Japan Striving For Energy Efficiency 540
diamond writes "The NYT has an article on how Japan is squeezing to get the most out of the costly fuel. 'The government recently introduced a national campaign, urging the Japanese to replace their older appliances and buy hybrid vehicles, all part of a patriotic effort to save energy and fight global warming.'"
New trend? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:New trend? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:New trend? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:New trend? (Score:3, Interesting)
I was rewatching a copy of The Ipcress File the other night and at the beginning we see Michael Cane's Harry Palmer. The opening scene is constructed to show what a sophisticated goumet, bon viveur and babe-magnet he is. They demonstrate this by showing him opening a tin of tiny mushrooms in brine , labelled 'champignon'.
Laughable, but back in
Re:New trend? (Score:4, Insightful)
> Nah, saving energy is unamerican.
Doesn't it count as a "global trend" if 19/20 people on the face of the earth do it, then?
I know that Americans have a reputation for thinking USA == The Whole World, but that's rather OTT... (^_^)
Re:New trend? (Score:5, Informative)
That said, I don't think any American administration has taken energy seriously. Oddly, I think the Bush administration does, but only because the oil peak [lifeaftertheoilcrash.net] is something the oil-industry connected administration understands well.
Make no mistake. I like much of what is in the Bush energy bill (although I don't think it goes nearly far enough and my personal repulsion for the man and his politics is boundless). Before you assume too much about me from these statements, one of the things I wholeheartedly endorse is streamlining licensure of nuclear power plants (despite the fact that he [Bush] continues to call them "nucular" plants).
The oil supply is going start shrinking soon folks. When it does, the price is going to shoot up and the oil companies will make even more money than they do today, but not for too much longer. We have very few alternatives to oil. Yes, solar and wind can supplement. And we'll build that. But they aren't there all the time. Yes, coal is there. But it is just as exhaustible as oil and we'll face the problem again in the future.
Splitting those atoms is the only sure way we have to keep our economy alive and to do so without destroying our climate. Yes, the waste is a problem, but nothing compared to inaction when the oil supply begins to shrink.
The other big thing to do is go after EFFICIENCY. The good news is that the price of energy will force it (again, this left-leaning liberal might suprise you by saying "markets work."), but the bad news is that we might not be able to make the needed changes quickly enough.
I'm genuinely worried about the next 25 years and energy. I'm far more worried about this than the "terrorist threat." Why? Because when gasoline rises to $10+ USD per gallon it will affect many more people than any suicidal maniac possibly could, even with NBC weapons.
A world without oil (or oil prohibitively expensive) is a world where everything you have must be made and moved with your own hands. Take a look around you and ask yourself how much of what you have now you could have in such a world?
Obviously human ingenuity and engineering skills won't disappear. We'll come up with things. The new computer controlled phase driven electric motors being developed might very well give us a way to do our transport and civil engineering with electricity instead of oil. Other developments will come. But how soon?
I can imagine a return of regional food production. The return of railroads for the bulk of freight and interstate travel. Etc.
Our present just-in-time economy is based on cheap oil. It won't be with us much longer.
Re:New trend? (Score:4, Informative)
So what happens when we hit peak uranium? There are two major uranium isotopes, only one of which is suitable for use as nuclear fuel. It's also the one that there is the least supply of. The two isotopes together can be used to create vast amounts of plutonium, but nobody considers that a viable alternative because it could mean the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The only REAL alternative is not splitting atoms, but fusing them [efda.org]. That technology is being developed, but it won't be ready till mid-century. When it gets here, the use of deuterium and tritium as fusion fuels will provide us with enough energy for several million years (though our lithium supplies will run out much earlier, still well beyond even our great-grandchildren's lifetimes), but we need something to sustain us till then. Fission may help as a stopgap measure, but it's no replacement for oil.
And of course all of this ignores oil as used in the production of goods, such as plastics. Processes such as thermal depolymerization may assist in this, but that's still largely unproven technology.
It's gonna be a rough couple of decades, children. Better buckle up.
