Powering any device with a single source of energy will be even more of a losing proposition in the future than it is now. Rather, power grids should be powered by renewable energy best suited to local conditions, and the power should be distributed to devices. Not a very exciting answer. But it's simply the truth that there's very little overlap between "objects best-suited to work as consumer electronics" and "objects best-suited to generate electricity from natural sources of power". Sure, you could rig up a clothesline to harvest power from the wind, but the big savings of the clothesline is the power you don't use in running a dryer, and the effort spent retrofitting clotheslines to work as makeshift generators will almost always
be better spent building actual windmills.
I think there's a temptation to over-engineer solutions to energy problems. After all, "let's replace our power plants with other, more renewable power plants" isn't a very exciting answer. A mini power-plant in every pocket sounds more exciting. It may well be more convenient. But let's not mistake convenience for efficiency. I have yet to see a solution for
vampire electronics that is
overall more efficient than just building TVs where you have to actually flip a switch on the TV to turn it on. Efficient is clearly not what the market desires, and there's the rub. It's easier to mistake convenience for efficiency than to create an innovative consumer product that both increases efficiency and sells.
Furthermore, one of the big problems facing the world is that introducing complexity to solve problems
can create additional problems. Adding additional complexity in an innovative way does not avert that problem.
So, how about "design a new way to
not power something you use every day"? Or "design a way to
not use something you power every day"?
You need to be a member of Urgent Evoke to add comments!
Join Urgent Evoke