.

    21. Re:Population by vux984 · · Score: 1

      they'll have to pay someone to look after them.

      Unless they run out, and then society puts them in a shallow hole until they starve to death and then covers them with dirt. Oh... wait... no... society foots the bill.

      What they should do is have a tax break for 1, maybe 2 kids per couple, but after that give them exponentially increasing tax burdens. 3 kids, a very small burden, 4, a moderate one, 5 a large one, etc.

      Your missing the point, though. That won't stop stupid people from having kids. Trust me... they REALLY didn't want to get pregnant and they couldn't bother to take the steps to prevent that... they are NOT going to be thinking about "tax breaks".

      Tax penalties as birth control will work about as well death penalty for people trying to commit suicide.

      Yes, education is good for encouraging smaller families, but it only goes so far, and takes forever to work.

      But it does actually work.

      Look at society these days: there's tons and tons of poor people with huge families. Education is free, but obviously they're not getting the message.

      Smaller families than africa. And the more successful people are the smaller families get. The solution is to get make these poor people successful... your suggesting making them poorer.

      Plus, education doesn't help when the Church tells you that birth control is baaaaddd, mkay?

      Educated people question the church. They may retain faith in God and may identify as cathoic, but they tend to cling less to the dogma. Most of the huge catholic families also tend to fall into the less educated and poorer categories.

    22. Re:Population by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Your missing the point, though. That won't stop stupid people from having kids. Trust me... they REALLY didn't want to get pregnant and they couldn't bother to take the steps to prevent that... they are NOT going to be thinking about "tax breaks".

      Tax penalties as birth control will work about as well death penalty for people trying to commit suicide.

      There's nothing that forces parents to keep their children if they "REALLY didn't want to get pregnant". Around here, you can drop off your kid at any fire station, no questions asked. If these people CHOOSE to keep their children that they can't afford, and now are getting tax penalties for (with the IRS coming after them and garnishing their already-puny wages), that's their own problem. Fire stations are always open.

    23. Re:Population by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Around here, you can drop off your kid at any fire station, no questions asked.

      And who pays to raise children dropped off at fire stations?

      How would that solve ANYTHING?

    24. Re:Population by Medievalist · · Score: 1

      Good point! One more reason to believe that biotech is the future, not clunky 1940s nuclear or 1800s petroleum tech. The only way to get better cows is to breed better cows, they won't spontaneously generate themselves out of a particle accelerator or a steam engine.

    25. Re:Population by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      If the children are young enough, there's ten-year-long waiting lines for people wanting to adopt healthy children.

      The problem is if 1) the children are too old; no one wants to deal with a foster teenager with severe emotional issues; or 2) the parents won't release their rights to the child. Lots of kids in foster care are like this: perfectly adoptable, but the stupid parents won't relinquish their rights, so they're stuck in "foster limbo" where the state takes care of them in group homes, but no one can adopt them. That could easily be fixed with legislation making it so anyone whose child goes into foster care loses ALL rights to that child, unless there's some extenuating circumstances (and honestly, I can't really think of anything legitimate at the moment. If you have to surrender your kid to foster care for any reason, then you're an unfit parent, regardless of the cause.)

    26. Re:Population by vux984 · · Score: 1

      If the children are young enough, there's ten-year-long waiting lines for people wanting to adopt healthy children.

      Because poor drug/alcohol abusers living in trailer parks dropping off babies at fire stations are just the thing people are waiting 10 years to get.

      Come on.

      As for stupid parents not relinquishing their rights... the bond between parent and child is pretty strong. Instinct, genetic programmed, survival of the species mechanism for a few millions of years... that sort of thing.

      You'd pretty much have to be a sociopath to give up a child to get tax breaks.

      I don't disagree with you that families need to be smaller, especially among the poor who can least afford them... but I disagree that "give em up or get taxed" would or even could work in the real world.

      Never mind that the amount of political capital you'd need to blow to pass such a thing would ensure it never happened.

  6. We have this stuff already... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have this stuff already... the cute little thing on the dashboard that shows more green leaves the slower you go in the car.

    I get assailed by ads everyday. I don't need them on my paid for devices.

  7. Stop trying to be smart... by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

    There's no need for clever new strategies to promote adoption. If you want to sell something just give it sex appeal. Sex sells. Always has, always will.

    --
    Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    1. Re:Stop trying to be smart... by kaizokuace · · Score: 1

      Just gotta somehow link that energy saving light bulbs stimulate your libido.

      --
      Balderdash!
    2. Re:Stop trying to be smart... by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      could be counter-productive. most energy saving bulbs are not dimmable, and we all know dimmed lights are sexier.

    3. Re:Stop trying to be smart... by SEWilco · · Score: 1

      There's no need for clever new strategies to promote adoption. If you want to sell something just give it sex appeal. Sex sells. Always has, always will.

      But I think these people want to counter HotOrNot.

    4. Re:Stop trying to be smart... by SEWilco · · Score: 1

      Just gotta somehow link that energy saving light bulbs stimulate your libido.

      That will only succeed in selling light fixtures with for 100 energy saving bulbs.

    5. Re:Stop trying to be smart... by superwiz · · Score: 2

      Why not go for full necrophilia? Why just light bulbs? Snuffing life out of life is smexy. Let's get people excited about public hangings since it's people that cause all these emissions, right? At which point do we get to call ecofascism by its proper name?

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    6. Re:Stop trying to be smart... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      At which point do we get to call ecofascism by its proper name?

      When it starts being anti-human, instead of pro-environment, which is also pro-human.

      Slippery-slope fallacy is fallacious.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    7. Re:Stop trying to be smart... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Considering...

      Total darkness is still best in many cases.

      Beauty is just a light switch away. In total darkness I look like Brad Pitt.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    8. Re:Stop trying to be smart... by hitmark · · Score: 2

      Well, there are LEDs for that...

      Hell, with the right LED setup, one can even do color changes to fit the mood.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    9. Re:Stop trying to be smart... by superwiz · · Score: 1

      instead of pro-environment, which is also pro-human.

      I disagree.

      Slippery-slope fallacy is fallacious.

      If I believe the has already been crossed, it's not a slipper slope argument then. Now we are just arguing semantics. You want to call ecofascism "fluffy bunnies." I want to call it ecofascism.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    10. Re:Stop trying to be smart... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      If I believe the has already been crossed, it's not a slipper slope argument then.

      Logical fallacies have nothing to do with what you believe, and everything to do with what you say. Here is what you said:

      Why not go for full necrophilia?... Let's get people excited about public hangings since it's people that cause all these emissions, right?

