Integrated Efficiency - Revision history

Goto at 13:07, 7 January 2026

2026-01-07T13:07:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:07, 7 January 2026
Line 13:		Line 13:

	[[Category: Life-Cycle Assessment]]		[[Category: Life-Cycle Assessment]]

			=Integrated vs. point efficiency in teams=

			In building a house, for example, one could prioritize point efficiency in every single aspect: hire the best architect, the best engineer, the best framer, the best plumber, the best electrician. But consider that communication cost increases exponentially with the number of involved parties. The price, merely due to having to communicate with and schedule these 10 people, might be much higher compared to an "integrated" builder who can do nearly everything himself and thus keeps communication delay & cost low.

Eric: Fixed a Category Link

2021-04-18T05:19:23Z

Fixed a Category Link

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:19, 18 April 2021
Line 12:		Line 12:
	For example, a maintainable internal combustion engine may be 20% round trip efficient compared to a fuel cell (50% [http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web_sites/02-03/hydrogen_economy/Round%20Trip%20Efficiency.htm#:~:text=Renewable%20power%20sources%20give%20a,roundtrip%20efficiency%20of%20%3C%2013.1%20%25.&text=Currently%20fuel%20cells%20are%2050,efficiency%20could%20rise%20to%2060%25.]. However, Toyota recently developed a 38% efficient IC gas engine [https://www.thedrive.com/tech/18919/toyota-develops-worlds-most-thermally-efficient-2-0-liter-engine#:~:text=Most%20internal%20combustion%20engines%20are,to%20use%20propelling%20the%20vehicle.]. However, if the ICE is designed for a lifetime, then it can last many more hours. Thus, if we consider developments and lifetime, the sole consideration of point efficiency may not be as importantu. For certain, if low cost solar hydrogen is available, the fuel becomes a non-scarce good, and the point efficiency of fuel usage becomes less important. Or, if you consider that solar hydrogen ICE entperprise can be distributed widely, while fuel cells require scarce materials. Point: when you consider multiple factors, point efficiency begins to lose its overall attractiveness. However, simplistic thinking about one thing at a time is easier, so it takes more mental energy to appreciate integrated efficiency.		For example, a maintainable internal combustion engine may be 20% round trip efficient compared to a fuel cell (50% [http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web_sites/02-03/hydrogen_economy/Round%20Trip%20Efficiency.htm#:~:text=Renewable%20power%20sources%20give%20a,roundtrip%20efficiency%20of%20%3C%2013.1%20%25.&text=Currently%20fuel%20cells%20are%2050,efficiency%20could%20rise%20to%2060%25.]. However, Toyota recently developed a 38% efficient IC gas engine [https://www.thedrive.com/tech/18919/toyota-develops-worlds-most-thermally-efficient-2-0-liter-engine#:~:text=Most%20internal%20combustion%20engines%20are,to%20use%20propelling%20the%20vehicle.]. However, if the ICE is designed for a lifetime, then it can last many more hours. Thus, if we consider developments and lifetime, the sole consideration of point efficiency may not be as importantu. For certain, if low cost solar hydrogen is available, the fuel becomes a non-scarce good, and the point efficiency of fuel usage becomes less important. Or, if you consider that solar hydrogen ICE entperprise can be distributed widely, while fuel cells require scarce materials. Point: when you consider multiple factors, point efficiency begins to lose its overall attractiveness. However, simplistic thinking about one thing at a time is easier, so it takes more mental energy to appreciate integrated efficiency.

	[[Category: Life Cycle ~~Analysis~~]]		[[Category: Life-Cycle Assessment]]

