My Photo

Related Links

Recent Comments

Energy Efficiency

October 13, 2009

The Energy of Information

Bookmark and Share

Is the energy content of information increasing? As a Technologist it is very interesting to me that in the twenty first century our world still prints newspapers and books on paper.  More amazingly, the computer printer market is booming especially in areas such as photo-printers.  In the late twentieth century it was predicted that by the next millennium, paper would be obsolete as a medium for sharing information... I'm pretty sure not everyone got that memo...

So what happened? We are now in a world where the internet almost completely permeates our environment including locations so remote, only a satellite link and solar-recharged batteries will work to power the nodes (think "Antarctica").  We have advanced social networking, file storage and even complete applications that exist solely in a nebulous cloud of computers spread across a vast infrastructure... and we still print out the map to a local restaurant on plain old paper.

My theory is that everything migrates to the lowest possible energy level and paper requires very little energy to provide information - it only requires a small amount of light to shine on it so a human can observe what is stored there. In fact it requires zero energy to store the information (or read it if it's in Braille) and potentially has a long retention life of several hundred years (not so for a DVD).

So paper is not such a bad medium for sharing information - mankind has been doing that for thousands of years.  But it has one major flaw... it is hard to update.  If you manufacture encyclopedias on paper, then the second you set the type for the printing, they are obsolete.  Information does not stand still.  It is fluid as our understanding of the universe expands and history moves behind us in time. And worse, information can be useless.  Think about a billion books randomly arranged in a gigantic library without a card catalog.  Even with an index, searching millions of pages of information for knowledge may never yield fruit. 

So is the energy content of information increasing? I would suggest it is.  As we accumulate more information, the energy required to store, search and display it increases - possibly exponentially with the quantity of information.  The amount of new information being created daily is unfathomable since people are sharing what they know more freely and indexing of that information has greatly improved.  Additionally, information that was previously in print is now being converted to share electronically increasing the energy that information requires.  Google did some math several years ago and predicted that even with the advance of computing power as it is, it would still take roughly 300 years to index all the information on the world-wide-web... Wow!  Guess how much energy that will take!  Till next time...

October 01, 2009

Ignorance is Bliss... How Knowing Too Much Can Ruin Your Day

Bookmark and Share

Don't watch your power meter to closely... you may lose sleep!

My name is Rick Zarr and I am a geek.  OK, I’ve said it publically for the record.  I get excited over reading articles on quantum well transistors and photonic lattice light emitting diodes.  Yes, I live to learn about technology and how it can be employed to improve our lives. Most of all... I like to build things - always have and always will. I have a "home project" worksheet that looks more like a broker’s stock trading analysis complete with Gant charts and status updates. I am a consummate data collector and home automation enthusiast - much to the dismay of my wonderful, loving wife who tolerates all the lights going out at the press of an incorrect button... but I digress. Information is power over your environment and it helps immensely with decision making processes - most of the time...

I so much love to instrument things, that over the past nine years I have been equipping our home with sensors, custom software and automation to know exactly what’s going on.  My goal was to improve our "living" efficiency as if our house were some giant manufacturing machine kicking out sneakers or soda bottles.  I will admit it is a work in process... engineer’s minds never sleep and we are always coming up with new ways to solve problems or improve processes.  So goes my "smart" house - which should be more aptly referred to as a "modestly clever" house with SLD.

I am usually intelligent in my decision processes, so when I started this project I learned that knowing the truth can sometimes be less favorable then simply being ignorant to the topic.  The power consumption of our house is a classic example.  Now, I knew I was a large consumer of energy. I write about the topic all the time and I’m painfully aware of the "average" consumption in America. I was on a mission to find where every milliwatt was going...

My quest started me on a crazed path to rid our home of energy waste... this lasted about 10 minutes until I realized that the rest of the family wasn’t buying into it.  It’s much easier to say, "Would you mind turning off the TV when you’re done watching America’s Next Top Model" as apposed to "Here’s a detailed report of the family’s energy consumption for the last week - we have a consumption goal of Y, and your quota is X so please adjust your life-style accordingly"... my daughters would simply laugh.

Following my rant I was lovingly banished to my home office.  I sat at my computer and watched the machine in action - lights going on here and there, air conditioners cycling on and off, pumps starting and stopping and realized that to make this type of thing work, my family (including me) needed to be out of the equation.

