60 mpg by 2025

[justme]

Ren,

>>Again, energy will not be an issue in 30 years, unless you assume that for some reason all technological progress stops today. In fact, I’m guessing that we never actually run out of natural oil. The remainder will stay underground while synthetics/alternative energy sources are used exclusively.

I suggest you save this post and show it to your grandchildren in 40 years.

Energy isn’t just a question of technological progress. Solar energy is the source of all usable energy on earth with the exception of nuclear energy.

Coal, Oil, Natural Gas, Biofuel, Wind, Hydro, Food, Wood, you name it EVERYTHING comes from solar energy. There is a limit to how much of the incoming solar energy we can collect and convert, both practically and theoretically (=fundamentally). This is not a problem that we can “invent” our way out of. It is a fundamental limitation.

[justme]

Flu,

It is not unreasonable to ask people to practice what they preach.

But if I do, are you going to follow my lead? Or are just just going to put me in a double bind a call me smug, a tactic which appears to be the last refuge of energy scoundrels (apologies to Samulel Johnson)?

Okay, I will answer your questions:

1. a sedan that is some 10 years old and gets 31mpg because I drive it nicely. It is has 4 cylinders. Notice how I did not buy an SUV although that was the sexy thing to do. I drive about 5000 miles/year and use about 5000/31=161 gals of gasoline each year.

Also notice that my next car WILL be one that gets 50mpg or more. *Manufacturing* a new car uses about 1500 gals worth of oil. If you bought a sensible car 10+ years ago, you can keep it unless you drive a lot. But if you get a new one, fer God’s sake get 50mpg if at all possible. That’s what I ask.

2. no comment, you cannot demand that everyone must be in green engineering. Let’s just say that I have worked on technologies that do save lots of resources when used properly.

3. once a year, and when I traveled I rented cars that got me 45-50 mpg.

4. I’ll give you a more complete and more meaningful answer: My electrical average footprint is about 225W power average over the year. As for commercial buildings I frequent, I cannot control their energy efficiency but I do try to influence it.

5. Watch TV occasionally. The 225W overall electrical footprint tells you everything you need to know.

6. I print duplex (double-sided), and try to stay paperless as best I can. If there are blank pages I reuse them for scratch paper.

So, am I allowed to evangelize energy efficiency, or am I just a smug liberal bastard? You can decide what you think, others may as well.

[justme]

Flu,

It is not unreasonable to ask people to practice what they preach.

But if I do, are you going to follow my lead? Or are just just going to put me in a double bind a call me smug, a tactic which appears to be the last refuge of energy scoundrels (apologies to Samulel Johnson)?

Okay, I will answer your questions:

1. a sedan that is some 10 years old and gets 31mpg because I drive it nicely. It is has 4 cylinders. Notice how I did not buy an SUV although that was the sexy thing to do. I drive about 5000 miles/year and use about 5000/31=161 gals of gasoline each year.

Also notice that my next car WILL be one that gets 50mpg or more. *Manufacturing* a new car uses about 1500 gals worth of oil. If you bought a sensible car 10+ years ago, you can keep it unless you drive a lot. But if you get a new one, fer God’s sake get 50mpg if at all possible. That’s what I ask.

2. no comment, you cannot demand that everyone must be in green engineering. Let’s just say that I have worked on technologies that do save lots of resources when used properly.

3. once a year, and when I traveled I rented cars that got me 45-50 mpg.

4. I’ll give you a more complete and more meaningful answer: My electrical average footprint is about 225W power average over the year. As for commercial buildings I frequent, I cannot control their energy efficiency but I do try to influence it.

5. Watch TV occasionally. The 225W overall electrical footprint tells you everything you need to know.

6. I print duplex (double-sided), and try to stay paperless as best I can. If there are blank pages I reuse them for scratch paper.

So, am I allowed to evangelize energy efficiency, or am I just a smug liberal bastard? You can decide what you think, others may as well.