Eric: Added a Category to the Page

2021-04-18T05:18:29Z

Added a Category to the Page

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:18, 18 April 2021
Line 11:		Line 11:
	=Taking it Further: Example of Fuel Cells vs Hydrogen Internal Combusion Engines=		=Taking it Further: Example of Fuel Cells vs Hydrogen Internal Combusion Engines=
	For example, a maintainable internal combustion engine may be 20% round trip efficient compared to a fuel cell (50% [http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web_sites/02-03/hydrogen_economy/Round%20Trip%20Efficiency.htm#:~:text=Renewable%20power%20sources%20give%20a,roundtrip%20efficiency%20of%20%3C%2013.1%20%25.&text=Currently%20fuel%20cells%20are%2050,efficiency%20could%20rise%20to%2060%25.]. However, Toyota recently developed a 38% efficient IC gas engine [https://www.thedrive.com/tech/18919/toyota-develops-worlds-most-thermally-efficient-2-0-liter-engine#:~:text=Most%20internal%20combustion%20engines%20are,to%20use%20propelling%20the%20vehicle.]. However, if the ICE is designed for a lifetime, then it can last many more hours. Thus, if we consider developments and lifetime, the sole consideration of point efficiency may not be as importantu. For certain, if low cost solar hydrogen is available, the fuel becomes a non-scarce good, and the point efficiency of fuel usage becomes less important. Or, if you consider that solar hydrogen ICE entperprise can be distributed widely, while fuel cells require scarce materials. Point: when you consider multiple factors, point efficiency begins to lose its overall attractiveness. However, simplistic thinking about one thing at a time is easier, so it takes more mental energy to appreciate integrated efficiency.		For example, a maintainable internal combustion engine may be 20% round trip efficient compared to a fuel cell (50% [http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web_sites/02-03/hydrogen_economy/Round%20Trip%20Efficiency.htm#:~:text=Renewable%20power%20sources%20give%20a,roundtrip%20efficiency%20of%20%3C%2013.1%20%25.&text=Currently%20fuel%20cells%20are%2050,efficiency%20could%20rise%20to%2060%25.]. However, Toyota recently developed a 38% efficient IC gas engine [https://www.thedrive.com/tech/18919/toyota-develops-worlds-most-thermally-efficient-2-0-liter-engine#:~:text=Most%20internal%20combustion%20engines%20are,to%20use%20propelling%20the%20vehicle.]. However, if the ICE is designed for a lifetime, then it can last many more hours. Thus, if we consider developments and lifetime, the sole consideration of point efficiency may not be as importantu. For certain, if low cost solar hydrogen is available, the fuel becomes a non-scarce good, and the point efficiency of fuel usage becomes less important. Or, if you consider that solar hydrogen ICE entperprise can be distributed widely, while fuel cells require scarce materials. Point: when you consider multiple factors, point efficiency begins to lose its overall attractiveness. However, simplistic thinking about one thing at a time is easier, so it takes more mental energy to appreciate integrated efficiency.

			[[Category: Life Cycle Analysis]]

Marcin: /* Taking it Further */

2021-04-17T05:15:35Z

Taking it Further

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:15, 17 April 2021
Line 9:		Line 9:
	In the OSE context, integrated efficiency refers to how products are designed to make them better-stronger-cheaper-fasterto break the [[Iron Triangle]]. Specifically, we pay attention to user-centric, public design. In this paradigm - we propose that the engineer, entrepreneur, designer, builder, user, and repairman are one and the same. Radical! But can you imagine how much more integrated and sound the design would be if that were the case? For example, what would happen if designers and engineers built and owned the things they design - or had to repair them? Then the design would be much more accountable to buildability, cost, repair, and lifetime. Why? Because the essential incentive structure for sound design would be stronger. To explain...		In the OSE context, integrated efficiency refers to how products are designed to make them better-stronger-cheaper-fasterto break the [[Iron Triangle]]. Specifically, we pay attention to user-centric, public design. In this paradigm - we propose that the engineer, entrepreneur, designer, builder, user, and repairman are one and the same. Radical! But can you imagine how much more integrated and sound the design would be if that were the case? For example, what would happen if designers and engineers built and owned the things they design - or had to repair them? Then the design would be much more accountable to buildability, cost, repair, and lifetime. Why? Because the essential incentive structure for sound design would be stronger. To explain...