I am now working on adding rules to the system that (here’s a stretch) "learn" what we’re doing and adjust the house accordingly.  For example, if the thermostat in the bonus room is set to 75°F and there’s no one moving around, the TV is off or worse, the security alarm is set in "away" mode, then it’s probably safe to set the thermostat back to 85°F until someone changes it (or someone enters the room).  There are many other examples, which made me realize that I just added another item to my long list of things to build... this is going to take awhile.  Until next time...

August 30, 2009

In Pursuit of Efficient Lighting

Bookmark and Share

What will leave Edison to the history books? As a technologist I am often asked what single change would bring about a more stable energy infrastructure - it’s not quite that simple.  Our infrastructure has evolved over the past several hundred years into the distributed, fairly reliable source of electrical and chemical energy that we now enjoy.  To pose this question is like asking what single change could be made in a human body to allow us to live longer - again, not so simple.  If you improve one area, you possibly degrade another. 

This brings up some controversy over moving to electric vehicles in an effort to reduce green house gases and remove the dependency on foreign oil.  If you could simply convert all carbon fuel based vehicles to electric, suddenly the entire electrical grid would be overwhelmed by the charging requirements.  In addition it would create a need for potentially hundreds of new power plants - many of these burning coal or natural gas and producing green house gases!  Not a simple solution...

But possibly, there is a single thing that could make a significant difference in improving our energy consumption - at least for now.  I have mentioned this before in several blogs, but it is fundamental in how modern humans live.  It is lighting - the artificial light that allows us to see when the sun goes down.  I cannot imagine a world without artificial light sources.  However, I periodically fly from coast to coast on a "red-eye" flight and as I look down from 25,000 feet I am constantly amazed on the amount of power being fed to tens of thousands of street lamps - all lit brightly regardless of who might be there.  I even pick out the lone 500 watt mercury vapor lamp on some mountain top location and wonder why it’s there...

According to the U.S. DoE Energy Information Administration (EIA), in 2007 the U.S. used roughly 526 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity for lighting (both commercial and residential). In the following year, a typical nuclear power plant produced roughly 12.4 billion kilowatt-hours, so for the U.S. the lighting needs alone require roughly the equivalent of over 42 nuclear power plants. In addition, the world population is growing requiring more energy.  This means the rate of increase of consumption in itself is increasing.

You cannot simply stop using power, but you can be more efficient with what you have.  As it turns out, Light Emitting Diodes or LEDs have been on the fast track to replace both incandescent and florescent bulbs.  LEDs today are already more efficient than incandescent bulbs, and closing fast on Florescent designs. One problem (among several) that is slowing adoption is in the luminous intensity of an LED. 

The problem stems from the way photons are created within the band-gap of the diode structure.  As electrons cross the band-gap (a forbidden energy level), they transition from a higher energy state to a lower one.  In most diodes, this transition is non-radiative (no light) and is simply converted to heat.  If the band-gap energy is high enough, a photon is created.  This is the basic operating principle of LEDs.  However, most of the photons are caught in wave modes within the semiconductor material and do not add to the light emission - only additional heat as they recombine within the material.

Well, over the last several years some very clever people at MIT started looking at regularly spaced nano-structures that act as waveguides to tunnel those lost photons out of the depths of the LED material.  These are called Photonic Crystals and have driven the luminous intensity and efficacy of LEDs to new highs.  They formed a company around the technology called Luminus to manufacture these ultra-bright LEDs.  This innovation may very well be the first step in realizing a solid-state lighting future.

Now there are still problems with inefficiency due to a phenomenon called Stokes Shift (found in White LEDs using phosphors), thermal conduction requirements (no IR emission as in incandescent bulbs), higher cost plus the addition of electronics required to power and monitor these devices.  However, simply improving the efficiency of every light bulb by 50% in the U.S would immediately remove 30 plus coal burning power plants from operation.  Now that’s significant. Till next time...

August 24, 2009

The Energy Loss of Poor User Interface Designs

Bookmark and Share

IStock_000001511231XSmall I was fueling my car the other day and the pump I was using had one of the worst user interface designs I have ever come across (the brand of pump will remain nameless... but you know who you are).  As I struggled with the poor response time, lack of feedback and just overall bad programming (and this was a simple fuel pump) it made me think... what energy is lost due to users taking extra time using a system with a poor UI design?

