Honestly, there is no way from "here to there" when it comes to fuel efficiency from an ICE. We are hovering around ~30% efficiency for modern mid-sized automobiles. Some estimates put that at a lower figure. The maximum efficiency theoretically possible is limited by the Carnot cycle, and I think it's ~60% if IIRC. There are two other factors you can play with: weight and energy recovery.
As far as weight goes, heavier cars are actually MORE efficient (weight to fuel wise). It's why buses are more efficient than cars. Believe it or not, a tractor trailer getting ~4-6mpg is way more efficient than a Honda Accord. It's carrying 80,000 lbs and the Honda is only moving about 3000 lbs. This argument doesn't hold much water though when you simply talking about people moving. The tendency in the US is for everyone to drive their own car. Therefore, the person-miles/gallon is fairly low but this is really about weight efficiency. If I move a 200 lbs object with a 3000 lbs one, my weight efficiency ratio is less than 1:10. Adding people just raises that ratio. The other option is to lower the weight of the transportation.
This is tough to do, and keep cars safe. Most increases in automobile safety has come from: collapsible steering wheels, seat belts, and crumple zones. Don't expect that other "industrial" vehicles will go down in weight though. They may make the vehicle lighter, but the load will just go up. It will still be 80,000 lbs tractor trailers vs 3000 lbs vehicles. There is a point at which no amount of crumple zones will save you when these two things collide. A fix for this side effect might be self driving cars that nearly never crash. Though, in this scenario you make crashes less likely, but increase their rate of fatality.
As for energy recovery it seems that the mechanical/electrical cycle provided by batteries is one of the best, but don't expect it to improve highway figures by much. Around town there still could be some improvement, as wind resistance is low as so is friction. The highway is a different matter, and that is evidenced by the current figures from existing hybrids. The only way to improve those numbers is to reduce friction and wind resistance. One is materials science (friction) and I'm sure it's possible but pricey. Options there must be carefully weighed to ensure that what ever new near friction-less material is sustainable and doesn't cause more CO2 just to make it compared to the fuel savings. A second option (wind resistance) is largely based on aesthetics. Will people buy cars that look funny? Hard to answer that one as tastes change.
Less efficient how? In general? When produced through a Carnot Cycle? When produced from coal? If the electricity were generated from a nuclear power station or solar, it is most certianly *very* efficeint.
Yes it *can* cost more... but that's only if your house has some other cheaper form of heat. Mine doesn't, and to replace it with something that does, would take 15-20 years to recoup the savings, provided the maintenance and/or cost of fuel doesn't rise appreciably WRT to electricity prices.
I agree it doesn't help in the summer, which is why I stated that in my original reply.
I do think it's somewhat silly that these cable boxes need to use that much power and haven't incorporated modern energy saving techniques. However, much like incandescent bulbs this only matters when the heat isn't running in your house. During the Winter in the southern US and Fall/Winter/Spring in the northern US, wasteful electric appliances just help to heat your house and reduce whatever bill you have for other sources of heat.
This is the reason I think living somewhere "slightly chilly" is a greener. We are going to have to use electricity anyway, and electric devices will never be 100% efficient, therefore, the waste heat produced can be used to help heat a space. In climates where A/C is required, not only are you wasting energy to cool your living space, you are also wasting 2x as much as is wasted by any electronic device in your home.
The thing is, the risk is appropriate when compared to other power sources.
Accidents happen, and sure there are safer designs and if the economics are there to support it, then do it. However, I think the benefits that electricity (and therefore nuclear power generation) have provided save millions of lives every year and do it in a safer manner than coal.
Banning incandescent light bulbs in any household requiring heat for more than half of the year is really really silly. People will just end up burning more oil/coal/NG to compensate in the winter months.
This sort of thing is nothing but sensationalism and panic mongering.
Over all numbers of traffic fatalities have decreased in number year after year since the mid 1970s. The rate of them per million miles driven has decreased linearly since the late 1960s.
The numbers and rate have also decreased in the last 10 years as well.
The number of injuries in car accidents has also declined in car accidents since the mid 1990's as well as the rate at which they occur.
Lastly, the overall number of non-fatal accidents has also decreased from 2007 to 2008 as it has in previous years too.
See this link for more info:
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811172.PDF
Cell phone usage has exploded exponentially however with cell phone use growing from some 34 million handsets in the U.S. in the 1990s to over 208 million in 2008. That's a 600% increase.
Text message use has also exploded in the last 5 years jumping from something like 10 billion to 100 billion messages sent.
So tell me exactly how cell phone usage has anything to do with making our highways less safe?
Correlation does not imply causation.