      That is exactly a slippery-slope fallacy, unless you are claiming that these things have actually happened. If they haven't, then this isn't a line which has been crossed. Suggesting that crossing some other line (one you nevermentioned) will lead to this is pretty much a textbook slippery slope.

      Now we are just arguing semantics. You want to call ecofascism "fluffy bunnies."

      As far as I can tell, I'm actually putting forth arguments, and you're putting forth fallacies. This one is called a strawman. I've never used the words "fluffy bunnies", nor have I accepted your "ecofacism" term as describing any actual people. I'm not trying to make it "cool", or cuddly, or anything else. My only stake here is that I'd like my species to survive the next hundred years or so, let alone the next thousand, and it'd also be cool if civilization survived in a form at least as advanced as we are now.

      I don't see how you can call that anything but pro-human, and I don't see how you can do those things without doing something about the environment.

      I'm not sure why you're complaining. You're the one who went into this "arguing semantics":

      At which point do we get to call ecofascism by its proper name?

      If that's not just a semantic argument, then back it up. Tell me why environmentalism is bad, or be more specific about which environmentalists are bad, otherwise I can only assume these "ecofacists" are figments of your imagination.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  8. Um, make it more expensive? by Scareduck · · Score: 1

    Nah, that'll never work.

    --

    Dog is my co-pilot.

    1. Re:Um, make it more expensive? by kwr760 · · Score: 1

      Remember when the government asks you if it is ok to add a tax or raise taxes. Your answer should be no, please cut spending. If you want to save the planet please do not have children or just one.

  9. Money isn't cool? by dontbgay · · Score: 1

    Maybe times have changed since I was a kid, but saving money to spend it on something I actually wanted, rather than putting gas in the car or paying for a power bill.

    --
    Sig not found.
    1. Re:Money isn't cool? by c6gunner · · Score: 2

      I can't think of any time when saving money was considered 'cool'. Smart, sure, but then again 'smart' was rarely 'cool', either. Most societies idolize overblown displays of wealth and physical ability, not thrift and intelligence.

    2. Re:Money isn't cool? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Most societies idolize overblown displays of wealth and physical ability, not thrift and intelligence.

      They do? Yes, American society is totally just like this, but "most societies"? I'm pretty sure Asian societies have not historically had these traits.

    3. Re:Money isn't cool? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Right. And Native Americans are noble peace-loving people who lived happy, healthy lives, in harmony with the environment.

      People are people. It doesn't really matter what culture they're from - our basic urges, desires, and shortcomings are the same. Don't believe the hype.

    4. Re:Money isn't cool? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Oh please. You're trying to tell me that China and Japan worship sports the way Americans do? That's complete bullshit. They have their sports, of course, but not the way we do with "sports bars" full of big-screen TVs blaring dozens of ESPN channels simultaneously, and the addiction that many American men have to them. They also DO value intelligence in a way totally the opposite of us. While we make fun of engineers, people in India and China consider it a highly respected profession, the way we do with lawyers.

      Native Americans weren't known for "displays of wealth" either. A lot of pre-Columbian societies didn't even consider gold all that valuable, and wondered why the Conquistadors wanted it so much.

    5. Re:Money isn't cool? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Wait. We consider shystering a highly respected profession? Sense when? I didn't get the memo.

      As to sports and Asia. BS. Asians will bet on anything.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    6. Re:Money isn't cool? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2

      While we make fun of engineers, people in India and China consider it a highly respected profession, the way we do with lawyers.

      "Highly respected profession" and "lawyers" doesn't fit together very well, I think. Or did I just miss some irony?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    7. Re:Money isn't cool? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2

      I can't think of any time when saving money was considered 'cool'. Smart, sure, but then again 'smart' was rarely 'cool', either. Most societies idolize overblown displays of wealth and physical ability, not thrift and intelligence.

      Well, maybe then we must make it that having energy conserving technology shows wealth. Make energy saving products expensive and look expensive. Then, gradually introduce less expensive models (but not too fast). Slowly the "if you have it, you must be rich" will turn into "if you don't have it, you must be poor". Which still is a great incentive to get it. And by the time that everyone (actually, everyone who could afford the non-energy saving equivalent) can afford it, it will be the normal thing, and nobody will even think about buying something else; the market for the environmentally unfriendly alternative will just have vanished.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    8. Re:Money isn't cool? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Depends on who you talk to. Among engineers and other technical people, no, lawyers aren't really well respected. Among poor people and less educated people, they think of lawyers almost like gods. Other more-educated people in useless jobs tend to think well of them too. Finally, just look at the voting public. Year after year, who do they elect to the highest positions in government? Lawyers. Look at who all the "intelligent" liberals voted for in '08 for President: a lawyer.

  10. Mandatory SMBC... by TarMil · · Score: 3, Interesting
    1. Re:Mandatory SMBC... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 Highly Relevant

    2. Re:Mandatory SMBC... by kwr760 · · Score: 1

      I believe that is it evil to have the attitude of 'Do what I say or I will hurt you.'. This is the immorality of governing organizations. It is ok to jail/hurt someone who hurts people, but is it right to hurt someone who doesn't want to help someone? To me the answer is obvious, but to most people in the US the answer seems to be the opposite of my opinion.

    3. Re:Mandatory SMBC... by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

      Governments using carrots and sticks to corral and constrain and align behaviour. It's not the immorality of governing organizations. It's the TRADE-OFF of governing organizations.

      Try inner city Rio de Janeiro or a failed state (several to choose from in Africa) with no effective government, and
      see what happens to the average chance of getting hurt on any given day.

      --

      Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    4. Re:Mandatory SMBC... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      It is ok to jail/hurt someone who hurts people, but is it right to hurt someone who doesn't want to help someone? To me the answer is obvious, but to most people in the US the answer seems to be the opposite of my opinion.

      Depends. I more or less agree with you, but evolutionary pressures have driven us to develop the tendency to punish not only those who directly harm the tribe, but also those who refuse to help the tribe. In small tribes, you could simply banish those who were useless - in modern society, we don't really have that option. Public shaming would have been one way to deal with such issues ... however, in the Internet Era, public shaming can be more harmful than imprisonment. I'm not sure how to deal with it in the modern context; in the absence of a workable and moral solution I'm inclined to do nothing, which is where we apparently agree.