Re:New trend? (Score:5, Interesting)
The somewhat hyperbolic site I link to in my parent post gets one major thing wrong, IMHO. He points out that the energy return on energy invested in making hydrogen from water by is 1/1.7, which he says makes it impossible. If solar photovoltaics are used to provide that electricity, however, it becomes totally feasible. Hydrogen can be the storage medium and transportable form for renewable electricity.
That said, all the energy density problems and economies of scale issues are still there. We will all have to do with less. Right now oil's EROEI is about 30/1, which is just phenomenally good. That free ride is coming to an end.
Still, I tend to be an optimist. I do believe we will shift resources. I do believe we can get public-spirited conservation. I do believe we can actually substantially reduce oil demand (we will have to) and the market will make us do it. I'm not sure there will have to be "oil panic" scenario the doomsayers paint. The price will make us do things differently. They (the peak oil doom crowd like the site I referenced) assume that the peak itself will be a catastrophic moment. I'm not sure I believe that. I think we've just seen the start of a steady, perhaps accelerating rise in prices. But I promise you, that will reach a point where it reduces demand and where it will drive investment in new technologies.
As for the other uses of oil in making plastics, drugs, paints, etc. Well, the switch to alternatives will "free up" some of that supply. Also, it is possible to synthetically produce many of those products from more basic organic compounds, it is just too expensive to o so right now.
No, my big worry is fertilizer and the food supply. I don't see how we can avoid a decrease in food production. Still, from Paul Erlich onwards, those who have given us predictions of doom by such-and-such a time have been consistently wrong. And I think that is only because their predictions are based on an "all things being equal" basis. The trouble is things change. New technologies, new efficiencies, clever ideas. That won't stop happening.
The one thing we can be sure of, however, is that the world 50 years from now will not look much like the world of today. And I'd say that might be a very good thing. Sure, it might be an epoch-shattering disaster. But I'd prefer to work on making it a good thing.
It is going to be a challenging time. I sure agree with you on that!
Re:New trend? (Score:3, Informative)
They (the peak oil doom crowd like the site I referenced) assume that the peak itself will be a catastrophic moment. I'm not sure I believe that. I think we've just seen the start of a steady,
Kunstler's book about the long decline down the tail of Hubbert's peak agrees with you.
Rather than an abrupt panic, he predicts a "Long Emergency" [truthout.org].
While I agree with much of Kunstler's pessimism, I believe he dismisses the propects of technological innovations too quickly. Not that such innovations will be a panac
Re:New trend? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:New trend? (Score:3, Insightful)
A cynic who looked at the whole thing closely, beginning to end, might just come the conclusion that the whole thing smacks at least as much of trying to get consumers out spending as it does "saving energy."
Hey everybody, get in the car. We're going to drive to the mall shop for Gaia!
KFG
Re:New trend? (Score:2)
From TFA:
>part of a patriotic effort to save energy and fight global warming.
The problem is that Japan won't be able to meet their obligations from the Kyoto Agreement.
Re:Kyoto - the impossible dream (Score:3, Insightful)
Fine... but what is the U.S.'s alternative plan to fight global warming? As far as I can tell, the current plan is to deny that the problem exists, and hope it will go away.
Re:Kyoto - the impossible dream (Score:4, Insightful)
While in the US, we've ignored Kyoto, pumped more pollution into the Greenhouse, and so continue to face the damaging consequences. A little bit less, thanks to Japan's participation (and the rest of the participants). But, by the same token, the world is still facing the Greenhouse, because the huge US contribution continues unabated. We're getting a "free ride to hell". When we could be saving our own necks, and everyone else's, with any degree of compliance.
How about our own declaration, less than the limits of Kyoto, but still mandated to have impact here? We'd be independent, we'd set our own model that works best for our unique situation, and we'd actually reduce the threat of disaster. Rather than the "all-or-nothing" rejection of Kyoto, so convenient for so many rich, powerful polluters, and so threatening for all of our lives.
Re:New trend? (Score:2, Interesting)
Bravo, Japan. Brilliant.
Re:New trend? (Score:3, Interesting)
This sounds like a new twist on the same thing. Sorry, excuse my scepticism, but as soon as I read the story, my reaction was "t
Re:New trend? (Score:2)
I hope so because at the moment we are going backwards, the model T ford 100 years ago is more fuel efficient than the average car today.
