We recently met with Hewlett-Packard executives to discuss their sustainability and green initiatives. Hard to argue that HP has gone above and beyond the call of duty in this realm, and it’s made it a corporate mission to do more. So my collegues Stephen Stokes, CJ Whelage, and I laid out a challenge for the HP team, and extend it to all laptop manufacturers. And here it is:
Take a new step in thinking about energy efficiency for notebook computers and develop a 12-volt notebook instead of the industry standard 16- to 20-volt varieties.
In doing so, HP and other laptop makers would let consumers, in part, take advantage of the extra electricity generated in various vehicles, allow the use of notebooks on long journeys, and open up access to mobile and fixed computing to a greater cross-section of the developing world where reliable electricity infrastructure is rarely in place.
Can you imagine a world where notebooks are handed out with car charger adapters? Consider the following:
Currently, global sales of notebooks exceed desktop sales and are currently running at around 97 million units annually. Assuming a three-year notebook lifetime and a conservative 20% market growth retrospectively, this implies an installed base of roughly 236 million units. With the typical average power usage levels of 20 watts, and an average daily usage rate of 8 hours, we estimate annual global power usage of notebook to be of the order of 10.4 terawatt hours (that 10.4 million-million watt hours). On average, residential U.S. power rates are 10 cents per kilowatt hour, that’s more than $1B worth of power, power that would have resulted in almost 6 million tons of CO2e (carbon dioxide emissions) being emitted into the atmosphere.
Now, picture this: If 30% of all notebook users used the existing free energy available from automotive recharging for 60% of their notebook electricity demand, annual savings could top more than 1.8 trillion watts of energy. That’s enough to support the annual electricity consumption of more than 175,000 U.S. households and a reduction in GHG emissions of more than a million tons of CO2e (see Figure 1).
In a world looking over longer timescales to expand the fleet of electrical and other hybrid cars, this free energy may not be around forever. But we predict it can significantly dent consumer product energy usage and the resulting greenhouse gas emissions, globally, in the decadal timescales over which HP’s plan is draped. During that time, the notebook market will continue to flourish.
HP seemed keen to take this challenge seriously and we look forward to seeing what they can do with it. What do you think? Any other notebook manufacturers up for the challenge? Let us know.
Kevin O'Marah
July 17, 2008 at 6:19 am
I’d also like laptop manufacturers to start fitting the outside of laptops with solar cells - there is heaps of space on the outside of laptops to gather additional electricity. A no brainer for markets that have ample sun but unreliable electricity supply and a convenient free way to recharge your laptop on the go, wherever you are.
July 18, 2008 at 11:15 am
Great point, A. Bloom.
The interesting angle, which is something addressed by everything from the solar car races across the desert to the old space program is looking for internal self-sufficiency in products rather than assuming an external source of power or other consumables provided by the grid.
Living off the grid is an interesting way to think about the energy problem because it forces us to consider various sources of power, including everything from wind to gravity. I know of at least one big name manufacturer that is looking to build an entire plant off the grid in Iceland drawing exclusively from geothermal. If the company okays it, I’ll write it up and spread the word.
July 21, 2008 at 2:58 pm
The energy provided by a car isn’t ‘free’; it may not be quantifiably measured as a reduction in fuel efficiency in a vehicle, but it’s a cost never the less. After ten minutes on wikipedia, I’d guess that a car is roughly 50% as efficient as a large carbon-based (coal, natural gas, oil, etc.) power plant through to your wall socket at delivering electricity. And if you’re idling the car merely to power your laptop, the efficiency is really going to be abysmal.
So, don’t we want to focus on a total cost of power, including not only the power, but the the ’special’ power supplies required, etc. from product manufacture through to end of life, as well as CO2 and other environmentals?
July 29, 2008 at 8:56 am
Thanks for your interesting point of view. I asked Stephen Stokes, who runs our sustainability service and authored the original post here on this subject to respond. Here’s what he has to say:
I think that we may have accidentally (if you pardon the pun) gotten “wires crossed” somewhat. As you stated, an internal combustion engine, courtesy of thermodynamics and energy transfer, is not exactly efficient at generating torque (the key factor in electricity generation in cars and power stations alike). Likewise—and courtesy of losses relating to fan cooling, bearing friction, and thermal effects—load from the typical efficiency of a modern car generator sites at around 50%-60%. But even at 50% an alternator is capable of providing charge for a car battery and all its various electrical and electronic systems many times over, particularly if any significant distance is traveled.
Now picture this: the US Department of Transport Federal Highway Administration estimated that in April of this year, alone, some 245.9 billion vehicle miles were travelled (the cumulative figure for the year is now likely to be in excess of 2 trillion miles).
The essence of our point is that for a large chunk of these miles traveled, along with all miles traveled, a significant portion of the power generated from car, truck, and bus alternators is surplus to the storage and demand requirement of the vehicles in question. It’s leaking away and for all intents and purposes it’s “free” compared to drawing power specifically generated at a power plant.
We certainly would not suggest running engines for the sole sake of power charging. Ironically due to congestion, however, the Texas Traffic Institute estimates that we sit in congestion for around 38 hours a year, or put another way, quite a lot of potential charging time.
With hybrid sales in the US passenger vehicle market for the first time exceeding 3% of total sales, we see the end of the free or surplus energy from car usage as some way off.
Do we want to focus on total cost of power? Absolutely, yes. Do we want to focus on full product life cycle? Yes, again. The surplus of power generation from car alternators is another chapter in the life history and lifecycle of automobiles that we believe has not been fully utilized.
Thank you for your comments and contribution.