    5. Re:Mandatory SMBC... by superwiz · · Score: 1

      Yes, but technological advancements have allowed us to depend on the tribe less. And enabled us to be more productive through use of higher brain functions than through mechanical repetitive labor. The only thing which stands in our way is jealousy of those less able.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  11. Already seen in practice by Daetrin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't think the effect is huge, but since i switched from a Rav4 to a Prius i've noticed that my driving habits have gotten a little more conservative, and i think the main factor is the little current and cumulative "miles per gallon" readings on the display. Trying to keep it above 45 mpg can be kinda fun, and it really doesn't seem to affect how quickly i get anywhere very much.

    I used to gun the motor a lot more in the Rav4 just cause it was fun and there wasn't much reason not to (the difference in mileage and thus the difference in how often i had to fill up seemed pretty marginal) but now that i've got direct and immediate feedback playing with the mpg gauges is also fun, even if in an entirely different way, and now it's the marginal difference in time that i'm dismissing rather than the marginal difference in mileage. (And i still drive faster than i probably ought to, and i still will gun my car from time to time just for the fun of it, just nowhere near as often.)

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    1. Re:Already seen in practice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think the effect is huge, but since i switched from a Rav4 to a Prius i've noticed that my driving habits have gotten a little more conservative, and i think the main factor is the little current and cumulative "miles per gallon" readings on the display. Trying to keep it above 45 mpg can be kinda fun,

      Many, many cars have mpg (or l/100km for you metric people) indicators.

      My BMW has one, and I love watching the effect of drafting behind a big rig on the highway. Boosts mpg by 25% or more.

    2. Re:Already seen in practice by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      the ones on the BMWs are there to make you feel guilty for hitting that sweet second gear so hard.

      my transition from 1988 corolla to 2002 325i was a rough one.

    3. Re:Already seen in practice by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Not just the miles per gallon readings, but I've seen multiple car reviews talk about essentially a 'green meter', which purposefully (IMHO) tries to get people's mind into video game mode..

      The one I saw recently on a CNET car review did I think a green leafy image, and the circle of leaves grew as you were driving less lead-footed (and I think they went from blue to green).

    4. Re:Already seen in practice by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Nissan Altimas have the MPG meter, and I notice I do try to keep it as high as I can when I have it on (though I rarely do. There's more important info screens on there, and for some reason they decided to make the fonts on each one huge so you can't put them all on at once).

      But I just wish we could get an accurate gas gauge. If people (me, at least) could tell that this trip used 2.168 gallons, they'd know it also cost $8 and they might think about doing things differently. For now, all you know is that your last ten trips used something like 3/8ths of a tank. And a tank in this car is, uh... 18.3 gallons? Maybe? Times 3/8ths is, uh... Fuck it. If I need gas I'll get gas.

      A real-time meter that says your flooring it and slamming on the brakes every 10 seconds just cost you 0.2 gallons over 30 seconds (or whatever) might make people a little more conservative.

    5. Re:Already seen in practice by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      If your car can only burn .2 gallons in 15 seconds floored (assuming half brakes, half gas) then your car is lame.

      You need a bigger engine, cams and more boost to be cool. Not liking this fact doesn't change it.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    6. Re:Already seen in practice by Rogerborg · · Score: 2

      +1000 insightful. All of us (men, there are no women on the Intartubes) game while we're driving. Speed and time if we don't have a choice. A mpg readout is the best way to give a better target, and any government serious about the environment would mandate the permanent display of one in all new vehicles. SUV owners can put tape over theirs.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    7. Re:Already seen in practice by Monchanger · · Score: 1

      When it comes to cars I couldn't agree more. Vehicles constitute a status symbol where spending too much money makes people feel better. Screw the cool factor - that's what makes people buy inefficient vehicles and drive in a wasteful fashion.

      I used to be scared driving next to sports car-driving idiots who insist on getting to 80mph in moderate traffic while leaving only half a car length of room in front of them. Since I upgraded a car which shows my MPG, I watch their brake lights flicker constantly and I'm very aware of how much money I'm saving by not being as reckless.

      Knowing not just your MPG, but having it translated directly into USD would make it so much more visceral.

    8. Re:Already seen in practice by ElmoGonzo · · Score: 1

      You do have an accurate gas gauge. It's the one on the gas pump when you fill up. Keeping track of miles since last fill up gives you a very good estimate of MPG. Days since last fill up adds in MPDay. Paying attention to -- and trying to maximize -- the MPG on the dashboard (which is always optimistic) improved my calculated MPG from 33 to 35 and cut my MPD from 1.1 to 0.95. The car I drive less often has an "instantaneous" MPG setting which is also fun to play with -- going down hills it maxes out at 99. It also shows the effect of rapid acceleration compared to acquiring momentum more gradually.

    9. Re:Already seen in practice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      glad i'm not the only one. i have a 2001 jeep grand cherokee. it has an 'instant' mpg display as well as the average mpg display. i keep it on 'instant' and try to adjust the weight of my lead foot to increase the 'instant' mpg. it IS fun!

    10. Re:Already seen in practice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But that makes it a lot of work to calculate how much a specific journey costs in gas usage.

  12. Smug-Factor currently in use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Currently there is the "Smug-Factor" running energy conservation as in "I'm better than you because I have a green air-conditioner, light my house with compact-florescent bulbs, drink green-tea and drive a hybrid SUV"

    1. Re:Smug-Factor currently in use by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      this is a problem of human nature that everyone likes to feel superior. the reason scarcely matters.

    2. Re:Smug-Factor currently in use by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      I'm sorry, but I can't help but feeling smug when one of my dumb neighbors complains about how he's spending hundreds of dollars a month on gas for his jacked-up V8 pickup truck, and I'm spending less than $50 for two 30mpg cars. I probably wouldn't feel smug but for the fact that idiots like that complain so much after making stupid choices, and then they refuse to make smarter choices that would alleviate the problems they're complaining about.

      There's a lot of people where I live who just HAVE to have a giant, jacked-up pickup truck with huge wheels, so they can drive it down the freeway to the mall. No, they don't ever drive them off-road; these things are spotless. But they constantly complain about how much they spend in gas, as if the rest of us are supposed to feel sorry for them when they did it to themselves. They could even sell their stupid truck and buy a small car, but no, they don't want to do that, they just want to keep complaining.

  13. rippity rap by buback · · Score: 4, Funny

    Maybe we could do one of those rapping songs the kids are so keen on these days?

    1. Re:rippity rap by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Maybe we could do one of those rapping songs the kids are so keen on these days?

      And broadcast it on the blog they all twitter?