[justme]

Flu,

It is not unreasonable to ask people to practice what they preach.

But if I do, are you going to follow my lead? Or are just just going to put me in a double bind a call me smug, a tactic which appears to be the last refuge of energy scoundrels (apologies to Samulel Johnson)?

Okay, I will answer your questions:

1. a sedan that is some 10 years old and gets 31mpg because I drive it nicely. It is has 4 cylinders. Notice how I did not buy an SUV although that was the sexy thing to do. I drive about 5000 miles/year and use about 5000/31=161 gals of gasoline each year.

Also notice that my next car WILL be one that gets 50mpg or more. *Manufacturing* a new car uses about 1500 gals worth of oil. If you bought a sensible car 10+ years ago, you can keep it unless you drive a lot. But if you get a new one, fer God’s sake get 50mpg if at all possible. That’s what I ask.

2. no comment, you cannot demand that everyone must be in green engineering. Let’s just say that I have worked on technologies that do save lots of resources when used properly.

3. once a year, and when I traveled I rented cars that got me 45-50 mpg.

4. I’ll give you a more complete and more meaningful answer: My electrical average footprint is about 225W power average over the year. As for commercial buildings I frequent, I cannot control their energy efficiency but I do try to influence it.

5. Watch TV occasionally. The 225W overall electrical footprint tells you everything you need to know.

6. I print duplex (double-sided), and try to stay paperless as best I can. If there are blank pages I reuse them for scratch paper.

So, am I allowed to evangelize energy efficiency, or am I just a smug liberal bastard? You can decide what you think, others may as well.

[justme]

Flu,

It is not unreasonable to ask people to practice what they preach.

But if I do, are you going to follow my lead? Or are just just going to put me in a double bind a call me smug, a tactic which appears to be the last refuge of energy scoundrels (apologies to Samulel Johnson)?

Okay, I will answer your questions:

1. a sedan that is some 10 years old and gets 31mpg because I drive it nicely. It is has 4 cylinders. Notice how I did not buy an SUV although that was the sexy thing to do. I drive about 5000 miles/year and use about 5000/31=161 gals of gasoline each year.

Also notice that my next car WILL be one that gets 50mpg or more. *Manufacturing* a new car uses about 1500 gals worth of oil. If you bought a sensible car 10+ years ago, you can keep it unless you drive a lot. But if you get a new one, fer God’s sake get 50mpg if at all possible. That’s what I ask.

2. no comment, you cannot demand that everyone must be in green engineering. Let’s just say that I have worked on technologies that do save lots of resources when used properly.

3. once a year, and when I traveled I rented cars that got me 45-50 mpg.

4. I’ll give you a more complete and more meaningful answer: My electrical average footprint is about 225W power average over the year. As for commercial buildings I frequent, I cannot control their energy efficiency but I do try to influence it.

5. Watch TV occasionally. The 225W overall electrical footprint tells you everything you need to know.

6. I print duplex (double-sided), and try to stay paperless as best I can. If there are blank pages I reuse them for scratch paper.

So, am I allowed to evangelize energy efficiency, or am I just a smug liberal bastard? You can decide what you think, others may as well.

[justme]

Flu,

It is not unreasonable to ask people to practice what they preach.

But if I do, are you going to follow my lead? Or are just just going to put me in a double bind a call me smug, a tactic which appears to be the last refuge of energy scoundrels (apologies to Samulel Johnson)?

Okay, I will answer your questions:

1. a sedan that is some 10 years old and gets 31mpg because I drive it nicely. It is has 4 cylinders. Notice how I did not buy an SUV although that was the sexy thing to do. I drive about 5000 miles/year and use about 5000/31=161 gals of gasoline each year.

Also notice that my next car WILL be one that gets 50mpg or more. *Manufacturing* a new car uses about 1500 gals worth of oil. If you bought a sensible car 10+ years ago, you can keep it unless you drive a lot. But if you get a new one, fer God’s sake get 50mpg if at all possible. That’s what I ask.

