Even though I've stated that I'm not as interested in sustainability as I used to be, it doesn't mean I don't think about it. I have been thinking about it in conjunction with investing and my own work in the electronic industry.

Growth is a very important component to the electronics business. It's priced into many stocks and it drives much of the electronics food chain. Moore's law has helped for a long time too. Shrinking the geometry of silicon every 18 months really required manufacturers to update their equipment often. This then drives the equipment manufacturers to advance technology to make the new fabrication possible. The analog engineers (ok, digital too) out there utilize the new chips and make requests for the next generation. The ripple effect continues all the way down the line, requiring input from the manfacturers and returning revenue to the shareholders of said manufacturers. Like I said, this growth is an assumption and is priced into how people invest in companies involved in electronics manufacturing.

There's no denying that electronics are a dirty business. Not oil-gushing-from-a-hole-in-the-ocean dirty, but still, not exactly the most environmentally friendly situation either. The chemicals used in semiconductor manufacturing are not known for their safety nor their easy disposal; I've only had training on how bad they can mess people up but it goes beyond that; there are entire departments in semiconductor manufacturing facilities devoted to containing and disposing of the chemicals. Outside of the semiconductor world manufacturers have had to drastically reduce the amount of lead in products (in the solder and otherwise) but there are still elements of boards and parts that are not good for the environment. And given both the amount of turnover in the products that people consume year to year and the fact that very few products are designed for long term use, almost all electronics are bound for a landfill within a 10 year time frame (unless recycled). All of this adds up to a nasty picture for the planet.

A business built on growth and components that are not biodegradable nor regulated in their disposal. Is this model sustainable? Can manufacturers continue making products that are not safe for disposal and yet expect people to continuously update their personal electronic portfolio at home? Can manufacturers continue to crank out new devices ad nauseum and not be held responsible for the impact they make?

I do not believe the long term growth of electronics will plateau. While this may be good for my own career, part of me is very conflicted by the idea that my own success could be tied to the fact that we will have to consume more and more over time. Growth will always be driven by the next "must have device", updating of previous generation devices and bringing electronics to a greater percentage of the population. But how can we rectify the needs (or perceived needs as it may be) with the very real issues and impacts associated with modern electronics? The material and energy inputs required and the waste from technology churn all make for hundreds of miles worth of disposed and forgotten cellphones and CRT monitors which took large amounts of the earth's resources to make.

So assuming that growth of the electronics industry will continue unabated for various reasons, I think the question is better asked: Is a sustainable world possible with the electronics industry as we know it today?

I don't usually say it on this site, but I have no clue about the answer to this question. Do you? Is it possible for there to be a healthy electronics industry when taking the planet into account? How does this affect the business model and should the people that manufacture products be responsible for what happens to the at the end of the products' lifetime? Please let us know in the comments.

In a down economy, there is always focus on low cost. Job cutting, project re-definition, scaling back expenses, finding new sources of parts, all of these actions can lead to lower costs and help businesses stay alive in crappy economic climates. I think that the average (electrical) engineer can't but help to let this mentality creep into other parts of their lives. In fact, I think the best engineers enter the profession and excel with this mindset. This revelation about engineering penny pinchers may have been stumbled upon by myself after being accused of being overly-thrifty a time or two. I don't mind it though; I think maintaining a mindset of low cost is good for my work life and my personal life.

I have been on my own personal finance journey ever since I bought a house in the middle of a recession. I have been a regular reader of Get Rich Slowly, a fantastic blog about personal money issues, getting out of debt, smart money planning and tips on living a simple and frugal life. One of my favorite books suggested by JD has been The Ultimate Cheapskate's Road Map to True Riches. It is full of interesting ideas to save money in non-traditional areas and generally living a simple and fulfilling life. If you've never read it, I highly suggest it. I also suggest to my engineering friends out there to consider how you can refocus your engineering efforts to match these principles. In his writing Jeff Yeager lists "6 golden rules for ruling your gold", but I think they have everyday practical implications in engineering. Here is how I translate them for a thrifty engineer:

1. Live within your means at thirty, and stay there. -- I translate this idea as staying on budget for a project. A simple idea but many projects fail to do so. However, this also assumes you have a realistic budget in the first place. Allotting $10 for test equipment when you don't have any and you plan to work on high speed signals is not a realistic way to start a project.
2. Never underestimate the power of not spending. -- Again, this is my translation but I would say this would be to cut out extraneous costs in a project. True, this sounds a bit scrooge-like, but I feel if I was bootstrapping my own company, this would be the only way I would operate. Ten years down the road you will remember the feeling of accomplishing your goal of releasing a product more than you will remember the t-shirt and mug you got commemorating it.
3. Discretion is the better part of shopping. -- I'll speak more on this later, but the idea is to understand when you are buying a valuable product or service and when you are just being "sold" on something. It also means you have to understand the intricacies of what you are buying. From an analog engineering perspective, I think of this as buying a switching converter or something similar. Sure, you know you need to change the voltage supplied to a part of a circuit, but unless you know why you do or don't need the latest and greatest buck converter, you might end up paying too much (for something you won't necessarily need...could a linear regulator do the trick?).
4. Do for yourself what you could have others do for you. -- Design services are available for just about any task in engineering.If you were desperate enough, you could farm out every task in a project to a separate engineering firm that would piecemeal put together your project for you (READ: outsourcing). While it's nice to use this service every once in a while to help speed up a portion of a project you are not an expert with, the time it takes to learn what has been done for you will often outstrip the time you save. Then if something breaks later no one knows how to fix it and you must pay the same design firm to help you again.
5. Anyone can negotiate anything. -- This is my favorite of the six golden rules and the one I have been taking most seriously lately. My attitude has been, "What is the downside to asking for a discount from a vendor?" If you are the customer, the most they will tell you is that they cannot swing any discount; at that point I thank them for their time and tell them I will get back to them after talking to some competitors. In a recession, people are eager to make a sale and are willing to lose some of their margin to do so. Don't think of it as costing them money, think of it as gracing them with your business in a down time.
6. Pinch the dollars, and the pennies will pinch themselves. -- Paying $0.10 more per resistor when you are only buying 100 may have huge dividends. It could reduce the error in a circuit by orders of magnitudes. This is a small expense. Paying $100,000 for an oscilloscope that can measure 80 GHz when you really only need 10 GHz (still a little too RF-y for my tastes) could save you a significant amount of money and raise your overall margin for a product. Making money decisions based on need instead of "ooo-look-at-this-ery" can help project teams, companies and individuals have more rewarding payoffs at the end of a project.

Adding to the cheapskate stew and something briefly mentioned in point 3 above is discretion when buying a new product. I believe engineers are well suited for this mindset and that it stems from a slight mistrust of marketers and salesman. This is neither vituperation against engineers or any salesmen or marketers I have known, just that it is a general trend I have seen. I believe it is the result of encountering both sides of the sale. From the product designer perspective, there is often tension with marketers and salesmen when there is lack of communication. If the salesman talks to a customer and tells them that a new product can jiggle a widget 3x faster than the competition, the customer may purchase the product thinking it will always be jiggling at 3x of FluxCorp's latest product. But if the product can only sometimes and under the correct conditions jiggle that fast, well, there will be some problems; when the salesman relays back to the engineer that the customer is unhappy with their new product, arguments and finger pointing may ensue. On the other side of the sale, engineers often encounter sales forces descending upon them to encourage using their sub-widget in the new widget jiggler. If the salesman can supply a portion of the design to your new product then they will share in your success, because every new product made is a sale for them (albeit only a fraction of your product's final sale price).  However, engineers sometimes encounter marketers and salesman (on the "being sold to" side of things) that may provide some "stretching" of the truth of a sub-widget's ability. In either case, I believe that being a part of selling to others and being sold to helps hone engineers' ability to sniff out when they are being sold something (as opposed to buying something because they want/need it). This is both something learned in engineering and a quality that some of the best engineers possess.

Yet another thing that drives engineers towards thriftiness is the nature of their jobs. If you look at an engineer and compare them to a scientist, there are some interesting distinctions. First, engineers are responsible for bringing products to market. This means that whatever technology they are using (oftentimes first discovered by scientists) must be viable on a large scale and must be done efficiently. If a scientist determines that a capacitor can hold more energy if you tap on it with your finger 1000 times before applying a voltage across it, that might be a brilliant (albeit completely fake) discovery. The engineer has to worry about how that capacitor can be sold at a reasonable price (in relation to the demand of the marketplace) and how to possibly produce millions of finger-tapped capacitors as fast as possible. Most importantly, the engineer and the company he/she works for is judged on the difference of the cost and the selling price (margin). More often than not the marketplace will be the one determining the price, so the only option for making more money is to reduce the costs in producing the product. A scientist may have external funding which allows for time to discover the newest technologies that will be later implemented; there is less direct influence on the success of the technology by near-term funding (though I know grant-writing is no picnic). The direct payoff and re-investment of profit from a successful product introduction influences how engineers operate. The thrifty engineers are successful because they can have the money they save go directly back into their next product.