The Zune runs a chopped down version fo Widnows CE, which is the basic underpinnings of WinMo. The Zune is basically Windows Mobile with a really really really good media player and fast hardware with lots of eye candy acceleration. The Zune is proof you can make a mobile version of Windows usable. Don't confuse the OS with the UI.
Ballmer laughed off the iPhone when it came out. An appstore and a billion plus downloads later and who is laughing?
Microsoft can't even launch an mp3 player that is good, they haven't even bothered launching it in the UK and much of Europe.
I think Balmer hit the nail on the head in his latest interview with Engadget, devices like the iPhone (by itself) are a niche market. The smartphone market as a whole is a big market. Microsoft is shooting for the long haul big market with their efforts. One reason he says you'll never see a Microsoft branded phone.
iPhone = Niche, just like all Apple prodcuts. Oh, and how many of those 1 billion downloads were free apps? Hmmmmmmmm?
Oh and BTW, Microsoft's big competition (and Apple's) in Europe is Symbian, no secret there.
By my estimates and factmonster.com, the state of Texas is 261,797 sq mi. According to onlineconversion.com that equals: 678,051,117,321 sq meters.
If you divide that by the current population from http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html of 6,398,289,808 Each person would get 100 sq meters. If they only got 10 sq meters, we could do 60 billion in Texas and have space left for bathrooms.
Also, regarding sustainability of the human race and energy consumption... Energy is energy right? Well, based ona 2000 calorie a day diet, 6 billion ppl need 13,956 Gigawatt hrs of energy per day. That's 5 Petawatt hrs a year. Then add in fuel and coal consumption. I don't have coal numbers, but we use about 85 million bbls of crude oil a day. That's 1,303,050,000,000.00 gallons a year. Using a crappy by product (residual fuel oil) 1 gallon of which = 43.9 kWhr we need about 57,203,895 GWhr for our fuel uses. Nothing in comparison to what energy food gives humans.
From: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/solarsystem/sun/index.shtml The sun is estimated to output 386 yottawatts. That's 386 billion petawatts. Fusion is the answer. Or very good solar panels.
Slashdot Mirror
News flash... The purpose of college is not necessarily to train you for a job.
Honestly, there is no way from "here to there" when it comes to fuel efficiency from an ICE. We are hovering around ~30% efficiency for modern mid-sized automobiles. Some estimates put that at a lower figure. The maximum efficiency theoretically possible is limited by the Carnot cycle, and I think it's ~60% if IIRC. There are two other factors you can play with: weight and energy recovery. As far as weight goes, heavier cars are actually MORE efficient (weight to fuel wise). It's why buses are more efficient than cars. Believe it or not, a tractor trailer getting ~4-6mpg is way more efficient than a Honda Accord. It's carrying 80,000 lbs and the Honda is only moving about 3000 lbs. This argument doesn't hold much water though when you simply talking about people moving. The tendency in the US is for everyone to drive their own car. Therefore, the person-miles/gallon is fairly low but this is really about weight efficiency. If I move a 200 lbs object with a 3000 lbs one, my weight efficiency ratio is less than 1:10. Adding people just raises that ratio. The other option is to lower the weight of the transportation. This is tough to do, and keep cars safe. Most increases in automobile safety has come from: collapsible steering wheels, seat belts, and crumple zones. Don't expect that other "industrial" vehicles will go down in weight though. They may make the vehicle lighter, but the load will just go up. It will still be 80,000 lbs tractor trailers vs 3000 lbs vehicles. There is a point at which no amount of crumple zones will save you when these two things collide. A fix for this side effect might be self driving cars that nearly never crash. Though, in this scenario you make crashes less likely, but increase their rate of fatality. As for energy recovery it seems that the mechanical/electrical cycle provided by batteries is one of the best, but don't expect it to improve highway figures by much. Around town there still could be some improvement, as wind resistance is low as so is friction. The highway is a different matter, and that is evidenced by the current figures from existing hybrids. The only way to improve those numbers is to reduce friction and wind resistance. One is materials science (friction) and I'm sure it's possible but pricey. Options there must be carefully weighed to ensure that what ever new near friction-less material is sustainable and doesn't cause more CO2 just to make it compared to the fuel savings. A second option (wind resistance) is largely based on aesthetics. Will people buy cars that look funny? Hard to answer that one as tastes change.
Ultrasound is sound... hence, pressure.
Quit posting news from the Onion. Oh, wait. Germany did what?!!
Less efficient how? In general? When produced through a Carnot Cycle? When produced from coal? If the electricity were generated from a nuclear power station or solar, it is most certianly *very* efficeint. Yes it *can* cost more... but that's only if your house has some other cheaper form of heat. Mine doesn't, and to replace it with something that does, would take 15-20 years to recoup the savings, provided the maintenance and/or cost of fuel doesn't rise appreciably WRT to electricity prices. I agree it doesn't help in the summer, which is why I stated that in my original reply.
