I find it interesting that (based on this article) the ranking seems to have nothing to do with energy efficiency, just spending and planning.
If my state spends big $$$ to save "x" energy, but the effort required to build and implement these changes uses "2x" energy, I come out on top. Why would anyone do this? We do it now, with products that use more energy to manufacture and distribute than they will save in their lifetime. We do it with ethanol, which also generates more pollution than it saves.
People must provide personal information and register on the ACEEE site before they can download the report. I don't know whay sites do this sort of thing, but it presents a barrier that keeps me from going any farther.
Given the results of states on energy efficiency, the pattern seems to be that wealthy states do better than poor states. That fact that Massachusetts is at the top and Mississippi is at the bottom says a lot.
Engineers at Fuel Cell Energy have found a way to take advantage of a side reaction, unique to their carbonate fuel cell that has nothing to do with energy production, as a potential, cost-effective solution to capturing carbon from fossil fuel power plants.
To get to a trillion sensors in the IoT that we all look forward to, there are many challenges to commercialization that still remain, including interoperability, the lack of standards, and the issue of security, to name a few.
This is part one of an article discussing the University of Washington’s nationally ranked FSAE electric car (eCar) and combustible car (cCar). Stay tuned for part two, tomorrow, which will discuss the four unique PCBs used in both the eCar and cCars.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.