Re:New trend? (Score:2)
Woah! (Score:4, Insightful)
Or not. You never know.
It's extremely impressive, though, that they could manage to triple the output of their industrial sector for the same energy consumption - makes me feel guilty about doing nothing at all about climate change in my own home.
Hooray for energy saving (Score:5, Insightful)
Whatever happens with Kyoto, I think it's great to see a few governments here and there finally leading by example, and getting involved in encouraging and providing incentives for saving energy. Hopefully it'll get some power saving technologies and industries much more established than they were before, and some people might actually begin to realise that there are more benefits to being efficient than possibly reducing the effects that power generation might have on the environment. Some of it may even carry over into countries that initially didn't sign on to Kyoto.
In New Zealand, where I am, finding ways to save energy has almost become a necessity, albeit one that the general population is noticing very slowly. (The main theme at the moment is everyone wanting to build more power stations, but nobody wanting them in their back yard.) Call it lack of planning if you like, but the power situation here is at the state where we're presently on the edge of getting brown-outs.
The geographic isolation makes it necessary to be entirely self-reliant with power generation, and saving energy becomes a definite alternative to generating more. (Not all the time, but certainly much of the time.) Being someone who's quite enthusiastic about reducing light pollution, it's helpful to finally have some government bodies to deal with whose actual purpose revolves around finding new ways to save energy, such as this one [eeca.govt.nz].
My understanding, from having spoken to people there, is that the US Federal government is comparably hopeless at implementing energy efficiency schemes, for whatever reason. (That'd mean less jobs for all those americans in the power generation industry, right?) Apparently it's a much healthier economy when a few billions of dollars extra are circulating, even if it is for energy that's not actually necessary... but whatever.
If you happen to have an interest in energy efficiency, though, I've heard that state governments and more local authorities in general are often a lot more receptive about promoting it. I presume that it's probably much easier in states that buy more energy from neighbouring states than they sell. eg. Calgary (okay, that's Canada but it's in the same direction as the US from here) recently went through a programme [calgary.ca] of replacing every one of their street lights. It's expected to pay off entirely within six to seven years, through operating costs of the lights alone.
Re:Woah! (Score:3, Insightful)
eat willy (Score:2)
Re:Woah! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Woah! (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the whales would disagree with you on that.
Australia and Kyoto (Score:5, Interesting)
The reason why australia didn't ratify kyoto is because kyoto also counts all forest fires as emissions of CO2, because, well, they are emissions of CO2.
Australia has forest fires larger than engliand in the western australian forests every year. If australia ratified kyoto and got on the emissions trading scheme, australia would be economically crippled by having to buy emissions credits all the time. So Howard looked after the bottom line and refused to sign.
Now, if only we could find a way to prevent forest fires. I have a friend who is trying to get a job as a postgraduate research assistant at the Victorian Fire Prevention Center with her very good botany degree... maybe she can help.
Re:Australia and Kyoto (Score:4, Funny)
That said, I will still argue for hours on end that Australia is one of the best countries on the planet in my eyes.
For the record, while I think Canada's also a pretty damn fine country, I now live in Japan where I flush my ultra-efficient Japanese toilet every day.
25000 sq km? (Score:5, Funny)
This [waterconserve.info] is a fire.
Re:Australia and Kyoto (Score:3, Funny)
No she can't.
Only YOU can prevent forest fires!
Re:Australia and Kyoto (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah right.
Kyoto is about fossile fuels adding pre historic CO2 to the global atmosphere.
Forest fires are are a form of recycling and not covered by the treaty.
Talking about a myth...
In addition... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In addition... (Score:5, Interesting)
So, what we're talking about is more like an oportunity to sell Godzilla a more energy efficient water heater.
