Using the same cost amount of fuel(BTU equivalent), you can drive over 4X as far using natural gas as you can petroleum.

Solar thermal energy is easy to capture and store. It is low tech, cheap to manufacture, easy to install and requires almost no maintanence. Solar thermal heating works best as an auxiliary system. Your furnace or hot water heater works the same as it always has, coming on and going off according to thermostat settings----but with solar thermal will come on less often, and run far less time.

The largest use of natural gas is heating buildings and water. If consumers install solar thermal for heating their homes and water, then use the natural gas displaced(or $$$ if they use electric)-----they will be running their vehicles on free solar energy. No batteries required.

You can't get any more cost effective or efficient than free.

Typical natural gas transmission pressures are +/- 1000 psi.

Natural gas underground storage pressures are higher than the pressure in the pipeline, so withdrawal operations do not require compression. The storage pressure is typically roughly equal to the initial pressure in the well when it was placed in production.

Ed

GTL is expensive, and not likely more than about 60% efficient. It might make sense in Qatar, as they have more product (NG) than they can easily export, but I'm not sure it makes sense domestically (North America).

Plus, even if GTL-derived gasoline was 'cheaper', that cost savings would never make it to the consumer. Far too little GTL gasoline could be produced to affect the market price.

Xbox360 and Playstation 3 consume as much electricity as the city of San Diego, I read.

Radon evacution has been addressed with active systems by Artistic Homes as a result of making new home so air-tight.

Electronics and new construction industries are addressing eneregy efficiency, we've observed.

Clothes dryers smay go? In favor of the clothes line?

Tuesday April 26, 2011 06:46

Albquerque Journal writer Michael Hartranft numbers computations.

2,000,000 watts takes 30,000 solar panels 5,000,000 watts each at four additional plants for total of 20,000,000 watts

fast neutron Santa Fe, NM January 12, 2009

From actual experience, wind farms produce 1.2 watts per square meter. Solar Thermal and Photovoltaic methods capture 5 to 6 watts per square meter. There is no economy of size in either technology. Dividing the watts you need by those values gives the land area in square meters needed to produce the juice. The numbers are astronomical

http://www.topix.net/forum/source/santa-fe-new-mexican/T0QVJ5UD3R25C8HRL

If both are correct, 300,000 solar panls are at least required for the additional 4 installations?

Key statements?

30,000 solar panels two megawatts enough power to supply 640 homes first of five pnm solar plants four additional utility-scale slar pojrects Los Lunas, Alamagordo, Deming, Las Vegas eash will have a five megawatt capaciity generate about 51 million kilowatt hours cost about $191,7 million enough power for about 7,000 homes 1 kWh = 3412.14163 BTU.

http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/advocacy/info-11-2010/aarp_opposes_pnm_rate_nm.html?plckItemsPerPage=3&plckSort=TimeStampDescending&plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:1e86727d-bad3-41c6-b276-8f56cd063b62#pluck_comments_list

Energy efficiency offers a powerful and cost-effective tool for achieving a sustainable energy future. Improvements in energy efficiency can reduce the need for investment in energy infrastructure, cut fuel costs, increase competitiveness and improve consumer welfare. Environmental benefits can also be achieved by the reduction of greenhouse gases emissions and local air pollution.

Most commercial buildings in India have energy performance index (EPI ) of 200 to 400 kWh/ sq m/ year . Similar buildings in North America and Europe have EPI of less than 150 kWh/ sq m/ year . Energy-conscious building design has been shown to reduce EPI to 100 to 150 kWh/ sq m/ year in India – development of such buildings is restricted to environmentally-sensitive corporates.Large scale energy-efficient building design is limited due to split incentives - builders fear that they would bear the costs, while tenants would enjoy benefits.

Another area where enormous energy can be saved is in Irrigation pump sets. In India

The State is planning to embark upon a mega energy conservation scheme of replacing the 1.6 million irrigation pump sets with energy efficient pumps. The scheme said to be the first of its kind in the country envisages conservation of nearly 30 per cent energy consumed by the irrigation pump sets. Irrigation pump sets (IP sets) in the Karnataka state(India) suck over 50% of fresh water resources and consume around 40% of the electricity generated. By replacing1.6 millionirrigation pump sets with energy efficient pumps. conservation of nearly 30 per cent energy consumed by the irrigation pump sets is possible. The State Government is embarking on a project on this,

Pump Set Efficiency Evaluation Operating efficiency of all pump sets was evaluated based on the measurement of number of parameters. Out of total 2221 pumps, 1670 pumps were actually tested on site. The overall weighted average operating efficiency based on weighted average of HP rating for all existing pump sets is 28 %. The overall weighted average operating efficiency for new Energy Efficient Pump Set (EEPS) is 48.9%. Head and flow data of each pump set has been considered along with the site water level variation and changes in cropping pattern to select an EEPS from the STAR rated pump sets manufacturers. Estimates of Energy Saving Potential 9. The overall consumption of existing pump sets is work out to be 15.6 Million Units (MU), where as with energy efficient pump sets, the consumption will go down to 9.4 MU for annual average operating hours of 1642 . This will lead to the energy savings of 6.1 MU.(Source: Pilot Agricultural Demand Side Management (Ag- DSM) Project at Solapur, Maharashtra, Detailed Project Report,MITCON, July 2009).

Just imagine the enormous power saving if the 16 million electric irrigation pump sets are replaced by efficient ones.

Another area where much of power can be saved is in lighting.

The concept of green and energy are becoming more and more popular. As more homeowners become aware about protecting our environment and the green building concept. LED lights can be such eco friendly products.

LED energy saving lighting is now becoming most popular for use at home and Industrial areas. LED lights are recommended for use because they are more energy efficient, and can save your dollars in energy bills.

LED lighting systems have a range of benefits which is fast making them the best solution for real energy efficient lighting. LED lighting systems use up to 70% less power than normal lights, which has many more advantages..

Our motto: “Each Kwh saved is each Kwh generated”.

Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore(AP),India Wind Energy Expert E-mail: Anumakonda.jagadeesh@gmail.com

There are substantial cost outlays to simply replace an existing inefficient load like a pump, or dishwasher, or air conditioner. Industrial and residential customers usually wait until existing machines reach the end of their service life before making the choice to replace them with more efficient ones.

This is where governments have the ability to make a huge difference by providing tax or other financial incentives for consumers and businesses to proceed with replacing inefficient loads BEFORE their end of service life. The province of Ontario has been doing this very aggressively for several years now, hoping it will also induce a cultural change with the public to be much more efficiency minded when shopping for new things connected to the grid.

I am not sure what the reference to "other side of the equation" is speaking to, unless it is energy production v. energy consumption...

Energy efficiency is a matter of design, implementation and especially MAINTENANCE!

Industrial/Commercial Energy Consumption: Assign an internal Energy Champion - preferably someone who is good at math, and who is incentivized with consumption reduction metrics. Bring in external consultants to evaluate plant and process energy consumption, and then invest in the wisest operational and maintenance improvements, energy efficiency technology and control solutions. A lot of energy is wasted by things that simply need repair or replacement.

Process industries actually do a reasonable job with this, but commercial facilities fail miserably. I have been to several hotels for conventions in Florida, for example, and they run their AC WAY too hard, making their interiors uncomfortably cold, and then exhaust frigid air out poorly designed entrances and exits, into 90 degree hot humid air. I am certain they are wasting at least 30% of their electric consumption, if not more. On the same summer day in my office, I have to run a small 25W desk fan to stay comfortably cool, while 20 ft away, a co-worker is running a space heater under the desk. What's wrong with this picture???

Personal energy consumption:

Solution #1 - if you are too cold, dress warmly. That has a minimal energy cost (a little extra laundry to do). DON'T crank up the mega-BTU-consuming heater/furnace. Moving around a little bit also helps keep warm, and burns a few more of those fat calories, too.

Solution #2 - Stop buying cars based on their irresponsible horsepower ratings, huge size, and weight. Evaluate what you really need, 99% of the time, and buy a vehicle that meets that need. Here in the USA, $5 per gallon gasoline is only months away, and $6 by the end of 2012. Plan ahead... (my car weighs only one ton, and gets 50+mpg - and I hope the next one will be all electric, providing another 30% reduction in carbon footprint and fuel expense)

Solution #3: High Efficiency lighting. Strive to completely eliminate incandescent lighting in any form. CFD and LED lighting are usable and affordable technologies. CFD's are down under $2 each, and I was able to buy strings of LED lights over the past holidays for as little as $2, and the whole 10' (artificial) tree was beautifully lit for under 50watts total.

Solution #4: Find air leaks in the home. Caulking and insulation are minor investments. Free for the taking - clean the exterior dryer vent every few months so that the flap closes when the dryer is not in use. This is an enormous point-source air leak, costing heating $ in the winter, and cooling $ in the summer.

Solution #5: "Tune-up" furnace and A/C systems. Dirt on the outdoor heat exchanger, and on/in the indoor filters, motors, and ductwork, etc. rob efficiency. In most homes, the heat & A/C systems account for 1/2 to 2/3 of total energy consumption and utlility bill expense. Save 10-30% on these costs by operating these systems cleanly, efficiently, and with a little careful attention to settings. Programmable thermostats will reduce nighttime and "I'm not at home" energy consumption.

Solution #6: Research your appliance purchases in terms of "typical" annual energy consumption, as well water usage for washing machines. Buy efficiency - it typically does not cost too much of a premium, and over an appliance lifetime of 10-20 years, is paid back multiple times that premium, as well as in improved reliability (high efficiency equipment of typically of much better design).

Regards, RWVesel

We knew as much thermodynamics as is known today. We knew that to increase the efficiency of an Otto Cycle engine (spark engine or diesel engine) there was only one way and that was to increase the compression ratio. (Once breathing pressure drops had been improved at increased cost, then unjustified cost, etc.)

Now we are in a different world. Now instead of making things better we are trying to survive. We are all in a life boat. It’s too many people.

Efficiency and engineering do go hand in hand. However, the financial people have channeled engineering efforts with more short sighted "efficiencies" - how do I make something to have a reasonable and reliable lifetime, at the lowest possible cost-to-produce. We have not yet convinced the financial community, and the short-sighted corporate budgeting processes, that the ultimate financial test is ***overall life-cycle cost***. These are more difficult calculations to perform, much of it requires speculation on the nature of the future (usage levels, energy costs, regulatory environments, state of the climate & environment, etc.). Bean-counters throw up their collective hands at this kind of VERY REAL thinking, and fall back on what should be now antiquated "net present value" or similar analysis. Efficiency is not a factor in such calculations. It is just a cost to produce or cost to purchase calculation, and the low-ball price wins, efficiency be damned.

The simple way past this is that purchase specifications should include efficiency performance specifications, and contracts should contain efficiency performance metrics and guarantees, with significant penalties for missing the performance metrics and guarantees. You certainly would want to return a car that advertises mileage figures of X-mpg if you only got 0.8X-mpg in a fair test, wouldn't you? Why not the same for an entire commercial building, or industrial facility, or power plant???

Regards, RWVesel

I went to a good Public HS. I didn’t anticipate it then but I can now confidently say we were better educated in HS than are many who get degrees today. We took four solids: Most students took math, science, English, and a foreign language or an academic elective each of the four years. Except for learning tomorrow’s new foreign words and maybe reading a few pages for English we had very little home work, never any to turn in. There were shop courses, auto, electric, welding; typing, shorthand home econ courses for those not destined for college. There were no courses in self-esteem. There was no hooky. By 10 AM every absent student (there were few) had been checked out by telephone, those who did not have a confirmed reason to be absent had to go through a formal re-admit process involving a parent or guardian. I never once saw any serious bullying, I never saw a fight that went beyond words and an angry shove, I never knew of a girl being pregnant – and this is during four years and 1600 students. There was never any “security” or policeman at the school.

I don’t think public HS’s such as this can exist today. This was before integration and there were no Blacks or Hispanics in the school district, de facto segregation. There was no drug problem and very little crime. A delinquent was a student who chewed gum in class. We all grew up during the Great Depression and WWII, with rationing of almost everything. I know there are some who read this who will not believe it.

I wrote this to explain why I don’t think education (schooling) as now construed can solve either our population nor our behavior problems.

I went to a good Public HS. I didn’t anticipate it then but I can now confidently say we were better educated in HS than are many who get degrees today. We took four solids: Most students took math, science, English, and a foreign language or an academic elective each of the four years. Except for learning tomorrow’s new foreign words and maybe reading a few pages for English we had very little home work, never any to turn in. There were shop courses, auto, electric, welding; typing, shorthand home econ courses for those not destined for college. There were no courses in self-esteem. There was no hooky. By 10 AM every absent student (there were few) had been checked out by telephone, those who did not have a confirmed reason to be absent had to go through a formal re-admit process involving a parent or guardian. I never once saw any serious bullying, I never saw a fight that went beyond words and an angry shove, I never knew of a girl being pregnant – and this is during four years and 1600 students. There was never any “security” or policeman at the school.

I don’t think public HS’s such as this can exist today. This was before integration and there were no Blacks or Hispanics in the school district, de facto segregation. There was no drug problem and very little crime. A delinquent was a student who chewed gum in class. We all grew up during the Great Depression and WWII, with rationing of almost everything. I know there are some who read this who will not believe it.

I wrote this to explain why I don’t think education (schooling) as now construed can solve either our population nor our behavior problems.

FAQ.org - Teen Pregnancy

I told about MY HS. I believe everything I wrote to be true and unembellished. I was careful, prudently aware of possible sharpshooting. I did not say no girl at my HS ever got pregnant – impossible to know, I said as far as I know. I clearly and carefully cited only MY HS at the TIME I was there. Obesity was almost unknown so a girl even in early pregnancy would be obvious. (I can't recall ever having an obese girl in any of my classes over my four years.) Girls could only wear skirts or dresses. There was no “pill” and abortions were both criminal and dangerous. My public grade and HS education was in the ‘30’s and early 40’s. Your statistics apply to a different people at different times and make my point that behavior got very much worse and continues to be very bad.

Those in the rifle club would bring their rifles and ammunition to school whether by bus or bike or car or foot. No documentation.

A few years ago I went to the library in my childhood town. There was a large staff milling about. Patrons’ go through turnstiles and bags are searched and a uniformed city policeman with all the gear they use these days is prominently posted. At a library!! We would not have believed it.

While you are about a decade more of an anachronism than I, we shared much common experience in our youth.

But really, don't you feel much safer now that you are being so thoroughly protected from yourself and others? :-)

Ed

If you're willing to accept the 1996 United Nations WORLD POPULATION MONITORING, 2003, Population, education and development, then you'd find in table 18,

PERCENTAGE OF WOMEN AGED 20-24 WHO BY AGE 20 HAD EVER MARRIED, HAD INITIATED SEX OR HAD GIVEN BIRTH, BY EDUCATIONAL LEVEL

In Africa, 61% of women age 20 with no education, 53% of those with primary school, 27% of those with secondary school atainment.

In Asia, 50% of women age 20 with no education, 47% of those with primary school, 22% of those with secondary school atainment.

In Latin America and Caribbean, 58% of women age 20 with no education, 53% of those with primary school, 23% of those with secondary school atainment.

"{In these areas}, Education thus appears to deter women from early onset of sexual activity but to foster it among men."

Your railing against population increase without recommending a solution leave the field open to many levels of speculation. I'm convinced that arranging adequate education, and social wellbeing for all the earth's people will immediately resolve the "population problem", in the only way acceptable to a civilized person.

By 1830 population had tripled to 1.0 billion and it has been exponential growth ever since. We cannot even effectively stop people from speeding and texting; much less educate them to reproduce responsibly through education. We have made almost no progress against recidivism despite over a hundred years of every imaginable enlightened educational program.

Of course educated Italians and Danes and Germans and et.al do not over procreate but it’s economics not education. They cannot afford to raise and educate more children – and maybe they would just rather have a summer cottage than another kid. And it is so much easier since we have had “the pill.” -Just as it is easier to avoid obesity than it was just a few years ago. We have so many low calorie options and information printed on every package, educational material. Yet we see people every day who only a few decades ago could have made a living merely sitting on a stool in a sideshow beside a two-headed calf.

I understand your point; but, I disagree with it.

If you search around, I believe you would discover that the global approach to climate change is like a "three legged stool": Leg 1 - zero global carbon emissions, through total revision of global energy; Leg 2 - global veganism, to eliminate emissions from animal husbandry; Leg 3 - global population controls (methods undefined); Seat - global governance.

The US President's Science Advisor, John Holdren, is a three legged stool kind of guy; and, a Paul Ehrlich admirer. The UN is in the same camp. To my mind, that makes population control an energy issue; also, animal husbandry.

You will note that there is no unique, generally accepted end point for the global warming issue. I believe that the intent is to get us onto the "slippery slope" before we realize how far "down" is. :-)

“…nature will have its nasty ways of dealing with this problem over time, you can bet on it.” Nature? Nasty? We are talking about billions of people, not merely the trivial tens of millions of the Holocaust and of WWII. The Great Plague is hardly worth mentioning.

“…most others commenting here are only seriously interested in energy issues, not in what goes on in the bedrooms of the nation.” Oh? Well then I have underestimated the venality of Pulsers.

If you are right, that this is primarily a marketing site, then I should resign. Comments?

If population growth is an energy issue as Edward says, then I suppose we should all be wondering why the energy industries aren't promoting far more birth control to all its customers. Good luck to them on that one if they tried it.

Come to think of it Don, maybe you're idea of resigning is a good one, for ME that is, since I've yet to see anyone in government, the utility industry, or the technology providers to energy industries, heed ANYTHING posted on this website. It has gradually become clear to me after many months of blogging here that it has been a royal waste of my time, other than a bit of fun to meet some intellects with unknown faces and enjoy some blogging on-line. Have a good life guys!

I have said this before (sorry) but the notion that problems and solutions are created in corresponding sets with answers in the back of the book is somehow imbedded in many, particularity idealists, with no basis whatsoever that I can detect. Oh, were it true.

As I have said so many times before ( sorry) until recently in man’s presence on the earth has been in low numbers – we would have been endangered specie for nearly all this time. The brains we have today were hard-wired eons before we had to cope with over-population. This hard-wired circuitry served us well in surviving, i.e. keeping ourselves and family and tribe alive for the day. There was no such thing as progress. Every generation was just like the last generation. The past, the present, the future were a featureless continuum. The same and so was the wiring of our brains.

All of a sudden the world changed as it had never before changed in man’s ken. (Evolution responds so slowly that our brains today are almost identical to those of the distant past. Indeed we hear references to still surviving elements of our reptilian brain to explain the egregious behavior of criminals.)

I am surprised that so many people today cannot understand why we (individuals, states, nations) don’t think or conduct sacrifice ourselves in the best interests of humanity. Our brains consider sacrificing ones family or oneself for the benefit of humanity to be insane. In fact a functional definition of insanity is to act in a manner harmful to oneself and family. And this seems to be how Evolution works too.

We always have to start with Here and Now. To solve the overpopulation problem it seems to me that we all have to go insane (according to way we are now wired) or find a way to simultaneously re-wire our brains.

Bob. I hope you don't get too frustrated. I for one, would miss your input here and not only because we appear to agree on many things.

My conjecture is that efficiency improves the standards of living but overall doesn’t reduce consumption. I like most American’s base my standard of living on my income. If fuel cost drops or cars go further and a gallon a gas there is a strong likely hood I will drive more or change my comfort cooling thermostat since I can now afford to be more comfortable, or I may simply have a steak for dinner more often. All of which consume resources and energy

I maintain a monetary/consumption balance. More expensive energy means more expensive everything so I reduce consumption and lower my standard of living to match my income. It may mean that I buy a more efficient auto so I can afford to drive more miles the end product of the car and gasoline consumption.

So I agree energy efficiency is a good thing since obviously increases standards of living but I do not believe it will reduce consumption of energy. Overall only increased energy prices will curtail consumption. Increased efficiency will shift consumption patterns.

There are many pieces in this puzzle we have not established basic facts like what comfort level would individuals operate their homes if power was free. I will label this ideal comfort state. Attaining this would require several times more energy than current comfort cooling since with free energy they would be little incentive not to constantly jokey home temperatures.

If comfort cooling was cheap enough one could be frivolous like an acquaintance of mine in Florida used to be. He would turn the AC temp way down so an aesthetically appealing fireplace could burn while he snuggled up with his wife for a romantic evening in spite of it being muggy and 80 degrees outside. This seems wasteful, but I would argue it was likely less wasteful of resources than driving to a steakhouse for dinner which is perfectly acceptable behavior.

There are many unanswered questions like how much and what would one drive if gasoline was free or nearly so. What is the ideal driving state?

Efficiency is a simplistic suggested partial solution to complex issue. If we reduce electrical consumption and the liberated income is used to fund more driving and the consumption of petroleum what have we accomplished?

My conclusion is efficiency increases ones standard of living, which is a good thing, but will not curtail consumption of energy in an energy intense society. Increased energy cost, not efficiency, is the requirement to reduce consumption. Increased cost is however likely to drive efficiency improvements.

Of course this is all conjecture.

As I see it, there are two circumstances now which are different from the 1800s. First, the efficiency improvements will not be anything like what Watt achieved. No where even close to that. We might get breakthroughs that give 5% or 10%, but not the 300% improvement that James Watt gave us.

The second issue is that we seem to be facing curtailed production, definitely from oil, and perhaps from coal and other fossil fuels as well. In this case, economics of supply and demand would serve to curtail consumption. This was also not present in the 1800s. In fact, since much of the steam power was used to pump out coal mines, the improvement in efficiency also created more coal production (in effect) so that the more coal beds were accessible. For all I know, it could have been this linkage that led to more coal production, and Jevons may have been completely mistaken.

Anyway, take it with a grain of salt. History is a great teacher, except when it isn't.

But as Jim Beyer points out we are bumping our heads against thermodynamic’s linmitations of efficiency.

Quite off topic, but: Every day I see car ads on TV touting high HP engines. Frankly it makes me sick. When a manufacturer says he is selling a car with, say, a 360 HP engine he is also saying that his 360 HP engine means it can consume 30 gallons of gasoline per hour. Give or take a small percentage a gallon of gasoline will always give you 12 HP-hour.

Check it out: a 1929 Model A Ford had a 40 HP engine. It could go about 70 MPH. Hence could use about 40/12 = 3.33 Gal/hour. 70/3.33 = 21 mpg. For many decades VW bugs had a 1200 cc 36 HP engine hence would at maximum use about 3 gallons per hour. If they could go about 75 mph then they would get get 25 mpg. The comparison is quite revealing. The VW engine has a higher compression ratio , hence inherently a higher thermal efficiency. The VW is far more “streamlined “ than the Model A with with its vertical windshield.

Jim: I like Jevons Paradox mainly since it reminds people that a person's energy demand is unlimited, only hampered by their ability to pay. Efficiency improvements in theory should increase consumption, since they should also increase productivity per unit energy, so wealth, so ability to pay.

Let’s see now if we use centimeters for length and seconds for time we could rate corn yield in cm^3 per cm^2 per second which reduces to centimeters per second. Corn yield looks an awful lot like velocity.

My comment about the 360 HP auto engine was to make the point that one could only use that much HP for about a half hour before needing to refill the tank no matter how thermodynamically efficient the engine was.

I use many “abouts” when I talk about gasoline because it is not a defined composition. Winter gasoline has more butane than summer gasoline. And refineries differ. A gallon of butane weighs only 4.87 # while a gallon of benzene weighs 7.37 #. nButane’s calorific value is 103,000 while benzene’s is almost 133,000 so you would go about 30% farther on benzene. For convenience and to avoid fooling myself as to accuracy I often say “my” gasoline has a HHV of 20,000 BTU per # and a gallon weighs 6 #, or 120,000 BTUs per gallon. I have no objection to using 125,000.

The point of maximum e on a test stand is attained at a certain load at a certain rpm. A very lightly loaded engine as is the case of a 360 HP engine only putting out about 24 HP (30 mpg 60 mph, 2 gal per hour x 12 HP-HR/ gal = 24HP)) would not be at the sweet spot as to e. A less efficient engine (i.e. lower r) of lower HP in the same car would get better mileage at 60 mph.

The thermal conductivity of a material expressed in BTU/hour/ft^2/inch/delta degrees F is perfectly understandable and rational although it is no doubt a horror in the minds of those touting the cgs system.

We actually buy a pound of things. We actually buy a gallon of things. We actually know that 6 +/- 0.5 is the height of a man, what a one foot square tile means. We never buy a gram of anything, a ml or cm^3 of anything. I have never seen a liter bottle of wine or a kilogram package of anything here or anywhere. Ergs, grams, dynes, joules, watts are too fine. Degrees C are a bit too course. Hardly anyone knows that what they call a calorie is actually a kilocalorie.

We know what a horse power is – whether it is a 1/10 hp fan motor, a 200 HP auto engine or a 20,000 hp ship engine. We don’t fuss with centi-Horse Power,kilo horse power, mega, giga, etc. and there is no confusion.

Unfortunately we measure some things by volume that make more technical sense if mea rued by weight (OK you purists, by mass) Examples: We measure liquid fuels by volume. This makes butane look bad and diesel look better than it deserves.

And The UK government has just announced (July 2011) that they have beaten their own targets as central government emissions were cut by 14% in the past year. Reductions were the result of energy-saving measures, such as turning down air conditioning and turning off lights.

So it goes to show that energy saving can be achieved by big business and legislative bodies, as I will be discussing more on my blog.