Honestly, there is no way from "here to there" when it comes to fuel efficiency from an ICE. We are hovering around ~30% efficiency for modern mid-sized automobiles. Some estimates put that at a lower figure. The maximum efficiency theoretically possible is limited by the Carnot cycle, and I think it's ~60% if IIRC. There are two other factors you can play with: weight and energy recovery. As far as weight goes, heavier cars are actually MORE efficient (weight to fuel wise). It's why buses are more efficient than cars. Believe it or not, a tractor trailer getting ~4-6mpg is way more efficient than a Honda Accord. It's carrying 80,000 lbs and the Honda is only moving about 3000 lbs. This argument doesn't hold much water though when you simply talking about people moving. The tendency in the US is for everyone to drive their own car. Therefore, the person-miles/gallon is fairly low but this is really about weight efficiency. If I move a 200 lbs object with a 3000 lbs one, my weight efficiency ratio is less than 1:10. Adding people just raises that ratio. The other option is to lower the weight of the transportation. This is tough to do, and keep cars safe. Most increases in automobile safety has come from: collapsible steering wheels, seat belts, and crumple zones. Don't expect that other "industrial" vehicles will go down in weight though. They may make the vehicle lighter, but the load will just go up. It will still be 80,000 lbs tractor trailers vs 3000 lbs vehicles. There is a point at which no amount of crumple zones will save you when these two things collide. A fix for this side effect might be self driving cars that nearly never crash. Though, in this scenario you make crashes less likely, but increase their rate of fatality. As for energy recovery it seems that the mechanical/electrical cycle provided by batteries is one of the best, but don't expect it to improve highway figures by much. Around town there still could be some improvement, as wind resistance is low as so is friction. The highway is a different matter, and that is evidenced by the current figures from existing hybrids. The only way to improve those numbers is to reduce friction and wind resistance. One is materials science (friction) and I'm sure it's possible but pricey. Options there must be carefully weighed to ensure that what ever new near friction-less material is sustainable and doesn't cause more CO2 just to make it compared to the fuel savings. A second option (wind resistance) is largely based on aesthetics. Will people buy cars that look funny? Hard to answer that one as tastes change.

Ultrasound is sound... hence, pressure.

Quit posting news from the Onion. Oh, wait. Germany did what?!!

Less efficient how? In general? When produced through a Carnot Cycle? When produced from coal? If the electricity were generated from a nuclear power station or solar, it is most certianly *very* efficeint. Yes it *can* cost more... but that's only if your house has some other cheaper form of heat. Mine doesn't, and to replace it with something that does, would take 15-20 years to recoup the savings, provided the maintenance and/or cost of fuel doesn't rise appreciably WRT to electricity prices. I agree it doesn't help in the summer, which is why I stated that in my original reply.

I do think it's somewhat silly that these cable boxes need to use that much power and haven't incorporated modern energy saving techniques. However, much like incandescent bulbs this only matters when the heat isn't running in your house. During the Winter in the southern US and Fall/Winter/Spring in the northern US, wasteful electric appliances just help to heat your house and reduce whatever bill you have for other sources of heat. This is the reason I think living somewhere "slightly chilly" is a greener. We are going to have to use electricity anyway, and electric devices will never be 100% efficient, therefore, the waste heat produced can be used to help heat a space. In climates where A/C is required, not only are you wasting energy to cool your living space, you are also wasting 2x as much as is wasted by any electronic device in your home.

The "best" tool for the job is the one you have. FTFY

The thing is, the risk is appropriate when compared to other power sources. Accidents happen, and sure there are safer designs and if the economics are there to support it, then do it. However, I think the benefits that electricity (and therefore nuclear power generation) have provided save millions of lives every year and do it in a safer manner than coal.

I suggest IP over Avian Carriers. The birds are generally pretty friendly to strangers as long as you have food.

Check out the gratuitous ad placement at 0:37

Muuuuwhaaaaaaa. Haaaaaa. Haaaaa. Haa haa haa haaaaaaaaaaaa.

kill -9 dell