Encouragement? (Score:5, Insightful)
Tax increases (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Tax increases (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Tax increases (Score:5, Insightful)
Depends on how the tax is structured. If you just put a flat tax on gasoline, yes that is unfair. But if you tax by efficiency of the vehicle, and set a zero tax level at something reasonable like a 1.5L engine, then the impact should be small,
Re:Tax increases (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's the straight story: you buy more gas, you pollute more, you use the roads more, you pay more tax. Get over your "woe is me, I'm a poor mofo" whining. If you want to start arguing about including a car efficiency factor or car weight factor in the tax, fine. Because those differences actually matter. But stop complaining because someone else worked
Re:Tax increases (Score:2)
Re:Tax increases (Score:5, Insightful)
In my eyes, you certainly aren't paying the environmental costs (ie the approximated costs of restoring the destruction you've caused) of burning the fuel you use (I've seen calculations in the 2-3 per liter range - would be around $15 per gallon, I think). Even you aren't from the US as I think, but a co-european of mine, you certainly aren't paying those gas prices.
Re:Tax increases (Score:2)
Yup - at the moment I think the price for petrol in the UK equates to around $6/gallon.
-- Pete.
Re:Tax increases (Score:5, Funny)
With pleasure.
Why bother? (Score:3, Funny)
So... (Score:2, Funny)
and boost their economy (Score:5, Insightful)
Japan is a leading car manufacturer (especially when it comes to "green" vehicles) so this would also benefit their economy.
Re:and boost their economy (Score:2)
This is not news. (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, because of Japan's very high population density and its huge demands on water, it's also the country where much of today's water-efficient plumbing originated. After all, it was the Japanese plumbing fixture company TOTO that helped originate the concept of not only low-flush toilets, but also toilets where you can choose the amount of water to use per flush for even higher water efficiency.
Re:This is not news. (Score:2)
Re:This is not news. (Score:2)
Re:This is not news. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This is not news. (Score:2)
Three settings. Poot, Flood and Tongs.
Things change fast - try to keep up. (Score:4, Informative)
Even if it was correct (CATO's impartiality is doubtful), it is four years out of date. Less than two years later Toyota was reporting per-vehicle profits on the Prius [gaspig.com]. Batteries and the like have only gotten cheaper since then, and it's not like Toyota has to offer incentives to move them!
If you are talking about constant-speed cruise on flat highways, you'd be right; a car with only those features and no hybrid hardware would be lighter and get even better mileage (as long as it didn't have to climb hills). But that isn't "where the rubber meets the road"; hybrid drivetrains pay off big due to:Re:Things change fast - try to keep up. (Score:3, Insightful)
Except the largest percentage of energy in the US comes from COAL.
Every time one of those idiots charges up their car from the grid, that's more radioactive soot thrown into the air. Gee, thanks.
Re:Things change fast - try to keep up. (Score:3, Insightful)
These are Californians; their electricity comes from Columbia River hydro and natural gas. Every time they charge up, someone's job at an aluminum smelter or chemical plant gets moved overseas instead. ;-)
Which a) is only true today, as the generating mix can and will change (Californians are particularly big on wind and sol
Government in bed with manufacturers again? (Score:4, Interesting)
The compulsory registration fees already make it expensive enough to run a car here, and suspect this is more of the same - "keep people purchasing, and keep the economy afloat." After all, it has worked for the last 50 years here.
Go Japan! (Score:5, Insightful)
I also don't think as a country you can look to Americans to develop much in the way in efficiency technologies. Our mentality when faced with shortage is to go out and find or create some more. But efficiency is just as valid a sphere for creativity as production, and it works just as well I think; better in some scenarios.
Huh? Where? (Score:5, Insightful)
And it's not like the newer products have any reason to exist sometimes. I just got done fighting with my oven for an hour because my idea of an oven (a box that gets hot into which you put raw food and remove it when it's cooked) is very different from what the Toshiba marketing department came up with (a box with a million digital buttons on the front that ultimately control a big heating coil and a frickin' timer--but does so in the most circuitous and bizarre manner possible, so you know it's advanced).
Re:Huh? Where? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Huh? Where? (Score:3, Funny)
1-liter houses in Germany? Bah. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:1-liter houses in Germany? Bah. (Score:3, Informative)
Follow: http://www.ncc.se/english [www.ncc.se] and click on the ncc concept house image.
