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.
For industrial control applications, or even a simple assembly line, that machine can go almost 24/7 without a break. But what happens when the task is a little more complex? That’s where the “smart” machine would come in. The smart machine is one that has some simple (or complex in some cases) processing capability to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Such machines are suited for a host of applications, including automotive, aerospace, defense, medical, computers and electronics, telecommunications, consumer goods, and so on. This discussion will examine what’s possible with smart machines, and what tradeoffs need to be made to implement such a solution.