2. no comment, you cannot demand that everyone must be in green engineering. Let’s just say that I have worked on technologies that do save lots of resources when used properly.

3. once a year, and when I traveled I rented cars that got me 45-50 mpg.

4. I’ll give you a more complete and more meaningful answer: My electrical average footprint is about 225W power average over the year. As for commercial buildings I frequent, I cannot control their energy efficiency but I do try to influence it.

5. Watch TV occasionally. The 225W overall electrical footprint tells you everything you need to know.

6. I print duplex (double-sided), and try to stay paperless as best I can. If there are blank pages I reuse them for scratch paper.

So, am I allowed to evangelize energy efficiency, or am I just a smug liberal bastard? You can decide what you think, others may as well.

[Ren]

[quote=justme]Energy isn’t just a question of technological progress. Solar energy is the source of all usable energy on earth with the exception of nuclear energy.[/quote]

Of course it’s a question of technological progress. There is more than enough energy here to last humanity the rest of the planet’s existence – it’s just a matter of accessing it. Granted it won’t be next week or next year, but again, you can’t just assume that we’ll never improve efficiency or access to energy after today.

[quote]Coal, Oil, Natural Gas, Biofuel, Wind, Hydro, Food, Wood, you name it EVERYTHING comes from solar energy. There is a limit to how much of the incoming solar energy we can collect and convert, both practically and theoretically (=fundamentally). This is not a problem that we can “invent” our way out of. It is a fundamental limitation.[/quote]

How very 20th century of you. Time to start thinking outside of the box – more efficient extraction of hydrogen from water, geothermal, fusion, and space-based solar. We’re talking nanobots building an invisibly thin solar panel millions of square miles in area, then beaming the energy wirelessly to Earth. Excuses like “it’s too cost-prohibitive,” or “it will take hundreds of years to develop,” don’t cut it. Technological advancement is faster than you think. Not exponential, but always accelerating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

[Ren]

[quote=justme]Energy isn’t just a question of technological progress. Solar energy is the source of all usable energy on earth with the exception of nuclear energy.[/quote]

Of course it’s a question of technological progress. There is more than enough energy here to last humanity the rest of the planet’s existence – it’s just a matter of accessing it. Granted it won’t be next week or next year, but again, you can’t just assume that we’ll never improve efficiency or access to energy after today.

[quote]Coal, Oil, Natural Gas, Biofuel, Wind, Hydro, Food, Wood, you name it EVERYTHING comes from solar energy. There is a limit to how much of the incoming solar energy we can collect and convert, both practically and theoretically (=fundamentally). This is not a problem that we can “invent” our way out of. It is a fundamental limitation.[/quote]

How very 20th century of you. Time to start thinking outside of the box – more efficient extraction of hydrogen from water, geothermal, fusion, and space-based solar. We’re talking nanobots building an invisibly thin solar panel millions of square miles in area, then beaming the energy wirelessly to Earth. Excuses like “it’s too cost-prohibitive,” or “it will take hundreds of years to develop,” don’t cut it. Technological advancement is faster than you think. Not exponential, but always accelerating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

[Ren]

[quote=justme]Energy isn’t just a question of technological progress. Solar energy is the source of all usable energy on earth with the exception of nuclear energy.[/quote]

Of course it’s a question of technological progress. There is more than enough energy here to last humanity the rest of the planet’s existence – it’s just a matter of accessing it. Granted it won’t be next week or next year, but again, you can’t just assume that we’ll never improve efficiency or access to energy after today.

