Computers Should be Held to the Same Standard as Cars
From smart grids to complicated "cap-and-trade" schemes, the Obama Administration has taken a catholic view to any and all means to dramatically reduce US dependence on foreign energy -- while at the same time lowering pollution levels and mitigating climate effects. Problem is, often the search for grand solutions overlooks the simple and the obvious. For example, to reduce the national electric bill, why not start by requiring our basic electronics to run more efficiently?
Forty percent of all energy used in the US -- whether oil, natural gas, wind or solar -- is converted into electricity. Thanks in large measure to the electronics industry, US demand for electricity is forecast to grow by a whopping 40 percent over the next two decades. The computers, laptops, mobile phones, flat screen TVs, and video game consoles that define modern life consume ever amounts of energy -- each new generation of device hungrier than the last. The cost to business is even higher: power consumed by the typical corporate data center is growing by 20 percent per year.
More than gasoline, it may turn out that our voracious demand for electricity is what could keep us dangerously dependent on foreign energy. By all means, let's revamp our antiquated and vulnerable power grid. And, the more power-frugal and carbon-conscious our companies become the better. But why not think small too? It would be dumb to tamp back the fruits of innovation coming out of places like Silicon Valley, but why not challenge our best and brightest engineers to cut the power demand these new gadgets require? And let's not be cute about it, let's mandate it. We set efficiency standards for cars, why not set them for electronics too?
Can it be done? Yes -- and here's just one example.
Sehat Sutardja, chairman and CEO of Marvell Semiconductor, recently wrote about a technology called "power factor correction" that was invented in the 1980s but has since been forgotten -- or ignored. How does a PFC work? Up to half of the electricity used by modern appliances is wasted on an archaic delivery system: copper wires. PFCs work by "harmonizing" the flow of current making the interchange of energy between power source and device more efficient. How efficient? A PFC adapter can cut energy consumption in half.
The best part is, adding power factor correction to your typical device today would only add about one dollar to the retail price. For an additional dollar, would you pay to have a TV set that consumed half the power? Of course. And conversely, if we had a one dollar device that doubled a car's mileage, would it be required by law. Again, of course.
So, what is holding up the full-blown adoption of PFCs? Despite the impetus to go green, these are uncourageous times for industry. An uneasy economy and the prospect of an uncertain Christmas season is dampening any will to change by leaders of the electronics industry. As a result, this is one of those times when government leadership and action could make a big difference.
Bill Gates once famously claimed that "if GM had kept up with technology the way the computer industry has, we would all be driving $25.00 cars that got 1,000 miles to the gallon." Bill was probably right about the price but way off on the mileage analogy given the power appetite of today's PCs. Yet, his underlying message -- that the electronics industry embraces change better than the auto industry -- is fundamentally correct. Silicon Valley is not Detroit; technical challenges are welcomed here in an industry that thrives on brutal creative destruction. It won't take much for the government to tweak us into action on power factor correction and other power-saving technologies
First, the White House should simply show the way. By a stroke of his pen, President Obama could resolve that all government offices convert to PFC power adapters, thereby saving tax payers a sizable share on their government's monthly utility bill. That alone could be the tipping point to a free market response. And, if state governments and other enlightened institutions followed suit, a giant market might be created for PFCs, which would stimulate job creation and cut US energy consumption at the same time. And if that didn't prime the pump, the Federal government could install CAFE-like energy standards of all electronics products, making energy efficiency of everyday appliances a national priority. After all, what's good for the Hummer is good for the Hoover.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I always hated this silly comparison. Automobile technology does not operate in accordance with Moore's law. Cars are MUCH closer to the THEORETICAL efficiency of a heat engine than we were to the theoretical maximum density of transistors when Moore's law was formulated. There simply not room in physics for increasing heat engine efficiency by FIVE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE like we have with chip density.
And if Microsoft produced cars it would have been sued out of existence years ago as its product's endless flaws would have killed so many people ,like the Pinto x 1000.
Yes, let's mandate all of these things, because its obviously not in the interest of electronic manufacturers to improve the efficiency of the items they sell in a highly competitive marketplace, nor can people look out for their own self interest by conserving electricity. Naturally, any mandate from Congress, would only be the most elegant piece of legislation that would only serve to increase energy efficiency, and would not be used by lobbyists from different industries to advance their own interests.
Tom Haynes, your proposal is beyond pointless. In this case, the cure you propose is worse than the illness.
Another thing that could be done is mandating sleep-timers on all TVs that are automatically activated when you turn it on.
There are hundreds of ways that modern technology could be used to reduce the power that modern technology requires. It is only a matter of the will to get it done.
Computers are, as an emergent result of decreasing width of the wires within integrated circuits, getting more efficient all the time.
You have to consider the electricity cost per mathematical operation in order to gain any understanding of how much more efficient computers are than they used to be. By that metric, they are astoundingly efficient.
Smaller 45nm process integrated circuits use less power, are faster, and run cooler than previous generations of processors. The next generation holds even more promise in this area.
That is not always true, all of chips manufacturing processes from certain manufacturers can use more power than expected if the transistors(gates) are leaky. In a gate some current always leaks backwards, the wrong way, through the gate and since the rest of the gate suffer from the same problem as well, this can increase power usage. The technical reasons are complex and there are more reasons why a chip can use more power due to the manufacturing process, but an example of a chip that have had power problems are the 90nm Prescott based Intel Pentium 4.
