I think this is the beginnings of an economy based on perpetual growth and fossil fuel energy running headlong into geological energy constraints. Basically I see an undulatory downward path for the rest of my life. From here out, I think any rallies in our economic condition are going to be met with spiking commodity prices that knock us right back down.
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:36 pm Post subject: The sheer magnitude of inefficiency!
There are about 100 million households in the US[1] and each uses electricity at around 900kWh/month[2]. Given that the average US household uses around 9%[3] of it's consumption for lighting, widespread use of CFLs[4] would result in savings of around 75 billion kWh of electricity per year.
To put this into perspective, the Aptera Typ-1e has a 10kWh pack that takes it around 120 miles per charge[5]. The average vehicle in America is driven more than 12,000 miles per year today[6]. Since there are about 245 million passenger vehicles in the united states[7] we travel around three trillion miles per year. Widespread use of CFLs would free up enough electricity to power vehicles similar to the Aptera about a trillion miles per year. A single passenger variant would likely travel 1.5-2 trillion miles on that energy.
We've got energy problems alright, we can't find ways to waste it fast enough!
P.S. This thread isn't about whether or not we would have enough raw materials to actually produce X amount of N type batteries, or vehicle safety, etc... It's just to illustrate the inefficiency we've all come to accept as common place. I would appreciate it if posts were on the topic of efficiency.
Joined: Aug 07, 2005 Posts: 302 Location: Columbia, MO
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 3:50 pm Post subject: Re: The sheer magnitude of inefficiency!
Merely unplugging and turning off unused appliances and lights would save even more than that.
I don't know the Aptera, but assume from the small battery pack that it is a small, light car. Small and light haven't penetrated the US driver's thinking yet - I'm hoping that Chavez will cut us off for 6 months or something similar. Then we might get somewhere along these lines.
Joined: Sep 29, 2004 Posts: 2330 Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 4:34 pm Post subject: Re: The sheer magnitude of inefficiency!
I agree, Internal Combustion Engines used for vehicles are a fantastically inefficient use of energy. Unlike an electric motor, an ICE is, at best, about 40% efficient and that figure is based on highway driving. Most engines are well below that figure. In addition, that figure is based on highway use, around town I wouldn't be surprised if an ICE was below 10%
Electric motors are in excess of 90% efficient under almost all operating conditions. Also, unlike an ICE, the motor does not need to idle at stop lights. When you’re moving, it's on, when you’re stopped or coasting, it's off. Electric cars can be recharged at night, when the grid is mostly just idling. We will have fully electric cars in the future, unless there isn't enough oil to build them. _________________ "That's the problem with mercy, kid... It just ain't professional" - Fast Eddie, The Color of Money
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 5:22 pm Post subject: Re: The sheer magnitude of inefficiency!
Hey, I know you said you just wanted to use this thread to bitch, but I have been distracted by the shiny you pointed out to us: http://www.aptera.com/details.php That thing rocks and I want one! Why, if we could switch our car fleet over to stuff like this we could double or even triple the lifespan of our way of life!
Wait, maybe that's not a good thing. _________________ Just another tofu-munching bike-riding Rambo(/Rambette)
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 5:49 pm Post subject: Re: The sheer magnitude of inefficiency!
Kingcoal wrote:
In addition, that figure is based on highway use, around town I wouldn't be surprised if an ICE was below 10%
It's around 15% based on what I've seen, but that is only because it's pushing around thousands of pounds of SUV. For instance the ICE in a Chevy Corvette may not run as efficiently as the same thing in a Suburban, because the vette doesn't require as much energy as the burb, even though it gets better mileage. Less load on the engine usually translates to lower engine efficiency even if it does mean better mileage.
Pixie wrote:
Why, if we could switch our car fleet over to stuff like this we could double or even triple the lifespan of our way of life!
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 7:48 pm Post subject: Re: The sheer magnitude of inefficiency!
Speaking of lights, efficiency and materials....
There are something like 5 separate breakers in my breaker box, meaning five separate circuits - each wired separately with 14 gauge copper wire - to run the lighting in my house.