I do think it's somewhat silly that these cable boxes need to use that much power and haven't incorporated modern energy saving techniques. However, much like incandescent bulbs this only matters when the heat isn't running in your house. During the Winter in the southern US and Fall/Winter/Spring in the northern US, wasteful electric appliances just help to heat your house and reduce whatever bill you have for other sources of heat. This is the reason I think living somewhere "slightly chilly" is a greener. We are going to have to use electricity anyway, and electric devices will never be 100% efficient, therefore, the waste heat produced can be used to help heat a space. In climates where A/C is required, not only are you wasting energy to cool your living space, you are also wasting 2x as much as is wasted by any electronic device in your home.
The "best" tool for the job is often the most conveniently available tool for the job...
The "best" tool for the job is the one you have. FTFY
The thing is, the risk is appropriate when compared to other power sources. Accidents happen, and sure there are safer designs and if the economics are there to support it, then do it. However, I think the benefits that electricity (and therefore nuclear power generation) have provided save millions of lives every year and do it in a safer manner than coal.
We went out of our way to retire any and all Dell hardware with *extreme* prejudice.
kill -9 dell
Banning incandescent light bulbs in any household requiring heat for more than half of the year is really really silly. People will just end up burning more oil/coal/NG to compensate in the winter months.
EE's don't tweet cause they are all old.
Well that's just Comcastic!
This sort of thing is nothing but sensationalism and panic mongering. Over all numbers of traffic fatalities have decreased in number year after year since the mid 1970s. The rate of them per million miles driven has decreased linearly since the late 1960s. The numbers and rate have also decreased in the last 10 years as well. The number of injuries in car accidents has also declined in car accidents since the mid 1990's as well as the rate at which they occur. Lastly, the overall number of non-fatal accidents has also decreased from 2007 to 2008 as it has in previous years too. See this link for more info: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811172.PDF Cell phone usage has exploded exponentially however with cell phone use growing from some 34 million handsets in the U.S. in the 1990s to over 208 million in 2008. That's a 600% increase. Text message use has also exploded in the last 5 years jumping from something like 10 billion to 100 billion messages sent. So tell me exactly how cell phone usage has anything to do with making our highways less safe? Correlation does not imply causation.
The Zune runs a chopped down version fo Widnows CE, which is the basic underpinnings of WinMo. The Zune is basically Windows Mobile with a really really really good media player and fast hardware with lots of eye candy acceleration. The Zune is proof you can make a mobile version of Windows usable. Don't confuse the OS with the UI.
Ballmer laughed off the iPhone when it came out. An appstore and a billion plus downloads later and who is laughing?
Microsoft can't even launch an mp3 player that is good, they haven't even bothered launching it in the UK and much of Europe.
I think Balmer hit the nail on the head in his latest interview with Engadget, devices like the iPhone (by itself) are a niche market. The smartphone market as a whole is a big market. Microsoft is shooting for the long haul big market with their efforts. One reason he says you'll never see a Microsoft branded phone. iPhone = Niche, just like all Apple prodcuts. Oh, and how many of those 1 billion downloads were free apps? Hmmmmmmmm? Oh and BTW, Microsoft's big competition (and Apple's) in Europe is Symbian, no secret there.
If they could get rid of the vacuum tubes, Windows could turn on instantly.
Are the vacuum tubes what cause Windows to suck so badly?
By my estimates and factmonster.com, the state of Texas is 261,797 sq mi. According to onlineconversion.com that equals: 678,051,117,321 sq meters.
n /index.shtml
If you divide that by the current population from http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html
of 6,398,289,808 Each person would get 100 sq meters. If they only got 10 sq meters, we could do 60 billion in Texas and have space left for bathrooms.
Also, regarding sustainability of the human race and energy consumption... Energy is energy right? Well, based ona 2000 calorie a day diet, 6 billion ppl need 13,956 Gigawatt hrs of energy per day. That's 5 Petawatt hrs a year. Then add in fuel and coal consumption. I don't have coal numbers, but we use about 85 million bbls of crude oil a day. That's 1,303,050,000,000.00
gallons a year. Using a crappy by product (residual fuel oil) 1 gallon of which = 43.9 kWhr we need about 57,203,895 GWhr for our fuel uses. Nothing in comparison to what energy food gives humans.
From: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/solarsystem/su
The sun is estimated to output 386 yottawatts. That's 386 billion petawatts. Fusion is the answer. Or very good solar panels.