Not just w/o heating; it's w/o an electricity bill (Score:3, Informative)
Quite a step forward from just "not having heating". Especially considered it's not a residential house, but a business conference center.
Re:Not just w/o heating; it's w/o an electricity b (Score:2)
Japanese geeks are leading the effort.. (Score:2, Funny)
Interesting fact from TFA (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Interesting fact from TFA (Score:3, Informative)
Yes. The low cost of labor makes it economically unattractive to invest in capital equipment.
Re:Interesting fact from TFA (Score:2)
This is correct. China likes using coal for its energy needs. Also, in some parts of China the infrastructure is not stable yet. It is not uncommon to see plants and factories to have their own generators of electricity that are powered by gas.
made in Japan :) (Score:3, Funny)
-What do you mean, Doc? All the best stuff is made in Japan.
-Unbelievable.
An easy way to save a lot of energy (Score:2)
In conjunction with that slap a heavy tax on offices for night time use of power to force them to force their employees to turn off all non-essential equipment like desktop computers, monitors, lights etc. when no one is there to use them.
Re:An easy way to save a lot of energy (Score:2)
1. Mandating the use of VESA DDC-2 power saving techniques that automatically switches a CRT monitor into low-power saving and near-zero power use "OFF" modes. People forget CRT monitors, especially the larger screen sizes, can use hundreds of watts of power.
2. Switching everyone to LCD displays, which uses a quarter to a third of the power of CRT displays. These also benefit for VESA DDC-2 power saving techniques.
Re:An easy way to save a lot of energy (Score:3, Insightful)
The rating of a PSU is a maximum. Your system is going to use the same amount of power no matter what PSU you have in it. Your hard drive does not all of the sudden become more energy efficient because you swapped a 400w for a 250w. You've merely limited the capacity of your system.
Futhermore, by using an older power supply, you may actually be using more energy. However, I do not know the efficiency comparison
It's real (Score:4, Informative)
Article forgot to mention that (Score:2)
So it's not just about throwing away a car for a more efficient one. More efficient city planning would have prevented rising temp costs. But the Ja
And Japan will suceed (Score:4, Insightful)
And Japan will succeed. Meanwhile, here in America, our government and big bisiness seem to be each others' ally as their policies still encourage heavy dependence on foreign oil and the use of fuel-inefficient vehicles! No wonder the best selling cars are Japanese.
It seems all the so called American innovation is no where to be seen. I'd like to know in which field America is leading the world.
We fly the oldest fleet of passenger aircraft among the industrialised countries,
All our electronics are Asian imports,
We are outsourcing our industrial base to the extent that the home grown textile industry is under seige,
I hear with the present policies, almost one-half of our defense hardware will be manufactured by foreign companies by 2018!
Briliant academicians now rather to to Scandinavia than come to USA,
Our healthcare system is the worst performer in the G7, even Cuba beats us in some cases, and on and on and on.
I pitty the generations to come.
Re:And Japan will suceed (Score:2)
I have an advice for you. If this is that bad, if you can't take it anymore, why not move somewhere else? Why not quit your fucking day job and becoming a miner in a third world country. Then I will pitty you.
Re:And Japan will suceed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:And Japan will suceed (Score:3, Funny)
Swift Boat bastards...
Everybody, but the USA, should reduce their demand (Score:4, Funny)
This is working out quite well, I must admit. If we get Japan and other countries to decrease their energy usage and drop their demand for oil, we'll get cheaper oil if the production does not slow down!
With that, I will finally be able to get a Ford Excursion or a Hummer (H2, not the pussy H3 version) a good gas-loving asphalt-ripping sports car and cheap gas that I can pump on a daily basis without destroying my wallet.
Slashdot's Political Bias (Score:3, Funny)
I have a live, and can't be here to pimp the President's energy policy 24/7. It's disconcerting to see that Slashdot goes all the way to Japan for a story taking place in their own back yard.