[quote]Coal, Oil, Natural Gas, Biofuel, Wind, Hydro, Food, Wood, you name it EVERYTHING comes from solar energy. There is a limit to how much of the incoming solar energy we can collect and convert, both practically and theoretically (=fundamentally). This is not a problem that we can “invent” our way out of. It is a fundamental limitation.[/quote]

How very 20th century of you. Time to start thinking outside of the box – more efficient extraction of hydrogen from water, geothermal, fusion, and space-based solar. We’re talking nanobots building an invisibly thin solar panel millions of square miles in area, then beaming the energy wirelessly to Earth. Excuses like “it’s too cost-prohibitive,” or “it will take hundreds of years to develop,” don’t cut it. Technological advancement is faster than you think. Not exponential, but always accelerating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

[Ren]

[quote=justme]Energy isn’t just a question of technological progress. Solar energy is the source of all usable energy on earth with the exception of nuclear energy.[/quote]

Of course it’s a question of technological progress. There is more than enough energy here to last humanity the rest of the planet’s existence – it’s just a matter of accessing it. Granted it won’t be next week or next year, but again, you can’t just assume that we’ll never improve efficiency or access to energy after today.

[quote]Coal, Oil, Natural Gas, Biofuel, Wind, Hydro, Food, Wood, you name it EVERYTHING comes from solar energy. There is a limit to how much of the incoming solar energy we can collect and convert, both practically and theoretically (=fundamentally). This is not a problem that we can “invent” our way out of. It is a fundamental limitation.[/quote]

How very 20th century of you. Time to start thinking outside of the box – more efficient extraction of hydrogen from water, geothermal, fusion, and space-based solar. We’re talking nanobots building an invisibly thin solar panel millions of square miles in area, then beaming the energy wirelessly to Earth. Excuses like “it’s too cost-prohibitive,” or “it will take hundreds of years to develop,” don’t cut it. Technological advancement is faster than you think. Not exponential, but always accelerating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

[Ren]

[quote=justme]Energy isn’t just a question of technological progress. Solar energy is the source of all usable energy on earth with the exception of nuclear energy.[/quote]

Of course it’s a question of technological progress. There is more than enough energy here to last humanity the rest of the planet’s existence – it’s just a matter of accessing it. Granted it won’t be next week or next year, but again, you can’t just assume that we’ll never improve efficiency or access to energy after today.

[quote]Coal, Oil, Natural Gas, Biofuel, Wind, Hydro, Food, Wood, you name it EVERYTHING comes from solar energy. There is a limit to how much of the incoming solar energy we can collect and convert, both practically and theoretically (=fundamentally). This is not a problem that we can “invent” our way out of. It is a fundamental limitation.[/quote]

How very 20th century of you. Time to start thinking outside of the box – more efficient extraction of hydrogen from water, geothermal, fusion, and space-based solar. We’re talking nanobots building an invisibly thin solar panel millions of square miles in area, then beaming the energy wirelessly to Earth. Excuses like “it’s too cost-prohibitive,” or “it will take hundreds of years to develop,” don’t cut it. Technological advancement is faster than you think. Not exponential, but always accelerating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

[justme]

Ren,

>>you can’t just assume that we’ll never improve efficiency or access to energy after today.

Look at how you completely make up a strawmen position that does not represent what I said. I did not say that.

>> more efficient extraction of hydrogen from water

Do you understand that ANY “extraction” (the correct term is electrolysis, or other term, depening on method) of H2 from H20 involves a net LOSS of energy from the energy you put into the process? This is an example of the first law of thermodynamics, sometimes also called the law of conservation of energy. Do you understand it?

And here is some food for thought on solar: Current best-of-breed commercial solar technology has a conversion efficiency of 20%. Do you understand that it is physically impossible to have > 100% efficiency? Let me translate for you: We cannot improve more than 5x from where we currently are.

Not only is there no exponential improvement, there will soon be not accelerating improvement, but *decellerating* improvement in solar technology. That does not make it useless, far from it, but there is no silver bullet there. The limit of 100% efficiency is what I meant when I said “fundamental limitations” above.

Solar in space? With microwave links beaming cheap energy down to earth? People have been talking about that since 1950s if not earlier. You are dreaming, both cost-wise and efficiency-wise. Get real.