A counter argument to being a (true) cheapskate is when it comes to quality. Many times in work and in life there can be significant savings from buying a quality product the first time. An example might be buying a high quality, variable temperature soldering iron (maybe even with an auto shut down). Compare that to buying a piece of junk Radio Shack soldering iron that you happen to leave on after working on your Wurlitzer. The former can last you many years and will perform well and help you solder many different products throughout its lifetime. The RS soldering iron burns out in less than a year (perhaps due to negligence, we'll never know) and is not capable of soldering even the largest components properly. In this example there is money saved by not having to purchase another RS soldering iron and there is time saved while working on a project. So while I say that I am a cheapskate, I try to take all costs--including time--into account when purchasing something.

So answer the question Chris. Are engineers naturally cheapskates? After looking at the facts here it is pretty obvious that no, engineers are not naturally cheapskates; rather, they are often in a position to pick up money-saving skills while working on engineering issues and are well liked by management if they succeed in saving money. Also, if you happen to have some innate cheapness you will be at an advantage when starting out in engineering. Some of the people I have encountered in engineering have shown me the benefits of reducing costs in their personal lives and always knowing as much as possible about what they are buying so they can make make the best possible decision.

How about you? Are you a cheapskate? You definitely don't have to be an engineer to be one. Do you find that engineers are naturally more thrifty? Please let me know in the comments or take the poll below!

 Loading ...

Photo by MacQ

I like the communication between myself and my readers and my readers (either random or regular) on the comments section. As such, I've decided to try some posts titled "What the world needs" (similar to the "My Hobby" posts over at xkcd). These will supplement, not supplant, my regular posts. So here we go:

What the world needs, part 1...

What the world needs is more energy storage solutions. What we have right now just isn't going to work. Batteries aren't reliable enough over the long term, ultracapacitors aren't developed enough and large scale solutions just aren't efficient enough. All we keep hearing about at the Detroit auto show are the hybrid and plug-in vehicles (Nov 2010 for the Volt? It's going to take that long??). While they have the conversion from braking energy back into stored energy, I feel like all of the stored energy solutions right now (within the cars, just are not sufficient). Furthermore, when all those plug-in vehicles are in the driveways of the suburbs and sucking down grid power, there will be a higher need to draw upon reserves of energy, either by cranking on more power plant capacity or tapping stored energy. If we want renewable energy to fill that gap in available power we will need even more storage capability, as renewable sources are not "always on".

My favorite idea out there is the storage of energy by pumping water up a hill (known as Pumped Storage Hydroelectricity); it's so simple and beautiful, basically you pump water up a hill and then release it later to be converted through turbines into electricity. The initial concept was developed to help deal with load variations on power lines but also to help sell lower cost electricity produced at night during the high cost hours of the day (a concept the plug-in vehicles also hope to capitalize on). Today we see these hydroelectric storage facilities being targeted as ways to store energy from sources such as solar cells or wind turbines.When the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing, renewable sources cannot output power; people do not typically stop consuming energy during those times though, quite the opposite. When the sun is highest A/C units are cranked and when the wind is blowing outside people are cuddled under blankets watching TV or reading by lamp.

Like any engineering problem there are limitations. Evaporation reduces the efficiency in arid climates where large photo voltaic installations are likely. Wind occurs more naturally and is more likely to be harvested in areas with out large inclines to pump the water up and down. The turbines are not 100% efficient so there are losses during any pumping of the water. So the question remains, how else can we store and then harvest energy to take advantage of renewable energy infrastructure?

1. As the verbiage above suggests, we can actually store energy and harvest it through biofuels; it's really just a different way of thinking about an existing solution. Corn is a favorite right now, with switchgrass being a potential in the future. Mother nature helps us take sunshine, nutrients from the soil and water to produce plants that can be converted into energy through distillation.
2. Gravity (in non water forms) could help us store more energy. I think of having lifts that could raise large weights into the air to be released at later times. I know there's a lamp that uses gravity to temporarily light up LEDs, but I wonder how scalable this idea is.
3. Spring energy has always fascinated me, ever since I got one of those wind up planes as a kid (you turn the propeller to twist a rubber band which then releases to unwind the propeller as the plane flies). I imagine a huge spring being pushed by some weight and then slowly released later to power a generator, but I doubt the materials would allow this indefinitely (springs eventually lose their "springiness").
4. Heat is another storage mechanism but has some serious limitations. You could try and heat up a medium (salt? water? saltwater? I think I saw that somewhere), but then maintaining the heat and retrieving it later provide some serious issues.
5. Hydrogen is touted as a great storage mechanism; while I like the fact that water is readily available, I don't think the storage capabilities are reasonable. One of the things I like most about the pumped storage facilities is its simplicity.
6. Pumping air into a bladder or bag underwater could be a possibility someday. You would pump air into the bag and once the pumping had stopped and you wanted to retrieve the energy, the pressure surrounding the bag would force the air back upwards; when you need it, you direct the air through a turbine to retrieve the energy. Temperature changes as you go down in depth would be a concern (air compresses as it gets colder).
7. Batteries are still an option...basically taking electrons and squirreling them away into electrolytic solutions (or however you want to do it). These become severely limited in large scale operations though; imagine how many "AA" rechargeable batteries you would need to store the output of a 500 MW wind farm...