    2. Re:rippity rap by brainstyle · · Score: 1

      Damn, his science is too tight!

      --
      "Why can't everyone just be straight with me?"
      "Because we live in a bendy world, dear."
    3. Re:rippity rap by fightinfilipino · · Score: 2

      leading scientists and thinkers are still trying to figure out what went wrong with "Don't copy that floppy!".

    4. Re:rippity rap by martin-boundary · · Score: 2

      What are you talking about? That campaign was a resounding success! Nobody copies floppies anymore!

    5. Re:rippity rap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yo, dawg, check out my pimped-out house! Down to 5kwh, per day, baby. All offa da grid. Oooooh yeah.

  14. Make It Measurable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MIM. That is all it takes to the games begin.

    1. Re:Make It Measurable by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      0-60 has been measurable for decades.

      The problem is going slow will never be cool. Going fast will always be cool.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:Make It Measurable by black+soap · · Score: 1

      But being late is so disrespectful, you'd think all the kids would be doing it.

  15. Forever cool by eis271828 · · Score: 1

    "By making energy conservation as fun as a video game, the fickle on-again, off-again of human nature might just be overcome."

    Because people never change their idea of what is cool....

  16. P0RN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    P0RN is capable of holding male attention indefinitely. All light switches should be shaped like a clitoris or nipple, and emit moans as they are turned off.

    Just remember though - don't stick your tongue in the light socket.

    1. Re:P0RN by mug+funky · · Score: 3, Funny

      if the light switch were shaped like a clitoris, men would be stumbling round in the dark trying to find it.

    2. Re:P0RN by tsalmark · · Score: 1

      Isn't it right next to the cochlea?

    3. Re:P0RN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect that the shape of the clitoris have military applications.

  17. Show me the money! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Show me the money!!!

  18. Population is self-limiting by nido · · Score: 2

    Economic power allows women to choose the size of their family, and experience shows that population growth levels out when a country achieves a certain level of prosperity. Condoms, birth control pills (synthetic hormones - bad for long-term health of the woman, but good for temporarily preventing conception or implantation), vasectomies (or wearing a testical-heater/nut-cup), etc - lots of ways to prevent babies. Even "Natural Family Planning" works pretty well, because there's only a few days a month that a woman is actually fertile.

    --
    Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
    www.teslabox.com
    1. Re:Population is self-limiting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with this is that population and climate pressures are going to put a limit on prosperity too. In case you think everyone is getting richer, there are actually still lots of poor people and many of them are getting poorer because its getting harder and harder for them to grow their own food.

    2. Re:Population is self-limiting by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      There is another way to reduce family size: religion. If the Catholic Church and a large enough number of Imams decided to lighten up on contraception and recommend keeping family sizes down then potentially billions of people would listen.

      Otherwise, as you say, we will just have to wait for these societies to mature and proper enough to reject religious views on offspring.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  19. Poor marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about utilizing currently wasted energy instead of trying to get people to conserve it? Sell the idea by demonstrating increased stability and the ability to use more energy while paying less in the long run.

    For example, a new office building could be made so that all its walls and roof are covered with solar panels, underneath which water pipes run - light is converted to extra electricity and hot water. Start a program to outfit regular house roofs with solar panels, too, and try to get people to get and drive electric cars in cities to ease the load on the electrical grid and make the air clean to breathe.

    Current efforts to get people to "be green" seem to be marketed by trying to appeal to people's sense of responsibility, while largely ignoring the tangible benefits of doing so. These programs have the appearance of requiring extra work on part of the participants while, at most, providing peace of mind and at worst requiring expenses while not really being good for the environment (such as adding ethanol to gasoline).
    You'd think people would jump at a chance to save on power and heating costs (even given a sizable up-front investment requirement) and enjoying the health benefits of having cleaner air - I just haven't seen a single campaign proclaiming this.

    1. Re:Poor marketing by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      For example, a new office building could be made so that all its walls and roof are covered with solar panels, underneath which water pipes run - light is converted to extra electricity and hot water. Start a program to outfit regular house roofs with solar panels, too, and try to get people to get and drive electric cars in cities to ease the load on the electrical grid and make the air clean to breathe.

      Because these things all have enormous capital costs. Money doesn't grow on trees (unless you're the Federal government).

    2. Re:Poor marketing by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's a problem with how America does things. If it can't be used to make huge profits, a perfectly fine idea gets ignored. Businesses would much, much rather sell people on a $1000 "Energy Star" dryer (LOL) than a $5 clothes line. Too much of our economy is about selling us the most expensive fixes for our problems, and making up more problems for us.

      Have had half a dozen window sellers try to persuade me to spend $6K to $14K to upgrade all our windows to fancy double or triple pane ones filled with argon gas, etc. They claim it could save up to 50% on the heating and cooling bills. Rather comic how they showed their true colors by always pitching the very most expensive windows first. I looked at the numbers, and figured even the cheapest weren't worth it. We spend about $500 per year on heating and cooling. At that rate, it would take 24 years to pay back $6K. Hate to think how much worse financing would make that. There was the argument that we were making our house more valuable, to which I pointed out that if so, we would have to pay more property tax. Then, suppose they exaggerated, and the windows actually only save 20% on our heating and cooling? There are other ways that maybe aren't as good, but they sure are a lot cheaper: tint, good drapes, and maybe awnings. Probably are worth putting into new houses, but not houses that already have windows, however crappy.

      Hot water and light are good uses of solar. Electricity from solar panels is not so good because it isn't that efficient for the cost. Sure don't want to spend $10k on a solar panel installation that may well be obsolete in less than 5 years.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    3. Re:Poor marketing by operagost · · Score: 1

      We spend about $500 per year on heating and cooling.

      Must be nice! I spent that much in one month during the winter, and my house is properly sealed and insulated (by 1990s standards). Obviously, you either live in an ideal climate or have a house that is already very efficient. Certainly in your case, new windows do not have a short ROI and this is true for most houses.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    4. Re:Poor marketing by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's a problem with how America does things. If it can't be used to make huge profits, a perfectly fine idea gets ignored. Businesses would much, much rather sell people on a $1000 "Energy Star" dryer (LOL) than a $5 clothes line.