Do the Math (Score:3, Interesting)
150 ma of idle current is a tad high, by the way. It's closer to
If you can pull your head from your rectum long enough, you might find that there is this concept known as "common ground", and while you'd rather be bashing Bush, you should
"Japan vetoes suits in summer heat" (Score:3, Interesting)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/459
Here's what I want from Japan (Score:3, Interesting)
Even better, a _diesel_ Toyota Prius that can recharge the same way. That thing would get 50mpg from the engine alone, plus synergy drive would probably drive fuel consumption down even further.
Re:Does Buying Hybrid Vehicles Really Help? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Does Buying Hybrid Vehicles Really Help? (Score:4, Insightful)
As they exist today electrics and hybrids do not help in reducing overall pollution or save energy, although they could be a great boon to cities such as New York, Los Angeles and Tokyo for local reductions. That simply means that the pollution goes where there is less of it now though.
And they're not as much of a boon as bicycles. In LA it is usually sunny and pleasantly warm; and the last time I looked up the statistics 90% of the population lived within 5 miles of work.
It takes 20 minutes to drive to work, and 15 to bicycle. Thank God for modern time saving devices that threaten our lives and effectively bankrupt us pursasing, maintaining, fueling and insuring ourselves against the damage we're going to do with them. What would we do without them?
KFG
Re:Does Buying Hybrid Vehicles Really Help? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Does Buying Hybrid Vehicles Really Help? (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, that's easy. They burn gasoline. They just use it in a way that allows them to manage the energy produced in a slightly different way. So you're in effect asking if they get better mileage than an internal combustion car.
I personally have my doubts that at its current stage of development hybrid technology is an improvement, at least compared with the best that internal combustion vehicl
Re:Does Buying Hybrid Vehicles Really Help? (Score:3, Informative)
Toyota certainly has. And they are NiMH, not Li Ion.
Re:Does Buying Hybrid Vehicles Really Help? (Score:2, Insightful)
Run the numbers, or just LOOK. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Does Buying Hybrid Vehicles Really Help? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Does Buying Hybrid Vehicles Really Help? (Score:2)
I can take the point about power stations and efficiencies of scale, but I can't tell what inference you intend us to draw.
Re:Does Buying Hybrid Vehicles Really Help? (Score:2)
As for how much fossile fuels used in the production, I expect that it's significantly less even accounting for distribution inefficiencies. A power plant generating power for a city, running constantly in its optimal working point seems to me to be significantly more efficient than the average car engine. Factor green energy
Fuel cells are a red herring (Score:2)
In fact, Toshiba have a li-ion which charges in minutes and has negligible degradation even after thousands of charges. At around 300 miles per charge and thousands of charges we have vehicles which will travel half a million miles, a million miles before the batteries are an issue. The *batteries* are no longer the problem.
"hydrogen storage tec
Re:Fuel cells are a red herring (Score:2)
That would be great except the batteries you talk about are exorbitantly expensive to manufacture on the type of scale and size needed for an automobile the size of a Honda Civic.
Re:Fuel cells are a red herring (Score:2)
Here's an estimate of the problem for a laptop battery of this type:
This means that for 5 minutes you have to maintain a current of 240 amps at 20V, a whopping 4.8KW. This is roughly equivalent to 43A at 110V or 22A at 220V.
I do not know many homes who'se circuits can handle that kind of current. Typical fuse
Re:Does Buying Hybrid Vehicles Really Help? (Score:2)
As for the batteries- Once we get the kinks worked out of powering cars from hydrogen fuel cells this will become a non-issue.
Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (Score:5, Informative)
The batteries used in hybrids last as long as the vehicle, 150,000 - 200,000 miles at least and are guaranteed for at least 8 years. The batteries are NiMH, not lead acid or Nicad.
e.g.
http://pressroom.toyota.com/photo_library/display
Re:Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (Score:5, Interesting)
I thought the Prius batteries were warrantied for 10 years, not 8.
Re:Just trading problems? (Score:4, Insightful)
they can be contained , atmospheric pollution can't.
Hell we could blast the batteries to the moon and leave them there , we cant just vacuum up the atmosphere
Re:To all the American's (Score:3, Informative)
Re:To all the American's (Score:3, Informative)
Re:You fail to give one other reason for SUVs... (Score:3, Interesting)