And yet - my built-in lights (the only ones using those circuits) total under 1,000 Watts for the entire house. I am wayyy past CFL's. In the ceiling "cans" I have 10 (1) 2.5 Watt (!!!) LED Par 20 lights. I have CFL's everywhere else.
I laugh at the fixtures that say "Warning! Use 100 Watt or less bulb" as I screw in 2.5 Watt bulbs. But I still have the copper wiring for 100 Watts everywhere.
I wonder when we will start thinking differently. _________________ 100% of the electricity needed for this post was generated by ME.
<p>
<A HREF="http://www.los-gatos.ca.us/davidbu/pedgen/green_virtual_gym.html">Posted from a Pedal Powered Computer</A>
Joined: Sep 29, 2004 Posts: 2330 Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 8:16 pm Post subject: Re: The sheer magnitude of inefficiency!
Remember that it's peak oil, not peak coal - yet. We're running out of hydrocarbons, 70% of oil goes into transportation, so that's the emergency right now. We have to solve our transportation problem before anything else. _________________ "That's the problem with mercy, kid... It just ain't professional" - Fast Eddie, The Color of Money
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 9:31 am Post subject: Re: The sheer magnitude of inefficiency!
Kingcoal, Yep! And from high school physics, Force = Mass x Acceleration. If we reduce the mass, the required force is less. Nothing new here. It's easy enough to do. Lighter car requires lighter udercarraige, reduces the mass further, and requires even less power. The smaller engine is lighter, too, etc.
All you have to do, in practice, then, is to 1) Pay for tooling up, and 2) SELL it, to pay for tooling and make a profit.
In 1978, I was a tool designer at GM when they had a Chevette on the test track in Warren , MI, that got 78 mpg, using a small 3-cyl. Japanese diesel engine. It met emission standards, but it had one problem. THEY COULDN'T SELL IT. The technology is there. Notice, this was 30 years ago!
The problem has always been, and will always be what the majority wants to buy.
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 9:39 am Post subject: Re: The sheer magnitude of inefficiency!
For a look at why we have this consumer attitude, read on old book by Vance Packard, "The Satus Seekers", explaining the massive ad campaign that exploited the low self esteem of blue collar people by telling them they could BUY staus, via a new car with bigger body, tailfins, engine, etc., ad nauseum.
Let's put the blame where it belongs, an unholy alliance of corporate greed, ad men, oil men, and politicians that started it all, and supports it to this day.
Joined: Jul 29, 2005 Posts: 252 Location: Show-Me State
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 9:42 am Post subject: Re: The sheer magnitude of inefficiency!
Good day from Pheba, from the farm:
Last year we were using about 900 Kwh per month to fuel our farm and home. We are now using about 450 Kwh per month.
We only changed a few things.
First, our home is 9 years old, and was built without any central or window air conditioning. During the summer we keep all windows closed during the heat of the day, and turn the attic fan on after the outside temperature drops lower than the inside temperature. The house never gets over 85 to 87 degrees, even on the hottest day., and once the attic fan comes on the house cools down very nice. We have a lot of trees around the house, and three years ago I Planted a tree on the hottest side of the house, the east side.
I have a large laundry room with a clothing rack. I take clothes out of the washer, and pop them in the dryer for about 5 to 10 minutes. This is just long enough for some heat to remove wrinkles, I then hang the clothing up wet in the laundry room. I am very creative at hanging up clothing to dry in the laundry room. My husband put up a drying rack for small items.
The two most expensive items to dry are bath towels, and blue jeans. We have a two story home, and sheets and blankets get hung on the 2nd floor banister over the stairs. Putting a bath towel in a dryer is stupid. Why use power to dry an item that you plan on getting wet again. it makes as much sense as watering a lawn so you can mow it.
We put in the new type of light bulbs. We turn off all lights, and we use surge protectors to turn appliances off and on, especially our large television set.
We do not use a surge protector on the microwave or radio. Constant turning off and on seems to totally mess them up.
I once had a computer person tell me to leave my computer on all of the time. That goes against everything I believe in. The computer is always turned completely off when I finish using it.