As a final note, I should point out I found this other Wikipedia article on grid energy storage at the end of writing this post. I still wanted to publish my ideas but only some of them matched.

I get a little frustrated when I try and think of new ways to store energy; however, it's reassuring that there are many options out there that can still be improved upon. Can you think of any other natural or otherwise methods of storing energy? Let me know in the comments!

Photo by obenson

I glanced at my natural gas bill today while cleaning up the house and was a little shocked at myself. I pride myself on being better than most on conservation (at least cognizant of it) and my usage was quite high. That was last month and I can only imagine this month will get worse. And yes, I do live in a rental house right now (with an energy efficient house in my near future), but that's the case for a lot of people, especially lower income. So I got to thinking, what will stop people from using so much energy in their frosty, great northern homes?

The answer is, of course, money. It always has been. But now we're in a climate where the costs are beginning to rise so fast that people who sat dormant before will begin to take action. In fact, this will also likely move people in all economic groups to take action; the most important of these being the middle- to lower-income groups. Why? Because costs like heating are a larger percentage so there will be a more voluminous cry from the masses for cheaper energy (not that we don't love our green friends, pushing the renewable energy agenda and buying recycled elephant dung paper as Christmas gifts for family). Hopefully more people clamoring for energy efficient devices and alternative fuels will push us towards a tipping point (which I incorrectly identified as a singularity), where renewables become the norm and cost of energy will drop due to the abundance of natural energy, waiting to be converted. So as prices continue to increase--and the temporary drop in gas prices is undoubtedly temporary--the push from most people will be towards a more sustainable future.

How about you? Have you felt the need to push for more conservation lately solely on energy costs? Let me know in the comments.

Photo by nothern green pixie

My friend Cherish over at Faraday's Cage is where you put your Schroedinger's Cat sent me an article on solar power approaching the cost of coal (generated electricity). It's a great article and it quotes Ray Kurzweil so I'm automatically a fan. However, I have no doubt in my mind that it WILL hit this price point (~$1/watt), it's just a question of when.

The real thing I want to touch on and get responses to is: What happens when solar energy is cheaper than coal?

I think there will be gradual uptake by the large energy companies (most already have dipped a toe in the shallow end for solar power). Even large scale consumers will start to put renewable energy on their balance sheets, assuming it is cheaper. But then what? Business as usual? Am I allowed to keep my lights on all night, even if it is silly to do so? I'm confident that not only will solar be cheaper than coal, but over the long term, it will be MUCH cheaper because you get more lifetime out of a panel or a solar thermal system than you do with a lump of coal. So will prices go down from the power company? I'm not so sure about that one as I'm guessing they'll want to pass their "investment costs" down to the consumers.

Another facet to this idea is whether or not consumers will start to take on the burden of their own energy generation. Will there be a deficit in the north and a surplus in the south? Will there be a grid efficient enough to transfer this energy transcontinentally? Will there ever be a storage mechanism that is feasible for all of the energy we could potentially harvest from the sun (I just heard about this idea and thought it was really cool)? Or is the individual power generation scheme doomed to fail because there is still an energy broker in the middle (the power company) for all those times when the sun isn't shining (and the wind isn't blowing if that becomes a more efficient source of power also).

If power consumption continues to get cheaper and everyone adopts a renewable stance on it, will the environment actually improve? Will there be as much focus on conservation, both in reducing power needed in devices and total consumption per capita (reducing our individual "carbon footprint")? Will the cheap energy of the future fuel the next boom and pull us out of the doldrums of this dumb recession?

So many questions. So so many and we still haven't even found out if we CAN make it cheaper than coal yet (cautiously optimistic here). Renewable energy will be translating to big money for some people over the next ten years and that means lots of conflict. What do you think will happen when/if solar becomes cheaper than coal?