	=Taking it Further=		=Taking it Further: Example of Fuel Cells vs Hydrogen Internal Combusion Engines=
	For example, a maintainable internal combustion engine may be 20% round trip efficient compared to a fuel cell (50% [http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web_sites/02-03/hydrogen_economy/Round%20Trip%20Efficiency.htm#:~:text=Renewable%20power%20sources%20give%20a,roundtrip%20efficiency%20of%20%3C%2013.1%20%25.&text=Currently%20fuel%20cells%20are%2050,efficiency%20could%20rise%20to%2060%25.]. However, Toyota recently developed a 38% efficient IC gas engine [https://www.thedrive.com/tech/18919/toyota-develops-worlds-most-thermally-efficient-2-0-liter-engine#:~:text=Most%20internal%20combustion%20engines%20are,to%20use%20propelling%20the%20vehicle.]. However, if the ICE is designed for a lifetime, then it can last many more hours. Thus, if we consider developments and lifetime, the sole consideration of point efficiency may not be as importantu. For certain, if low cost solar hydrogen is available, the fuel becomes a non-scarce good, and the point efficiency of fuel usage becomes less important. Or, if you consider that solar hydrogen ICE entperprise can be distributed widely, while fuel cells require scarce materials. Point: when you consider multiple factors, point efficiency begins to lose its overall attractiveness. However, simplistic thinking about one thing at a time is easier, so it takes more mental energy to appreciate integrated efficiency.		For example, a maintainable internal combustion engine may be 20% round trip efficient compared to a fuel cell (50% [http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web_sites/02-03/hydrogen_economy/Round%20Trip%20Efficiency.htm#:~:text=Renewable%20power%20sources%20give%20a,roundtrip%20efficiency%20of%20%3C%2013.1%20%25.&text=Currently%20fuel%20cells%20are%2050,efficiency%20could%20rise%20to%2060%25.]. However, Toyota recently developed a 38% efficient IC gas engine [https://www.thedrive.com/tech/18919/toyota-develops-worlds-most-thermally-efficient-2-0-liter-engine#:~:text=Most%20internal%20combustion%20engines%20are,to%20use%20propelling%20the%20vehicle.]. However, if the ICE is designed for a lifetime, then it can last many more hours. Thus, if we consider developments and lifetime, the sole consideration of point efficiency may not be as importantu. For certain, if low cost solar hydrogen is available, the fuel becomes a non-scarce good, and the point efficiency of fuel usage becomes less important. Or, if you consider that solar hydrogen ICE entperprise can be distributed widely, while fuel cells require scarce materials. Point: when you consider multiple factors, point efficiency begins to lose its overall attractiveness. However, simplistic thinking about one thing at a time is easier, so it takes more mental energy to appreciate integrated efficiency.

Marcin at 05:14, 17 April 2021

2021-04-17T05:14:16Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:14, 17 April 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
			=General=

	Efficiency can be point efficiency vs integrated efficiency. Point efficiency is efficiency only considering one variable or factor. Integrated efficiency involves considering multiple factors for a more balanced view. Other technical factors, as well as social and environmental factors - may be considered for a more balanced view.		Efficiency can be point efficiency vs integrated efficiency. Point efficiency is efficiency only considering one variable or factor. Integrated efficiency involves considering multiple factors for a more balanced view. Other technical factors, as well as social and environmental factors - may be considered for a more balanced view.

	For example, higher fuel efficiency of an engine may be an example of point efficiency, but integrated efficiency is broader. For example, OSE's engine strategy may be less fuel efficient, but more cost effective by 1000x due to multipurpose functionality via modularity (10x), and 10x via lifetime design (lower cost to maintain, by a factor of 10), and another 10x by open source automation - meaning the cost of doing a task is reduced by 10x. The subtleties of true efficiency measurements revolve around how efficiency is defined.		For example, higher fuel efficiency of an engine may be an example of point efficiency, but integrated efficiency is broader. For example, OSE's engine strategy may be less fuel efficient, but more cost effective by 1000x due to multipurpose functionality via modularity (10x), and 10x via lifetime design (lower cost to maintain, by a factor of 10), and another 10x by open source automation - meaning the cost of doing a task is reduced by 10x. The subtleties of true efficiency measurements revolve around how efficiency is defined.

			=Lifecycle Integration=

			In the OSE context, integrated efficiency refers to how products are designed to make them better-stronger-cheaper-fasterto break the [[Iron Triangle]]. Specifically, we pay attention to user-centric, public design. In this paradigm - we propose that the engineer, entrepreneur, designer, builder, user, and repairman are one and the same. Radical! But can you imagine how much more integrated and sound the design would be if that were the case? For example, what would happen if designers and engineers built and owned the things they design - or had to repair them? Then the design would be much more accountable to buildability, cost, repair, and lifetime. Why? Because the essential incentive structure for sound design would be stronger. To explain...

	=Taking it Further=		=Taking it Further=
	For example, a maintainable internal combustion engine may be 20% round trip efficient compared to a fuel cell (50% [http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web_sites/02-03/hydrogen_economy/Round%20Trip%20Efficiency.htm#:~:text=Renewable%20power%20sources%20give%20a,roundtrip%20efficiency%20of%20%3C%2013.1%20%25.&text=Currently%20fuel%20cells%20are%2050,efficiency%20could%20rise%20to%2060%25.]. However, Toyota recently developed a 38% efficient IC gas engine [https://www.thedrive.com/tech/18919/toyota-develops-worlds-most-thermally-efficient-2-0-liter-engine#:~:text=Most%20internal%20combustion%20engines%20are,to%20use%20propelling%20the%20vehicle.]. However, if the ICE is designed for a lifetime, then it can last many more hours. Thus, if we consider developments and lifetime, the sole consideration of point efficiency may not be as importantu. For certain, if low cost solar hydrogen is available, the fuel becomes a non-scarce good, and the point efficiency of fuel usage becomes less important. Or, if you consider that solar hydrogen ICE entperprise can be distributed widely, while fuel cells require scarce materials. Point: when you consider multiple factors, point efficiency begins to lose its overall attractiveness. However, simplistic thinking about one thing at a time is easier, so it takes more mental energy to appreciate integrated efficiency.		For example, a maintainable internal combustion engine may be 20% round trip efficient compared to a fuel cell (50% [http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web_sites/02-03/hydrogen_economy/Round%20Trip%20Efficiency.htm#:~:text=Renewable%20power%20sources%20give%20a,roundtrip%20efficiency%20of%20%3C%2013.1%20%25.&text=Currently%20fuel%20cells%20are%2050,efficiency%20could%20rise%20to%2060%25.]. However, Toyota recently developed a 38% efficient IC gas engine [https://www.thedrive.com/tech/18919/toyota-develops-worlds-most-thermally-efficient-2-0-liter-engine#:~:text=Most%20internal%20combustion%20engines%20are,to%20use%20propelling%20the%20vehicle.]. However, if the ICE is designed for a lifetime, then it can last many more hours. Thus, if we consider developments and lifetime, the sole consideration of point efficiency may not be as importantu. For certain, if low cost solar hydrogen is available, the fuel becomes a non-scarce good, and the point efficiency of fuel usage becomes less important. Or, if you consider that solar hydrogen ICE entperprise can be distributed widely, while fuel cells require scarce materials. Point: when you consider multiple factors, point efficiency begins to lose its overall attractiveness. However, simplistic thinking about one thing at a time is easier, so it takes more mental energy to appreciate integrated efficiency.

Marcin at 05:08, 17 April 2021

2021-04-17T05:08:50Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:08, 17 April 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Efficiency can be point efficiency vs integrated efficiency. Point efficiency is efficiency only considering one variable or factor. Integrated efficiency involves considering multiple factors for a more balanced view. Other technical factors, as well as social and environmental factors - may be considered for a more balanced view.		Efficiency can be point efficiency vs integrated efficiency. Point efficiency is efficiency only considering one variable or factor. Integrated efficiency involves considering multiple factors for a more balanced view. Other technical factors, as well as social and environmental factors - may be considered for a more balanced view.

	For example, higher fuel efficiency of an engine may be an example of point efficiency, but integrated efficiency is broader. For example, OSE's engine strategy may be less fuel efficient, but more cost effective by 1000x due to multipurpose functionality via modularity (10x), and 10x via lifetime design (lower cost to maintain, by a factor of 10), and another 10x by open source automation - meaning the cost of doing a task is reduced by 10x. ~~So it's all in~~ how efficiency is defined.		For example, higher fuel efficiency of an engine may be an example of point efficiency, but integrated efficiency is broader. For example, OSE's engine strategy may be less fuel efficient, but more cost effective by 1000x due to multipurpose functionality via modularity (10x), and 10x via lifetime design (lower cost to maintain, by a factor of 10), and another 10x by open source automation - meaning the cost of doing a task is reduced by 10x. The subtleties of true efficiency measurements revolve around how efficiency is defined.

	=Taking it Further=		=Taking it Further=
	For example, a maintainable internal combustion engine may be 20% round trip efficient compared to a fuel cell (50% [http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web_sites/02-03/hydrogen_economy/Round%20Trip%20Efficiency.htm#:~:text=Renewable%20power%20sources%20give%20a,roundtrip%20efficiency%20of%20%3C%2013.1%20%25.&text=Currently%20fuel%20cells%20are%2050,efficiency%20could%20rise%20to%2060%25.]. However, Toyota recently developed a 38% efficient IC gas engine [https://www.thedrive.com/tech/18919/toyota-develops-worlds-most-thermally-efficient-2-0-liter-engine#:~:text=Most%20internal%20combustion%20engines%20are,to%20use%20propelling%20the%20vehicle.]. However, if the ICE is designed for a lifetime, then it can last many more hours. Thus, if we consider developments and lifetime, the sole consideration of point efficiency may not be as importantu. For certain, if low cost solar hydrogen is available, the fuel becomes a non-scarce good, and the point efficiency of fuel usage becomes less important. Or, if you consider that solar hydrogen ICE entperprise can be distributed widely, while fuel cells require scarce materials. Point: when you consider multiple factors, point efficiency begins to lose its overall attractiveness. However, simplistic thinking about one thing at a time is easier, so it takes more mental energy to appreciate integrated efficiency.		For example, a maintainable internal combustion engine may be 20% round trip efficient compared to a fuel cell (50% [http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web_sites/02-03/hydrogen_economy/Round%20Trip%20Efficiency.htm#:~:text=Renewable%20power%20sources%20give%20a,roundtrip%20efficiency%20of%20%3C%2013.1%20%25.&text=Currently%20fuel%20cells%20are%2050,efficiency%20could%20rise%20to%2060%25.]. However, Toyota recently developed a 38% efficient IC gas engine [https://www.thedrive.com/tech/18919/toyota-develops-worlds-most-thermally-efficient-2-0-liter-engine#:~:text=Most%20internal%20combustion%20engines%20are,to%20use%20propelling%20the%20vehicle.]. However, if the ICE is designed for a lifetime, then it can last many more hours. Thus, if we consider developments and lifetime, the sole consideration of point efficiency may not be as importantu. For certain, if low cost solar hydrogen is available, the fuel becomes a non-scarce good, and the point efficiency of fuel usage becomes less important. Or, if you consider that solar hydrogen ICE entperprise can be distributed widely, while fuel cells require scarce materials. Point: when you consider multiple factors, point efficiency begins to lose its overall attractiveness. However, simplistic thinking about one thing at a time is easier, so it takes more mental energy to appreciate integrated efficiency.

Marcin: /* Taking it Further */

2020-10-30T15:35:11Z

Taking it Further

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:35, 30 October 2020
Line 4:		Line 4:

	=Taking it Further=		=Taking it Further=
	For example, a maintainable internal combustion engine may be 20% round trip efficient compared to a fuel cell (50% [http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web_sites/02-03/hydrogen_economy/Round%20Trip%20Efficiency.htm#:~:text=Renewable%20power%20sources%20give%20a,roundtrip%20efficiency%20of%20%3C%2013.1%20%25.&text=Currently%20fuel%20cells%20are%2050,efficiency%20could%20rise%20to%2060%25.]. However, Toyota recently developed a 38% efficient IC gas engine [https://www.thedrive.com/tech/18919/toyota-develops-worlds-most-thermally-efficient-2-0-liter-engine#:~:text=Most%20internal%20combustion%20engines%20are,to%20use%20propelling%20the%20vehicle.]. However, if the ICE is designed for a lifetime, then it can last many more hours. Thus, if we consider developments and lifetime, the sole consideration of point efficiency may not be as importantu. For certain, if low cost solar hydrogen is available, the fuel becomes a non-scarce good, and the point efficiency of fuel usage becomes less important. Or, if you consider that solar hydrogen ICE entperprise can be distributed widely, while fuel cells require scarce materials. Point: when you consider multiple factors, point efficiency begins to lose its overall attractiveness.		For example, a maintainable internal combustion engine may be 20% round trip efficient compared to a fuel cell (50% [http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web_sites/02-03/hydrogen_economy/Round%20Trip%20Efficiency.htm#:~:text=Renewable%20power%20sources%20give%20a,roundtrip%20efficiency%20of%20%3C%2013.1%20%25.&text=Currently%20fuel%20cells%20are%2050,efficiency%20could%20rise%20to%2060%25.]. However, Toyota recently developed a 38% efficient IC gas engine [https://www.thedrive.com/tech/18919/toyota-develops-worlds-most-thermally-efficient-2-0-liter-engine#:~:text=Most%20internal%20combustion%20engines%20are,to%20use%20propelling%20the%20vehicle.]. However, if the ICE is designed for a lifetime, then it can last many more hours. Thus, if we consider developments and lifetime, the sole consideration of point efficiency may not be as importantu. For certain, if low cost solar hydrogen is available, the fuel becomes a non-scarce good, and the point efficiency of fuel usage becomes less important. Or, if you consider that solar hydrogen ICE entperprise can be distributed widely, while fuel cells require scarce materials. Point: when you consider multiple factors, point efficiency begins to lose its overall attractiveness. However, simplistic thinking about one thing at a time is easier, so it takes more mental energy to appreciate integrated efficiency.

Marcin: /* Taking it Further */

2020-10-30T15:34:29Z

Taking it Further

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:34, 30 October 2020
Line 4:		Line 4:

	=Taking it Further=		=Taking it Further=
	For example, a maintainable internal combustion engine may be 20% round trip efficient compared to a fuel cell (50% [http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web_sites/02-03/hydrogen_economy/Round%20Trip%20Efficiency.htm#:~:text=Renewable%20power%20sources%20give%20a,roundtrip%20efficiency%20of%20%3C%2013.1%20%25.&text=Currently%20fuel%20cells%20are%2050,efficiency%20could%20rise%20to%2060%25.]. However, Toyota recently developed a 38% efficient IC gas engine [https://www.thedrive.com/tech/18919/toyota-develops-worlds-most-thermally-efficient-2-0-liter-engine#:~:text=Most%20internal%20combustion%20engines%20are,to%20use%20propelling%20the%20vehicle.]. However, if the ICE is designed for a lifetime, then it can last many more hours. Thus, if we consider developments and lifetime, the sole consideration of point efficiency may not be as importantu. For certain, if low cost solar hydrogen is available, the fuel becomes a non-scarce good.		For example, a maintainable internal combustion engine may be 20% round trip efficient compared to a fuel cell (50% [http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web_sites/02-03/hydrogen_economy/Round%20Trip%20Efficiency.htm#:~:text=Renewable%20power%20sources%20give%20a,roundtrip%20efficiency%20of%20%3C%2013.1%20%25.&text=Currently%20fuel%20cells%20are%2050,efficiency%20could%20rise%20to%2060%25.]. However, Toyota recently developed a 38% efficient IC gas engine [https://www.thedrive.com/tech/18919/toyota-develops-worlds-most-thermally-efficient-2-0-liter-engine#:~:text=Most%20internal%20combustion%20engines%20are,to%20use%20propelling%20the%20vehicle.]. However, if the ICE is designed for a lifetime, then it can last many more hours. Thus, if we consider developments and lifetime, the sole consideration of point efficiency may not be as importantu. For certain, if low cost solar hydrogen is available, the fuel becomes a non-scarce good, and the point efficiency of fuel usage becomes less important. Or, if you consider that solar hydrogen ICE entperprise can be distributed widely, while fuel cells require scarce materials. Point: when you consider multiple factors, point efficiency begins to lose its overall attractiveness.

Marcin at 15:32, 30 October 2020

2020-10-30T15:32:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:32, 30 October 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Efficiency can be point efficiency vs integrated efficiency.		Efficiency can be point efficiency vs integrated efficiency. Point efficiency is efficiency only considering one variable or factor. Integrated efficiency involves considering multiple factors for a more balanced view. Other technical factors, as well as social and environmental factors - may be considered for a more balanced view.

	For example, higher fuel efficiency of an engine may be an example of point efficiency, but integrated efficiency is broader. For example, OSE's engine strategy may be less fuel efficient, but more cost effective by 1000x due to multipurpose functionality via modularity (10x), and 10x via lifetime design (lower cost to maintain, by a factor of 10), and another 10x by open source automation - meaning the cost of doing a task is reduced by 10x. So it's all in how efficiency is defined.		For example, higher fuel efficiency of an engine may be an example of point efficiency, but integrated efficiency is broader. For example, OSE's engine strategy may be less fuel efficient, but more cost effective by 1000x due to multipurpose functionality via modularity (10x), and 10x via lifetime design (lower cost to maintain, by a factor of 10), and another 10x by open source automation - meaning the cost of doing a task is reduced by 10x. So it's all in how efficiency is defined.