Oh, another thing, and this is personal. I use a large bath towel to dry my body, and I hang it back up to use again. I then use a new small washcloth each time to dry private parts. I can launder a ton of washcloths for the energy used to launder one bath towel.
I have also cut my monthly auto mileage in half. I have done this by stopping silly trips, and I combine trips. If I have a physician appointment in our big city, which is 26 miles away, then I make sure I run several other errands on that same day.
Pheba.
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:56 am Post subject: Re: The sheer magnitude of inefficiency!
patience wrote:
For a look at why we have this consumer attitude, read on old book by Vance Packard, "The Satus Seekers", explaining the massive ad campaign that exploited the low self esteem of blue collar people by telling them they could BUY staus, via a new car with bigger body, tailfins, engine, etc., ad nauseum.
Let's put the blame where it belongs, an unholy alliance of corporate greed, ad men, oil men, and politicians that started it all, and supports it to this day.
Yeah, we could sell small cars if the admen focused on making them sexy. Remember all those little two-person sports cars? If the Honda Insight had had a decent ad campaign focusing on how sexy the slick lines and high technology were, they could have sold it.
They'd have to get to people at Consumer Reports on their side. CR, and all the other car reviewers out there, have to stop judging cars on their acceleration. Acceleration is only useful if you think of the freeway as a race track. Any car that can get to 65 in the length of an on-ramp is as fast as it needs to be. _________________ Just another tofu-munching bike-riding Rambo(/Rambette)
Joined: Sep 25, 2004 Posts: 4686 Location: Boston, MA
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 5:10 pm Post subject: Re: The sheer magnitude of inefficiency!
dooberheim wrote:
Pixie wrote:
. Any car that can get to 65 in the length of an on-ramp is as fast as it needs to be.
The Suzuki Swift of 1990 meets those guidelines. 50 mpg on the highway, on gasoline. Dammit, why can't we go back to this?
DK
We can!
That's the great part about higher prices, it creates consumer demand for more efficient vehicles.
The cost to retrofit the entire US auto industry to produce super efficient plug-in hybrid/electric vehicles is somewhere in the neighborhood of $60-80 billion.
And guess what, Americans spend roughly a trillion dollars a year on new automobiles.
Retool your entire business at a cost of only one month's revenue.
It's too bad that car companies are too stupid to do the basic calculations.
At a cost of $1.2 billion, Kia Motors will be able to build 300,000 cars per year.
Assuming they wanted to pay off their entire factory's construction cost in one year, what would the cost per vehicle be?
$1,200,000,000 divided by 300,000 is $4,000.
That's right. Four thousand dollars per vehicle in order to pay off the investment in only one year.
And considering that car companies don't plan on shutting down the factory after only 12 months of operation...
I hope I've just proved that the "WE CANT RETOOL THE FACTORIES!!!" argument is complete and utter fantasy.
But wait. What would it cost to retool the entire US auto-manufacturing capacity to build all of the cars we need in a year?
16,000,000 cars times $4000/car is:
$64 billion.
Want to build enough factories to replace the entire US autofleet in one year?
240,000,000 cars times $4000/car is:
$960 billion.
Now of course, that figure is useless because we don't need (nor would anyone want) the capacity to replace the entire US auto-fleet every year.
Would anyone like to challenge my calculations?
Even if I'm underestimating the cost by $100 billion, I'm still proposing a solution to our transportation problem that is as cheap or cheaper than the current bailout proposed by the Bush Administration. _________________ "www.peakoil.com is the Myspace of the Apocalypse."
Joined: Apr 28, 2005 Posts: 3876 Location: West shore Lake Eire, MI, USA
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:28 pm Post subject: Re: The sheer magnitude of inefficiency!
Tyler, I promise nobody is supplying that KIA factory with free raw materials and free labor for the year! Or any other factory for that matter! Even slaves add expenses, they have to receive minimum food, water, shelter etc etc....
As for the raw materials those have gone through the roof thanx to $90.00 oil and the building boom in China. _________________ Always appeal to a man's enlightened self interest, you can trust him to look out for himself honestly, It's when you appeal to his Honor or the Common Good that he stops paying attention.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum