Energy-wasting contest: U.S. firms win hands down
April 29, 2009 by Tom GuayPosted in: Cost Cutting, News, Special Report
There’s plenty — and we do mean plenty – of room for American companies to go green without creating new products, services or trendy environmentally friendly gimmicks.
What’s the secret? Some of the best cost cutting opportunities will be found by improving energy efficiencies to reduce the gluttonous power demands by most modern industries.
Turns out that American producers are “spectacularly inefficient,” according to a new review of operations at 20 facilities by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).
The companies with the most to gain by improving energy efficiencies are the modern industries, like semiconductor manufacturers. High-tech industries use up to one million times more energy, pound-per-pound of output, than do traditional manufacturers, according to the MIT study.
Between making a manhole cover and a micro chip, making a micro chip consumes far more energy and resources. “The seemingly extravagant use of materials and energy resources by many new manufacturing processes is alarming,” says study author, Timothy Gutowski.
The solar power industry gets a thumbs down from Gutowski for its energy consumption. He warns energy usage by solar panel makers is so inefficient that it undermines the point of trying to make these products when you conduct a lifecycle energy balance on them.
In another example, Gutowski says energy-saving opportunities lie ahead for new coating operations that use vapor phase processing. This technique currently relies on vaporizing material in a vacuum chamber to coat surfaces. This may be efficient from a coating point of view as long as energy costs are low. But as energy prices rise, processors may want to work on liquid processing alternatives that don’t demand as much energy.
The MIT study is here.
Tags: energy efficiency, green production, greenhouse gas, lifecycle, MIT, solar power
GreenandMore.com
Loading ...
May 1st, 2009 at 9:07 am
I’ve been in the refuse and recycleing industires for 30 year
I’ve heard all of this before Energy and resoures wasting.
Weres the Technology Then.Were are the inventors
or will I be still wondern 30 years from now
May 1st, 2009 at 10:39 am
Couldn’t agree more. The cost of green is ridiculously high and all I’ve seen is supposedly go green but use carcinogens that have been banned to do so. Somebody (Gore) is getting rich for blowing off more green house gas (CO2) than should be allowed under the new world order rules. Stop cow flatulence NOW!!
May 1st, 2009 at 10:42 am
If Americans thought they could make millions and would be able to buy 10,000 sf houses and luxury cars to park in the garage by creating technology to reduce energy consumption and/or save the environment, it would have been done decades ago. Unfortunately, most of the creative talent in this country is dedicated to industries where people make the big bucks, and the sooner the better. Pursuit of material wealth is more important than investment in the future of our kids, grandkids, and the planet…
May 1st, 2009 at 10:55 am
Since the vast majority of semiconductor and electronics manufacturing is done overseas (and not all by U.S. companies operating plants overseas), shouldn’t this be titled “Engergy-wasting contest: Electronics firms win hands down” rather than “U.S. firms”?
May 1st, 2009 at 11:53 am
I could not agree more with Jim and Gordon. And now there are hundreds of scientists who say they want to revisit their previous views on global warming and greenhouse gases. The intent that they were wrong in the first place. Then I read that the ice pack in Antartica is larger than ever per NASA. And the probes put deep into the ocean to pick up the first signs of global warming turned up nothing. One headline read, “Global Warming Takes A Holiday.” At the very least we have no concrete proof of global warming or that if there is that greenhouse gases by man are the cause. Yet our CinC is charging ahead with cap and trade that will cost billions of dollars and tens of thousands of jobs! Wow! Perfect timing with this economy and the trillions already spent. We sure got the change we wanted.
May 1st, 2009 at 12:01 pm
I personally think making the best use of our resources is a great idea, I also believe that using less toxic chemicals and components makes sense when they work adequate. My problem is like when you take for instance fluorescents lighting, I maintain a large facility for a major US bottler. For years we have had T-8 light fixtures in our office areas. These light fixtures out of the box use about 32 watts per bulb. We in an effort to be greener and save energy reduce the bulbs down to 25 watts. This worked well until an environmental manager was brought in; he decided that we would be greener if we installed motion sensors on many of our lights. Now with the lights turning on and off throughout the day we have gone from changing bulbs every two to three years to now changing these bulbs every six to twelve months. When you consider what it takes to make the light bulb and the hazardous materials in the bulb such as mercury, did it really make sense to add these sensors…? Let’s do what’s right, but let’s not go overboard.
May 1st, 2009 at 12:08 pm
The reference article made no mention of an evaluation or study of manuffacturing processes outside of the U.S.
Why, then, title this article as a ridicule of American business? What standards and definitions are used or applied in the study? Why use the term, “gluttonous,” instead of, i.e., “high,” or “very high?”
These elements and others bring into question that the study and article may demonstrate strong bias in confirming what the producers of the study had already decided.
However, this should not detract from the proposition that U. S. industry, and all of us, should do all that we can to reduce engery consumption.
May 1st, 2009 at 12:17 pm
I guess the average family of four has far more manhole covers under their roof than they do microchips. I’m sick of this leave it to Al gone green crap.
May 1st, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Quite sad how much US manufacturing has been shipped to Mexico, China and a number of “developing” countries where environmental controls are virtually unheard of. Less regulation means lower overhead.
Sadder still is how guilty we are made to feel by the people WE elect. Enough fingerpointing, polarizing and brow beating! When was common sense replaced with junk science and knee-jerk reactions? Follow the money…get into politics and think “GREEN”.
May 4th, 2009 at 7:19 am
I think Gore and others are doing a great thing bringing awareness to better our country. Sounds like most of you who have replied are a bunch of ‘R’s who just sit around complaining instead of working together to come up with more ideas of how to better this beautiful country we live in!!!
May 4th, 2009 at 8:45 am
Looks like Annie is totally compliant with her political correctness. Who is complaining? Who is sitting around? What do you know about anything other than making smart ass remarks? Your retarded approach to life seems like it needs tweaking. Gore is a joke looking for a punchline. Looks like he found one in you.
May 4th, 2009 at 8:59 am
Dear Jim and others,
You can always find “experts” who will have a different opinion about any situation. A huge number of very reliable and respected sources are saying that global warming is happening and happoening quickly. If you spend your time looking for dissenters to that opinion, you will find them. That doesn’t mean that they are right. We can continue to say it’s not happening and ridicule those that say it is, but that is a potentially dangerous approach. As far as I know, we don’t have the technology to move the earth’s population to another planet if we trash this one, so maybe we should err on the side of caution and try to reduce our emissions and energy consumption. And yes, other countries are worse contributors than the U.S. but is that really a reason not to do anything?
May 4th, 2009 at 11:24 am
I keep hearing about global warming. Could someone please explain the mechanics of global warming? How do “green house” gasses change the climate? In the Summer it is hot. In the Winter it is cold. What changes from summer to winter? Does the make-up of the atmosphere change to cause Summer and Winter? i.e. CO2 levels increase to cause Summer… I was taught in grade school that the Earth orbits the Sun, and the amount of sun your hemisphere receives determines if you have Summer or Winter.
Could the experts please explain? or point to the website that explains the “science” of “global warming”
May 6th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
No one can tell the future for certian, but we have to act like we can. The same folks that will not let their 16 yo daughter out after 10:00 because something “might” happen cannot be the same people who will continue to do nothing but deny the evidence of human-caused global warming. It is not worth the risk if you are wrong.
May 7th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Does anyone have a reply or resource to help out Jon. He sounds like someone who may need some convincing that global warming is a real threat. Most everyone understands the threat is real. We’ve learned this from Vice President Gore and other respected scientists. Everyone knows its true but I guess some people aren’t very trustful and need to “see it for themselves.”
We all need to do a better job of explaining the facts to people like Jon.
Can anyone help?
May 8th, 2009 at 8:05 am
This NOAA web address provides links to multiple sites that explain/discuss global warming:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/links.html
May 12th, 2009 at 8:37 am
Jon, as I understand the global warming situation, as explained by 35000 scientists in the letter to president Obama, it goes like this… as the sun becomes more active the planet gets warmer, as it was in 1998. When the sun is less active you get colder as happened in 2008. This theory is called the sun spot theory and has more scientists currently agreeing with it than Al gores flawed science that his own lead scientist admitted he falsified information on… it just doesn’t have the support of hollywood and the current political system yet.
By the way, many of the scientists that are predicting the earth to melt now were the same scientist predicting the next ice age back in 1980… interesting?