V. Khosla is an influential money guy who runs a 'green' investment fund. He came to my attention a couple of years ago when he was widely quoted supporting biofuels, and specifically ethanol. Since I think ethanol is a crock powered by special interests I dismissed his fund as ill-conceived, but he does at least try to analyze enviro issues that are of central interest to me. In this letter to investors, he maligns hybrids and touts ethanol. Nowadays it is more a historical document showing that smart guys say dumb stuff, but I found a table in it that is provocative, wherein the author (not Khosla) summarizes his calculations of most green for the buck. Two things stand out: 1. Homes and buildings are low hanging fruit; 2. As a pubic policy, the most inefficient systems are a good place to start. (Assuming, parenthetically, that they are rational to begin with.) As Corwyn mentioned obliquely in another thread, any investment where a green return in the form of decreased pollution has a dollar cost of zero or less should be a no-brainer. The idea is that the pollution improvement did not cost anything, so by all means pollute less. Food for thought, and a good place to start thinking about investments and projects
The most efficient BTU (which is, after all, what we re ultimately talking about) is the one you don't have to use! It really is pretty simple to use less, and still live well. One small example, at hand,, I'm writing this on an IPad, consuming maybe 10 watts net/net. A year ago, I would have been using the lap top, using maybe 125, five years ago, a desk machine consuming maybe 500 with a CRT monitor. Understanding that not every one can use a I pad for all thier computing, but using the right tool for the job, just makes sense. How many SOV empty pick ups do you see community day after day? Icarus
Yep on conservation. The iPad uses considerably less than 10 watts. Do you have an android imitation ? j/k. The iPad is a paragon of efficiency. Other Apple products like the mac-mini and the macbook air are likewise excellent. My MB_air consumes 12-13 watts in my normal use on battery, so I guesstimate 15 watts when charging losses are considered.
I have never kill-a-watted my iPad, I'm just guessing that charging it takes about an hour, and probably draws,,50 watts. Runnin off the power supply is probably a bit more efficient than running and charging, since a battery takes more energy to charge than it gives you by. ~20% depending on battery chemistry. Icarus Ps I don't have an android imitation just a iPad 2. Loving it more every day after better than a year.
I did I cannot remember the results, except to say I am pretty sure the power drain was well under 10 watts. The iPad2's battery is 25 watt*hr, and lasts 8-10 hours in normal use. Just amazing
Those figures are way too high. I don't even think 17" "laptops" consume 125 watts. My 14.1" Lenovo T61p bought in August 2007 (that I still use today) pulls only about 37 watts while idling. Heck, the AC adapter brick it comes with is only rated for 90 watts of output. The laptop itself can run fine on the 65 watt brick that my Lenovo x100e subnotebook came with but from what I understand, won't charge very quickly. As I posted at http://priuschat.com/forums/environmental-discussion/17498-kill-watt-rocks-2.html#post22765, the machine below consumed the amounts listed. The Athlon 64 3200+ was introduced in late 2003. CRTs, even 21" don't consume as much power as you think.
Admittedly a WAG. Uses more charging and working at the same time. I should know, as I run it off my solar system much of the year and watch the meter like a hawk. I seem to remember that the Macbook draws ~36 watts simply charging. None the less, it is illustrative how one can change ones energy habits, often dramatically. Icarus
Unfortunately, most of the easy stuff like low power lighting (recently implemented nationwide in Australia) is viewed in the US as a Communist plot to weaken our precious bodily fluids. Not sure about the paybacks calculations in the graphic. It doesn't give a time frame which is why people don't run out and exchange their lights. It pays back in years and baby needs shoes in an hour. It is in national interest, in the individuals long term interest, that we get more energy efficient but not in anyone's short term interest. That is why government policy based upon national interest and the long view is necessary, CAFE standards, carbon taxes, energy efficiency standards for industrial, commercial and residential buildings, subsidies for sustainable energy etc. etc. But none of that happens in the "free market" ideology where the short term interest rules and national interest and long term interest lose.
yes, free market capitalism is really pretty stupid. It leaves people with no work and therefor no money, it leads to destruction of the environment in the name of short term profits, it leads to a lack of intelligent planning .....
There is more background information on the McKinsey CO2 abatement curves here: Greenhouse gas abatement cost curves | Sustainability & Resource Productivity Practice | McKinsey & Company I am not sure that their economics are fully explained, but the costs are stated as marginal costs to 2030. Perhaps of use to the economists here. ++ A really low energy consumption by a notebook (screen dim, HD not spinning) would be about 10 watts. 40 would be a lot. Those are the ones that are too hot to actually be comfortable on the lap. Human brain sinks 40 watts, day or night. Impressive CPU efficiency, considering it resulted from a long series of evolutionary kludges ")
Are you accusing our government of intelligent planning? Some government programs that manipulated the invisible hand might be helpful, but full government plans rarely work. Higher cafe standards are already in law. Removal of grandfathering of all high polluting plants would be the next logical step, as would be cap and trade of ghg for electric and production and an oil tax. If I have it right, the government currently subsidizes oil use and coal power plants. It makes adding new power more expensive so that we keep the least efficient things around. That's intelligent planning to raise the level of ghg over what they would be in a free market. We also seem to be creating a dead zone in the gulf and high corn and feed prices with the central government ethanol plan.