      Actually, the problem I discussed wasn't about "huge profits" at all, it's about 1) problems endemic in the home mortgage industry, 2) problems with the mentality of the average home buyer (wanting the biggest house for their dollar and ignoring all else), 3) the simple fact that people don't stay in one place that long any more, which isn't necessarily bad or good, just the way things are with modern society and this economy (I mean the way the overall economy works, not the current downturn). As an engineer myself, I can find myself moving from city to city now and then as I go through job changes. Lots of people are the same way. I would never think about staying in a house for 30 years until I'm retired and absolutely sure I've found the place I really want to settle down, and by then hopefully I'll be building my own house someplace rural, not living in some city where I have to worry about the neighborhood going to pot in 10-20 years.

      As for dryers, people generally use them because they're convenient, not because they have to. However, depending on your climate, the possibility of rain can make the energy use of a dryer well worth it. Can you imagine trying to dry your clothes outside in Seattle, where it's constantly raining?

      Complaining about energy-efficient clothes dryers is like complaining about fuel-efficient cars. After all, you can forgo a $20k car and buy a $1000 bicycle, right? People drive because they prefer it, and because it saves them a lot of time compared to walking, biking, or taking the bus. However, many people would prefer to use less fuel doing so if they can.

      I looked at the numbers, and figured even the cheapest weren't worth it. We spend about $500 per year on heating and cooling.

      Then you're an exception, or you like to suffer. Here in Phoenix, you can easily spend $2-300 in a month on A/C during the summer, if not more. In more northern states like Minnesota, there's no way $500 will keep your house warm in the winter. America is a land of pretty extreme climates, and high home energy bills are a fact of life.

      There was the argument that we were making our house more valuable, to which I pointed out that if so, we would have to pay more property tax.

      Wrong.

      Government tax assessors don't come into your house and inspect your windows or look for granite countertops when they're making a property tax bill. They just figure it off of square footage and historical values in that area, just like real estate appraisers do. And the tax assessors generally assess very low, so that no one argues with them over such small things (of course, these days with house values falling, it's a little different).

      Sure don't want to spend $10k on a solar panel installation that may well be obsolete in less than 5 years.

      That makes no sense. After 5 years, those solar panels will still be making plenty of electricity. It doesn't matter if new panels are 20% more efficient or whatever, or even 100% more; that doesn't stop your older panels from working.

      Of course, this does mean you have a calculation to make: you could spend $X,000 to replace your old panels and buy new, more-efficient panels and then generate more power (and sell your old ones to someone else), or you could spend $0 and keep your old panels and generate less power than the newer ones. Unless there's been a giant increase in solar panel efficiency, AND you're using a lot of power (or your power company is giving you a fantastic rate for your generated power excess), it'll most likely be more cost-effective to keep your old panels.

      Do you toss out your car every 5 years because the new models have made it "obsolete"? It still runs doesn't it? Do you refuse to buy a $20k car because it "may well be obsolete in less than 5 years", and just take the bus?

    5. Re:Poor marketing by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

      We have gas heat, we're in Texas, and our house is relatively small. Possibly the clutter helps too. A/C is the bigger cost. The biggest savings is from setting the thermostat to 80 F in the summer. I'd go even higher, but the rest of the family whined. I tried sneaking in higher temps, set it up 1 more degree, but they noticed and set it back. Texans are funny about A/C. It's like they want to show off how well the A/C works by cooling to 69 F. I take a jacket on the rare occasions I go to a summer blockbuster movie.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    6. Re:Poor marketing by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

      Suffer? No. We become acclimatized. Supposed to be healthier too. I find 85 F quite comfortable in the summer, and 68 F in the winter is just fine.

      The pay back on electric solar panels can be as bad as 80 years. If the panels degrade over time, they may never pay for themselves. I'd like to do it, but after technology brings the prices and risks down a lot more. There's a real possibility that panels could indeed be improved by 100% or more in the next 5 years. Meantime, we can get more bang for those bucks with other measures.

      Cars on the other hand are frustrating. We can make huge improvements in the fuel economy, but we don't. I hang on and hang on to the old beaters because the new stuff is not significantly better. 40 mpg? Big deal. I have 90's era cars that do that. Hybrids are significantly better, but also enough more costly that the overall benefit is doubtful. If an automaker were to roll out an X Prize winning 100 mpg car that seats 4, and isn't exceptionally costly, I'd buy it. And I would bike or walk more if I could. But the US is so car centric. For instance, not legal to pedal a bicycle down a freeway, not that I'd want to! I've had plans to walk to the store scotched because on so many overpasses, freeway designers couldn't be bothered to include a sidewalk. When choosing an apartment, I've checked that there were no impediments to walking to work.

      Tax assessors around here seem to think home values rise by 20% or more every year. We've made many trips to the tax office to force them to reduce their valuation. Show them reports of the sale prices of similar homes in the neighborhood. You may be right that new windows would go unnoticed, as unlike a pool or a car port, we would not have to clear that with the city.

      For drying clothes, I use racks, and keep it indoors so I don't have to worry about rain. Hang the shirts up damp, leave a little space between each one, and leave the closet door open. The dryer is actually more work for me, an extra step between 1) put dirty clothes in washer, and 2) put clean clothes away.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    7. Re:Poor marketing by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Suffer? No. We become acclimatized. Supposed to be healthier too. I find 85 F quite comfortable in the summer,

      Sorry, I evolved in a cold climate judging by my skin tone, and 85F is not comfortable at all. There's nothing healthy about living in heat near your body temperature.

      Cars on the other hand are frustrating. We can make huge improvements in the fuel economy, but we don't.

      No, we can't. It's beyond the laws of physics. We're pretty close to the limits of efficiency already. There's just no way around it: when you're trying to push around a 5-6000 pound vehicle, using an engine that works on the heat cycle, and you have to size your engine for the maximum load (i.e., you want your 6000-pound vehicle to accelerate from 0-60 in 5 seconds) you can only be so efficient.

      You can try some tricks to get around these limits. You can try a hybrid powertrain, where you downsize the engine a little and add an electric motor to help with peak loads, but that really isn't panning out in practice, probably because of the extra weight of the hybrid powertrain and batteries. You could try a series hybrid powertrain, but because of scale issues that seems to only be viable on railroad locomotives and giant construction vehicles.

      You could also try to reduce weight, but that means you need to use exotic materials, which cost far more than steel.

      Of course, you could try downsizing the vehicle, but there's two problems there: 1) crash protection features add weight. Not necessarily a huge amount (just look at the two-seat Smart), but it's significant, and you can't forgo crash protection legally. and 2) car buyers simply don't want small cars, they want giant trucks to drive to the mall.

      You could also eliminate the ICE engine and switch to something else, like full electric. However then your range sucks, because our battery technology isn't so good. You could also put in a fusion power generator that runs on cola cans and banana peels, but there again we don't have the technology.

