The 8008 1774
There is a technical argument to using less energy. It simplifies all the designs, as energy density is one of the persons of reliable products. A plain engine IS easier to make reliable than a V8. It also simplifies logistics; less of everything needed to support the process in question.
No, but the energy use is sort of hardwired into capital products. The normal car replacement rate is on the order of 8-11% per year, so a chase to hybrid cars will take a while. The serious home refurbishment rate (or new build rate for that matter) is on the order of 2-4 % per year. Doing something there will take even longer.
The things we have to do now are the low-hanging fruit in regards to expanding the economic utility of our energy usage. It will have to be mostly made up of more intelligent generation of power.
What I observe in large multinationals is a "PHB regime" where the companies are single-focused around narrow objectives. They may have to be to scale; but they lose a lot of business that way, and adapt pretty badly to things like changes in energy regimes.
The 8008 1776
Ah, the "global village", a '70s concept that never came to pbutt. In fact, just the opposite has happened - people are crowding ever more tightly into urban areas, and are now enjoying the...
And, the objective is not to save above all else. It is to expand energy usage from the current level sustaining 6B people at $8000 average income to 8B people at $20k. That will need a tripling of energy output.
The total energy usage will have to go from an equivalent to the solar energy that hits New York City to what hits the Greater Los Angeles Area. (from 800 to 2200 km2). Three solar power plants in New Mexico, Sahara and Australia can easily supply the entire planet with energy, even at their current efficiencies of 15%.
It is just a minor matter of engineering
The 8008 1775
On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 07:01:35 GMT, Morten Reistad Great example is M$.. while others took the view of cashing...