	For example, a maintainable internal combustion engine may be 20% round trip efficient compared to a fuel cell (50% [http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web_sites/02-03/hydrogen_economy/Round%20Trip%20Efficiency.htm#:~:text=Renewable%20power%20sources%20give%20a,roundtrip%20efficiency%20of%20%3C%2013.1%20%25.&text=Currently%20fuel%20cells%20are%2050,efficiency%20could%20rise%20to%2060%25.]. However, Toyota recently developed a 38% efficient IC gas engine [https://www.thedrive.com/tech/18919/toyota-develops-worlds-most-thermally-efficient-2-0-liter-engine#:~:text=Most%20internal%20combustion%20engines%20are,to%20use%20propelling%20the%20vehicle.]		=Taking it Further=
			For example, a maintainable internal combustion engine may be 20% round trip efficient compared to a fuel cell (50% [http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web_sites/02-03/hydrogen_economy/Round%20Trip%20Efficiency.htm#:~:text=Renewable%20power%20sources%20give%20a,roundtrip%20efficiency%20of%20%3C%2013.1%20%25.&text=Currently%20fuel%20cells%20are%2050,efficiency%20could%20rise%20to%2060%25.]. However, Toyota recently developed a 38% efficient IC gas engine [https://www.thedrive.com/tech/18919/toyota-develops-worlds-most-thermally-efficient-2-0-liter-engine#:~:text=Most%20internal%20combustion%20engines%20are,to%20use%20propelling%20the%20vehicle.]. However, if the ICE is designed for a lifetime, then it can last many more hours. Thus, if we consider developments and lifetime, the sole consideration of point efficiency may not be as importantu. For certain, if low cost solar hydrogen is available, the fuel becomes a non-scarce good.

Marcin at 15:24, 30 October 2020

2020-10-30T15:24:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:24, 30 October 2020
Line 3:		Line 3:
	For example, higher fuel efficiency of an engine may be an example of point efficiency, but integrated efficiency is broader. For example, OSE's engine strategy may be less fuel efficient, but more cost effective by 1000x due to multipurpose functionality via modularity (10x), and 10x via lifetime design (lower cost to maintain, by a factor of 10), and another 10x by open source automation - meaning the cost of doing a task is reduced by 10x. So it's all in how efficiency is defined.		For example, higher fuel efficiency of an engine may be an example of point efficiency, but integrated efficiency is broader. For example, OSE's engine strategy may be less fuel efficient, but more cost effective by 1000x due to multipurpose functionality via modularity (10x), and 10x via lifetime design (lower cost to maintain, by a factor of 10), and another 10x by open source automation - meaning the cost of doing a task is reduced by 10x. So it's all in how efficiency is defined.

	For example, a maintainable internal combustion engine may be 25% round trip efficient compared to a fuel cell (50% [http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web_sites/02-03/hydrogen_economy/Round%20Trip%20Efficiency.htm#:~:text=Renewable%20power%20sources%20give%20a,roundtrip%20efficiency%20of%20%3C%2013.1%20%25.&text=Currently%20fuel%20cells%20are%2050,efficiency%20could%20rise%20to%2060%25.]		For example, a maintainable internal combustion engine may be 20% round trip efficient compared to a fuel cell (50% [http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web_sites/02-03/hydrogen_economy/Round%20Trip%20Efficiency.htm#:~:text=Renewable%20power%20sources%20give%20a,roundtrip%20efficiency%20of%20%3C%2013.1%20%25.&text=Currently%20fuel%20cells%20are%2050,efficiency%20could%20rise%20to%2060%25.]. However, Toyota recently developed a 38% efficient IC gas engine [https://www.thedrive.com/tech/18919/toyota-develops-worlds-most-thermally-efficient-2-0-liter-engine#:~:text=Most%20internal%20combustion%20engines%20are,to%20use%20propelling%20the%20vehicle.]