The first law of thermodynamics still holds in the 21st century. It is perhaps the most fundamental physical law there is. It will NEVER go away.

[justme]

Ren,

>>you can’t just assume that we’ll never improve efficiency or access to energy after today.

Look at how you completely make up a strawmen position that does not represent what I said. I did not say that.

>> more efficient extraction of hydrogen from water

Do you understand that ANY “extraction” (the correct term is electrolysis, or other term, depening on method) of H2 from H20 involves a net LOSS of energy from the energy you put into the process? This is an example of the first law of thermodynamics, sometimes also called the law of conservation of energy. Do you understand it?

And here is some food for thought on solar: Current best-of-breed commercial solar technology has a conversion efficiency of 20%. Do you understand that it is physically impossible to have > 100% efficiency? Let me translate for you: We cannot improve more than 5x from where we currently are.

Not only is there no exponential improvement, there will soon be not accelerating improvement, but *decellerating* improvement in solar technology. That does not make it useless, far from it, but there is no silver bullet there. The limit of 100% efficiency is what I meant when I said “fundamental limitations” above.

Solar in space? With microwave links beaming cheap energy down to earth? People have been talking about that since 1950s if not earlier. You are dreaming, both cost-wise and efficiency-wise. Get real.

The first law of thermodynamics still holds in the 21st century. It is perhaps the most fundamental physical law there is. It will NEVER go away.

[justme]

Ren,

>>you can’t just assume that we’ll never improve efficiency or access to energy after today.

Look at how you completely make up a strawmen position that does not represent what I said. I did not say that.

>> more efficient extraction of hydrogen from water

Do you understand that ANY “extraction” (the correct term is electrolysis, or other term, depening on method) of H2 from H20 involves a net LOSS of energy from the energy you put into the process? This is an example of the first law of thermodynamics, sometimes also called the law of conservation of energy. Do you understand it?

And here is some food for thought on solar: Current best-of-breed commercial solar technology has a conversion efficiency of 20%. Do you understand that it is physically impossible to have > 100% efficiency? Let me translate for you: We cannot improve more than 5x from where we currently are.

Not only is there no exponential improvement, there will soon be not accelerating improvement, but *decellerating* improvement in solar technology. That does not make it useless, far from it, but there is no silver bullet there. The limit of 100% efficiency is what I meant when I said “fundamental limitations” above.

Solar in space? With microwave links beaming cheap energy down to earth? People have been talking about that since 1950s if not earlier. You are dreaming, both cost-wise and efficiency-wise. Get real.

The first law of thermodynamics still holds in the 21st century. It is perhaps the most fundamental physical law there is. It will NEVER go away.

[justme]

Ren,

>>you can’t just assume that we’ll never improve efficiency or access to energy after today.

Look at how you completely make up a strawmen position that does not represent what I said. I did not say that.

>> more efficient extraction of hydrogen from water

Do you understand that ANY “extraction” (the correct term is electrolysis, or other term, depening on method) of H2 from H20 involves a net LOSS of energy from the energy you put into the process? This is an example of the first law of thermodynamics, sometimes also called the law of conservation of energy. Do you understand it?

And here is some food for thought on solar: Current best-of-breed commercial solar technology has a conversion efficiency of 20%. Do you understand that it is physically impossible to have > 100% efficiency? Let me translate for you: We cannot improve more than 5x from where we currently are.

Not only is there no exponential improvement, there will soon be not accelerating improvement, but *decellerating* improvement in solar technology. That does not make it useless, far from it, but there is no silver bullet there. The limit of 100% efficiency is what I meant when I said “fundamental limitations” above.

Solar in space? With microwave links beaming cheap energy down to earth? People have been talking about that since 1950s if not earlier. You are dreaming, both cost-wise and efficiency-wise. Get real.

The first law of thermodynamics still holds in the 21st century. It is perhaps the most fundamental physical law there is. It will NEVER go away.

[Author]

Posts