      I have 90's era cars that do that.

      As I said before, that's illegal. 90s cars don't meet modern crashworthiness standards. There's a reason an '89 Honda CRX HF can beat the fuel economy of the latest Prius.

      Hybrids are significantly better

      Not from what I've seen. Most of them get better economy simply by being more economical: smaller chasses, low rolling-resistance tires (which suck for handling), tiny engine with very little power (even with the electric assist), etc. When applied to a more conventional model, such as a Camry, the results are really rather unimpressive, and the small bump in fuel economy doesn't come close to making up for the giant extra up-front cost at today's fuel prices, or even if you double fuel prices hypothetically.

      If an automaker were to roll out an X Prize winning 100 mpg car that seats 4, and isn't exceptionally costly, I'd buy it.

      That's beyond the limits of physics, without either 1) eliminating crash standards, 2) having a top speed of 30mph, or 3) using a carbon fiber chassis that makes the car cost $1 million, or more likely some combination of all three.

      Sure, you could make a vehicle that's basically an enclosed bicycle with 3 or 4 bicycle tires and some small hard plastic seats, slap on a really well-made and fuel-efficient engine that's the size of a Briggs & Stratton, and cruise down the road at 20mph (or even 30mph) getting 100mpg. But no one wants this, and there's no way you could legally sell it as long as people are still driving Hummers that could run into you.

      Tax assessors around here seem to think home values rise by 20% or more every year. We've made many trips to the tax office to force them to reduce their valuation. Show them reports of the sale prices of similar homes in the neighborhood.

      This is entirely a recent occurrence, with the housing meltdown, and the shitty economy with local governments trying to squeeze everyone for more tax dol

    8. Re:Poor marketing by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

      I'll stick to just the automotive issues.

      No, we can't. It's beyond the laws of physics. We're pretty close to the limits of efficiency already.

      Do you really believe that? It's true that recent safety regulations have made it more difficult to save weight, but we're nowhere close to exhausting the weight reduction possibilities with cheap materials. No need for exotic, expensive lightweights. For example, all cars still carry spare tires, despite flats being less common. We could change how we handle flats. There is still much in the engine bay that can be reduced. Can toss the power steering and not only save a bit of weight, but eliminate another drag on the engine. Can use even more aluminum in place of iron. Windows are another target for weight savings-- glass is heavy.

      Almost every combustion engine uses the Otto cycle, but that's not the most efficient one. Another easy improvement is the turbocharger. Then there is the compression ratio. We compromise there to reduce emissions. And heat makes engines more efficient, yet we waste a great deal of energy on cooling because our materials can't take too much heat. Even so we are too conservative on that, and could run our engines a little hotter than usually done now. Another way to change that is to use a cooler burning fuel such as methanol. Could get by without a water pump.

      Then there's aerodynamics. Take a look at the underside of a typical car, and you'll see aerodynamic horror. People wouldn't put up with corrugations, breaks, weld seams, projections, and so forth on any other surface, but the underside is very much out of sight and out of mind. We don't have skirts on the wheels because everyone feels it's ugly. Marketing can't even bear to make the relatively minor change in appearance of reducing the size of the grill opening. Take a look under the hood and see if the opening extends beyond the width of the radiator and condenser coils. On many cars, it does. We could have coefficients of drag under 0.2, but hardly anyone even tries for better than 0.3.

      As for 0-60 in 5 seconds, anyone who thinks that is all that useful is spoiled. One of my cars needs 30 seconds to get to 60. Drive a car like that and you'll better appreciate a fact that we've covered for with our jackrabbit starts. We have too many stoplights, and they're brainless. That brings up another way to save: instant engine starts. Letting our engines idle at stops is very wasteful, but we do it because sometimes they can be difficult to start, or we want to keep the A/C on.

      Some of what I mentioned really is low hanging fruit.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    9. Re:Poor marketing by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Do you really believe that?

      As long as we keep building cars the way we do now, with stamped and welded sheet steel, and modern safety standards, and internal-combustion engines, yes. Obviously, some kind of new super-high-capacity fast-recharge battery technology would be a complete game-changer, but that always seems like it's "just over the horizon", just like nuclear fusion which is always 30-40 years away (i.e. a moving target).

      No need for exotic, expensive lightweights. For example, all cars still carry spare tires, despite flats being less common.

      A typical compact spare tire weighs probably around 20 pounds. That's insignificant in a 3-6000 pound vehicle. Yes, some cars are eliminating them these days, but it's not for weight savings, it's because they're cutting corners and improving their bottom line. Typical humans are 120-250 pounds, remember; a 20-pound difference isn't going to make a difference.

      Can toss the power steering and not only save a bit of weight, but eliminate another drag on the engine.

      You've got to be kidding. How in hell is a 95 pound soccer mom going to steer a 6000 pound Hummer without power steering? Even if she's driving a modern "small car" which is around 3000 pounds, it's too much; there's no way weak drivers can turn the wheel in a parking lot.

      However, lots of new cars these days have moved to electric power steering, or electro-hydraulic power steering. This eliminates some hosing in the engine bay, and saves a lot of fuel by not having to run a belt-driven pump when the car is at speed, where you usually need little or no assist. It's only in parking lots and at very low speeds that you need steering assist. From what I've read, a lot of cars have gotten a 2-5% boost in highway fuel economy this way. So, I consider that a problem solved.

      Can use even more aluminum in place of iron.

      Now you've suddenly moved to exotic materials, which you just said you didn't need. Aluminum is expensive, compared to steel. Aluminum chassis cars do exist (like the Audi TT, and Acura NSX), but that adds thousands to a car's base price if not more. Remember, the whole issue here is that it's my contention that we can't substantially improve fuel efficiency without making cars much more expensive. Some mid-line cars have moved to aluminum suspension components, however, which helps, and of course to aluminum engine blocks which not only cuts weight, but improves performance since it conducts heat better. Aluminum wheels are also a common item now since they reduce rotating mass (and look a lot better). But an aluminum chassis is a big step beyond all that. If aluminum prices come down, this might become more common, but even so, it probably won't affect fuel economy that much. A few hundred pounds shaved off the car's weight will help, but not nearly enough to get to 100mpg. Don't forget, a car's weight has less affect on its fuel economy the faster you go. At constant highway speeds, it makes very little difference, thanks to Newton's first law.

      Windows are another target for weight savings-- glass is heavy.

      Another small savings, if you can invent transparent aluminum. Again, a 100-150 pound difference in weight isn't going to make that much difference, especially considering 25 years ago small cars used to weigh 2000-2500 pounds, and now they weigh 2800-3500 pounds.

      Another easy improvement is the turbocharger.

      Turbos are great--lots of European cars use them to get great power and good efficiency--but they also add a lot to the price, perhaps $2k or more. Those European cars aren't cheap.

      Then there is the compression ratio. We compromise there to reduce emissions.

      Weren't you just complaining about the smog in LA? Now you want to lift the emissions laws?

      Another way to change that is to use a cooler burning fuel such as methanol.

      And where are you going to find a ready source of methanol that you can pump out

    10. Re:Poor marketing by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

      There were large vehicles long before power steering. Just had high ratios on the steering wheel.

      Aluminum is not an expensive, exotic material. And we're looking at the practicality of using more magnesium.

      I have driven my slow car on the freeway. It's nowhere near as bad as you make out. The average loaded 18 wheeler needs over 60 seconds to accelerate from 0 to 60, would you call that dangerously underpowered? Doesn't sound like you appreciate just how fast 0-60 in 5 seconds is. That's modern muscle car territory. Most newer cars are around 8 seconds, and they're only that fast because power has been steadily creeping up over the years.

      You say that the changes I mention aren't significant, that 20 pounds isn't much, and 2% isn't much of an improvement in economy. But that's exactly how you get good economy! A little here, and a little there, and pretty soon you've saved hundreds of pounds and improved fuel economy by 20% or more. And you will get improvements that large.

      A 100 mpg car that seats 4 and is comfortable does exist: Edison2. Why did you give up on the idea of a tandem car? I've thought of those as well, and wondered if they could be made long enough to hold 4 people and still fit in a parking spot. Or, could the seating be a little tighter, somewhat like in a bobsled? As for safety, they can be better than standard vehicles. More crush space to work with on the sides.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    11. Re:Poor marketing by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      There were large vehicles long before power steering. Just had high ratios on the steering wheel.

      No one wants to go back to the days of huge steering wheels, and even then they certainly were hard to steer, especially for women. Just ask your grandmother. Higher ratios also aren't much fun to drive, with having to turn the wheel so much. Do you really think you're going to get people to abandon power steering to save 10 pounds of weight (probably the typical weight of a modern EPS motor)? You can go take a crap and lose half that much... just kidding.

      Aluminum is not an expensive, exotic material. And we're looking at the practicality of using more magnesium.

      Aluminum is expensive compared to steel. That's why only high-end cars (or experiments like the Insight v1) have chasses made of them. And magnesium burns (in addition to its high cost).

      That's modern muscle car territory. Most newer cars are around 8 seconds, and they're only that fast because power has been steadily creeping up over the years.

      Yes, 8 seconds is probably fairly typical these days, perhaps as slow as 10 for some cars. That's a far cry from 30. With 30 seconds, that means you can't get up a freeway on-ramp fast enough and merge safely. Yes, big trucks are that slow too, but everyone gives them a wide berth anyway. Cars need to be able to maneuver to avoid accidents, instead of counting on everyone else to avoid you because of your sheer size. Also, big trucks are a small minority of road users in most places.

      A little here, and a little there, and pretty soon you've saved hundreds of pounds and improved fuel economy by 20% or more.

      Hundreds of pounds and 20% improvement is not going to get you anywhere near 100mpg as you were saying before. On a typical 30mpg car, that'll get you up to 36mpg. Whoopee. You still have another 54mpg to go.

      I have a challenge for you: take a typical modern car if you have one (not a 30s 0-60 dog), and strip out 300 pounds of weight. This might be a little challenging, but you might be able to get there without cutting the roof off by stripping the interior, dashboard, power steering, putting in a motorcycle battery, filling the fuel tank 1/4 full, etc. Now, drive it around for a bit and see how much your fuel economy is improved. Probably not much. You'll get some better 0-60 acceleration for sure (maybe a 1/2 second better, maybe a full second), but you probably won't see much difference in mpg, maybe 1-2 in the city and probably 0 on the highway (unless you resort to cutting off the roof!).

      Why did you give up on the idea of a tandem car?

      Because I don't have time to build my own car; there's other things I'd like to do with my free time.

      I've thought of those as well, and wondered if they could be made long enough to hold 4 people and still fit in a parking spot. Or, could the seating be a little tighter, somewhat like in a bobsled?

      And exactly how successfully do you think such a vehicle would sell?

      Your ideas seem to mostly depend on the idea of force, i.e. forcing people to buy cars they really don't want, with giant steering wheels and high steering ratios, 60-second 0-60 times, and seating that makes a modern airline's economy-class seating look luxurious. No one is willingly going to sell their modern, 30mpg comfortable sedan for something like this.

  20. Compete against yourself by Ichijo · · Score: 2

    When I commute, I want to be able to glance at a gasoline usage meter and see how much I've used up to that point and how it compares to the same point on previous commutes. Then I can compete against myself, similar to the "ghost" in Mario Kart.

    --
    Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
  21. OP might have something by Jawnn · · Score: 1

    After living most of my life in a community where things like recycling were common practice my the vast majority of it's citizens, I moved to a large city in "the southwest". The trendy society page people have just, in the last two years, started to talk about "going green", recycling, etc. as if they were "the latest thing". Yeah, it's lame, but if that's what it takes to get people on board, fine. Everything that helps to disarm the conservative, "fuck your grandchildren and their environment" types, when they try to paint environmentalism as some commie-liberal evil plot, is a welcome addition to the dialogue.

    1. Re:OP might have something by operagost · · Score: 1

      Everything that helps to disarm the conservative, "fuck your grandchildren and their environment" types, when they try to paint environmentalism as some commie-liberal evil plot, is a welcome addition to the dialogue.

      Nice straw man. Do you really believe that? Conservation (hey, that looks like "conservative") is positive when it's performed voluntarily, or agreed on by a community-- not when it's imposed on people at their own cost of property and freedom. That's what conservatives think.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    2. Re:OP might have something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Conservation (hey, that looks like "conservative") is positive when it's performed voluntarily, or agreed on by a community-- not when it's imposed on people at their own cost of property and freedom. That's what conservatives think.

      Congratulations on restating the grandparent's point in slightly more stuffy words.

      "Tragedy of the Commons." Look it up.

    3. Re:OP might have something by kf6auf · · Score: 1

      Or maybe people (our grandkids) should have the liberty/freedom to decide if they want to live in a polluted/warmed environment instead of other people (us) making a nonreversible decision for them. We could force conservation and sustainability on 6 billion people now, or can force it on ~10 billion of our descendants (and maybe more) later by virtue of leaving no other options; which leaves the most people with the most freedom?

    4. Re:OP might have something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything that helps to disarm the conservative, "fuck your grandchildren and their environment" types, when they try to paint environmentalism as some commie-liberal evil plot, is a welcome addition to the dialogue.

      This last bit you said here, isn't a welcome addition to any dialogue. Do you understand?

  22. The problem with energy conservation crowd by VAElynx · · Score: 1

    Is that they are focused on the irrelevant. The biggest CO2 contribution of *anyone* is coming from car travel, just about the sum of all other CO2 expenditures on average - but since electric cars are
    a) overly expensive due to the cost of batteries
    b) total crap if you need to get anywhere over a certain distance due to the inability to "charge a tank" quickly, the idea is to improve public transports and have people use cars for long-distance travels for which other options suck.
    Second important one is excessive house heating. That one has an appeal too - don't heat as much , and/or insulate your house, and you'll save money, and quite a lot - honestly I think it's one of the few cases where all that is needed is to inform people , because along with enviroment it brings a clear benefit to them.
    Anything else, from charger unplugging to lights out/whatever is trying to douse a fire with teaspoons of water.

    1. Re:The problem with energy conservation crowd by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Second important one is excessive house heating. That one has an appeal too - don't heat as much , and/or insulate your house, and you'll save money, and quite a lot

      Not enough. To make it economically worthwhile, it needs to have a payback time of 3 years or so.

      Most people don't stay in their house much more than 5 years. Worse, these days with the mortgage meltdown, a lot of people don't even own their house, they're renters, and probably won't be buying another house for 7 years or more.

      Making improvements like that to a house costs a lot of money. If you don't earn that money back before you move out, you've wasted it. The improvements won't substantially increase the value of the house, because houses are valued in dollars/square foot. If your house costs more in $/sf than the houses around it, it won't sell, and banks won't finance it anyway. It doesn't matter if it has solar panels on top.

    2. Re:The problem with energy conservation crowd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact theres a bigger contributer then the combined transportation means of humanity- its combined animal agriculture.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism#Environment_and_diet
      http://www.ajcn.org/content/89/5/1699S.full
      http://www.ajcn.org/content/89/5/1704S.full
      http://www.ajcn.org/content/89/5/1710S.full

    3. Re:The problem with energy conservation crowd by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      In urban areas public transport is very effective, fast and low on energy consumption. however, it has to be subsidized, because car travel is subsidized a lot. Plus, people do not count all cost for the car when they compare it with public transport, but only the gas.

      For midrange distances you can use trains (at least in Europe) they are save, fast and you can relax or work while you ride.

      The only area where public transport does not work very well is the country side. There cars can be more usable.

      However, car travel in Europe is the source for one third of CO2 emissions, one third comes from households and one from the industry. In all areas you could reduce energy consumption. For housing use insulation. It keeps the house cold in summer and warm in winter. You do not need air conditioning any more. You can use solar collector to heat you water which will reduce the energy consumption again.

      We already have so called plus energy homes. Meaning a house which produces more energy than it consumes.

  23. Dumbing down? by prefec2 · · Score: 1

    I thought Idiocracy is just a movie, but when we really have to sell a sustainable way of life with coolness, I start to doubt that. On the other hand, this would make Europeans pretty cool compared to people from the US. ;-)

  24. Well d'uh by Syberz · · Score: 1

    It's been demonstrated tons of times that when you make something fun, people go for it.

    Just look at Volkswagen's The Fun Theory project for proof.

    --
    ~Syberz
  25. Disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Asking people to spend money in order to save money doesn't make sense when they have already been robbed by everyone that sells them their daily needs.

    "Get a new furnace... even though your gas and grocery bills already make that impossible." is a pretty sill campaign.

    I wish special interests could be intellectualy honest for once.

  26. Turning the heating down, by VAElynx · · Score: 1

    a few degrees, unless the landlord pays for your electricity , which is bloody unlikely, pays off now, even if you don't own the house. It is a matter of choosing applicable strategy based on where you live
    And nobody was talking about solar panels or other overly expensive methods anyway - polystyrene plates for wall insulation are reasonably cheap, and they do deliver.

  27. Broad sticky solutions are hard by MountainLogic · · Score: 1
    I'm an all out eco head, but expecting a silver bullet to solve our energy problems is bound to fail. Those early using the "energy dashboards" are self-selected to have an interest in energy savings and/or new gadgets. This will not translate to the general public. The EnergyStar programmable thermostats were predicted to save between 15-30% for a typical home. When used as prescribed they did deliver those savings. The mechanical engineers, EnergyStar and widget makers declared victory and pushed the devices out to the public. Down the line a few brave inquisitive academics at the Florida solar center went into the field and found that on average they were not seeing any energy savings. This was confirmed in several additional studies. The reason for the failure was simple: the perceived reward is less than the perceived effort. This is the same class of UI failure as the flashing "12:00" problem on VCRs. Just too much hassle to keep futzing with. These homeowners are not bad people. They intended well and proved so by buying the units in the first place. The basic UI and UX failed them so they just jammed the units in locked vacation mode at 72 degrees.

    Marketing is hard. It has taken decades and great expense to learn how to successfully market unneeded junk to people. It will also take a very long time to learn how to market to the whole public to use less of something that they perceive a benefit. One effort was made in California to provide on your electric bill how your energy usage compared to your typical neighbors to try and generate competition. While many people did respond well in the short term there was always one outlier that increased their usage. Wisely, the sociologist went back and looked for common factors among those that increased their usage. They found the population was well described by two factors: they did not buy green power and they were republicans. Was this a case of conspicuous consumptions or a political statement? When this population read their bill why did they go over to the wall and turn on a light? Did they say to themselves, "I'm not getting my fair share," "look how important I am," or "I hate those Al Gore types telling me what to do?" Did these people consciously decide to use more energy, was it by accident or just coincidentally that this population all went out and bought an energy hog appliance without thinking? Designing solutions that stick for a mass public is not easy.

    There is value in rebranding the problem. Us old times here remember the energy crisis of the 70s. The big word was conservation. The public took that to mean, "put on a sweater and shiver in the dark." Efficiency seems to carry a much better acceptance. It seems to tell folks to get more value for their money. So, yes language does matter. When oil hits $150 a barrel when the US economy picks-up you will see efficiency become sexy for its own value.