Packing more transistors onto the chip has the effect of increasing power demands as well (see the nVidia Geforce 285). However, it is difficult to use roughly the same number of transistors from process to process for a chip, eventually a chip runs out of places for current machinery to reliably place all of the I/O, power, and ground connections or "pads" for the chip. Using a flip-chip packaging, for inexpensive chips increases the amount of "pads", but can also increase cost in an unacceptable manner. Besides, chips also almost always need to be totally redesigned anyway so that they can be made on a new process.
Making reliable Silicon Carbide MOSFET transistors would bump up power supply efficiencies as well, the best PSUs, with SiC diodes, are up to 85% efficient other PSU are as low as 65%. SiC transistors could push PSU efficiencies above 90%.
I like the idea of a "gluttony" tax on energy consumption. Determine the amount of power needed for basic operations of a 2,000 sq. ft. house and number of adults/kids - factoring climate, medical needs, heating/cooking tools, etc - and set that as a baseline. If you exceed that, you are assessed an extra fee commensurate with the excess consumption. That tax would go directly toward research/d
Maybe I'm just too annoyed at seeing neighbors lighting up every stinking window in their 5,000 sq. ft. house with lights all day and all night. Their extreme waste has a social and environmental and economic impact, whether they want to believe it or not.
Yes, another tax will solve everything.
No, not everything, but much like you weren't born that cynical, some things need to happen in small steps.
Your neighbors are paying for their electrical consumption, yes? What you're really proposing is reverse class warfare, based on the idea that you don't think they should be allowed to live the way they want.
From what you describe, they use more power (which they pay for), and as a result probably produce more light and heat pollution, although both are probably minimal. Not know the source of their electricity, it's impossible to estimate their environmental impact, although I'd point you to an article that suggests that there are 15 cargo container ships that put together produce more pollution than all the automobiles in the world combined.
In terms of energy independence, yes, they're sending some of that money indirectly overseas, but that's a more general problem than someone leaving their lights on.
While we are talking about wasteful appliances, what about plasma television sets, refrigerators and resistance element heaters? Incentives could make it profitable for both consumers and companies to turn away from wasteful electrical consumption, but they've always been fought by the utility industry.
Copper wires are an archaic delivery system? What would you suggest?
Power factor correction absolutely will NOT decrease energy consumption by 50%.
PF correction devices always surface when electricity costs start to increase. You can buy a device that treats your entire home. They have little, if any, effect on the energy consumption and the price you pay for electricity.
PF are used extensively in industry, but the rate schedules from the utilities encourage high PF. For residential consumers, PF is not an issue with the utilities.
Err... actually most PC power supplies already have some form or another of power factor correction in them, and they still use copper wiring. It can make the ac to dc conversion smoother, and more efficient, but once the power leaves the PSU, it's all DC, and as near as I can tell, PFC only applies to AC voltage.
For example, when a new CPU introduced, the first generation tends to be very bleeding edge, consumes lots of power, and generates lots of heat. As time passes, manufacturing becomes more efficient, and the power consumption / heat generation actually drops. Manufacturers such as AMD and Intel both have energy efficient CPU's which draw less power while providing near-identical performance.
By all means, let's move to more efficient electronics, but let's try practicality first: How many CPU cores does your computer have? How much memory? What are the power-saving settings on your desktop? Do your hard drives spin down? Are you using a multi-core gaming graphics card? What do you use your computer for?
As a "computer guy", I regularly argue with users who feel they have to have a $2,500 workstation with one or more quad-core CPUs and a top notch video card, to use for bookkeeping, email and web. It's a waste of money and a waste of energy, but people think they have "to keep up".
New, low power devices are coming out, though, and it's in response to demand for cheap, practical computing.
Gates' analogy is wrong. If the auto industry produced cars like Microsoft makes Windows, cars would freeze up arbitrarily and without warning on the road and the locks would be so defective criminals could break into them anytime they felt like it. with barely a care.
Oh, and those cars would way ten tons each and be 60 feet long by 15 feet wide.
If MS made cars like it did Windows, we would we would use coal and get one ton of coal per mile as well. You would also be shoveling in the coal yourself.
How much better off we would BE if we were completely dependent on foreign ENERGY but produced ALL our goods right here in the USA. For all their ranting about free markets and "competition", Repugs have nearly destroyed and continue to try to destroy, all POSSIBLE competition by allowing more and more mergers and reducing the number of corporations that are left TO compete. What we NEED to do is change the copy right laws making copy rights good for no more than 10 years for ANYTHING made. The maker/inventor would have exclusive income from their work and then others would COMPETE with them to make more of IT, thereby opening up more opportunity, more jobs and more innovation AND competition. Other countries would HAVE to sell THEIR energy, oil or whatever at REASONABLE prices in order to get OUR goods at reasonable prices.
Instead, Repugs have spent the better part of the last 30 years, systematically, DESTROYING our ability to MAKE A LIVING, even as they've allowed PROFIT MARGINS to out grow everything else. Raise prices so high we struggle to pay for necessities, then take our jobs away and blame us when we cannot pay our bills AND deny unemployment benefits or food stamps and health care.
What a world!
I think you mean "patents" not "copyright". But I agree with your point completely. The social and economic impacts of patents (not to mention the frivolous manner in which they are granted) is astronomical.
Yes! Maybe the Feds can do for Silicon Valley what they've done for Detroit!
The www would be most primative if computers were like cars. Spare me from a world where computers were like cars. Drive your car for 40 minutes. Use your computer for 40 minutes. There is a difference, isn't there?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