I’m sure you know what I mean... most software is delivered with very little user testing.  Of course the designer knows how to use it, but the real test is someone with absolutely no knowledge of the software.  How fast can you use it and get the information you need.  I see this in web designs and other information server applications.  If I have to drill... and drill... and drill... to get to the level I need, I go crazy - especially if I made a bad choice somewhere along the way.  It’s like the old style "wizard" help dialogs. It’s when you get to the end, and it tells you that the software is about to do unnatural things to your data and asks you if you are sure you want to use the original file... is when you realize that twenty steps back you should have specified a new file name!  That’s what I’m talking about. 

Or what about unresponsive code - oh, this is really high on my list of bad software behavior.  If I have to wait for a task to complete before starting another one (especially if they are unrelated), then I start counting the seconds like I’m in prison.  Some software engineers didn’t get the memo that we’re in the 21st century and multi-threading applications are not some lab curiosity!  Or how about the lack of user feed-back... when pushing buttons on some piece of equipment yields nothing in return?  Is the equipment not working? Is the equipment busy doing something else?  Is the button broken?  We just don’t know, but the time it takes to complete whatever task I’m doing certainly increases.

Ok, so much for the rant.  But what amount of energy is lost if any?  Something certainly must be lost? Let’s examine a fictitious, but real-world example - an ATM or Automatic Teller Machine - something most everyone is familiar with.  The ATM has an LCD touch screen and the unit sleeps when no one is around to conserve energy.  Only when someone walks up to it (motion sensing) does the LCD and backlight come on and the processor wake up. 

In this thought experiment, two revisions of software were released - revision A which has UI issues and revision B which was revised to improve the UI.  The only difference between the two releases is the user interface - everything else is the same.  The ATM is in a high traffic area (of course) so that it generates the most revenue for the bank through access fees.  Revision A lacks the "beep" for user feed-back, and uses one thread for all the functions. Revision B has a "beep" when the screen is touched and is multi-threaded so the UI is independent from other activity.

Input speed is slower for revision A due to the single thread and users may think they have not entered their PIN correctly due to the lack of audible (or tactile) feed-back causing them to touch twice.  Revision B has a thread dedicated to the UI, so the "beep" and character representation for the touch is almost instantaneous.  I would imagine that 50% of the time, revision A will cause an incorrect entry of the PIN - at least during the first attempt.  The total time delay would be roughly an additional 10 seconds.  The next hurdle would be entering the amount for deposits or withdrawals - probably 90% of the usage of the machine.  Assume the same 10 second error recovery time when an error is made. Using these simple estimates and assuming and average of 30 users per hour, table 1 shows the total run time the systems are up (not sleeping) for each revision (assuming only withdrawals and deposits).

Table 1 – Software revision unit run time comparison

Rev A time (sec)

Rev B time (sec)

PIN entry

(7 + (10 * 0.5)) * 30 = 360

5 * 30 = 150

Transaction selection

6 * 30 = 180

4 * 30 = 120

Amount Entry

(10 + (10 * 0.5)) * 30 = 450

8 * 30 = 240

Communications Time

15 * 30 = 450

15 * 30 = 450

Accept / Dispense Time

5 * 30 = 150

5 * 30 = 150

TOTALS

1590 (26.5 minutes)

1110 (18.5 minutes)

So, looking at this hypothetical ATM, we see that in every hour, a bad user interface which causes errors in entry may increase the run time by 8 minutes.  If the unit is sleeping the remainder of the hour (simplified), then every hour the run time increases by 8 minutes or 3.2 hours per day (assuming an average of 30 users per hour for 24 hours).  A more accurate model would take into account usage and sleep times for the entire day, but it is obvious that a poor UI will increase the run time of the machine. 

In this model, If the ATM consumes 200 watts in run mode and 20 watts in stand-by, the energy consumption increases by 576 watt-hrs per day, or an additional 210.4 kW-hrs per year simply due to errors caused by the poor user interface… makes you think about the next time you start writing code, doesn’t it? Till next time...

May 07, 2009

The Curse of Moore's Law

Bookmark and Share

Processor Wafers As many of you know, Gordon Moore stated in his paper of 1965 that the trend for integration of digital transistors will increase exponentially, doubling every two years. So far, Moore’s Law has been pretty close if not conservative.  Looking at the Intel 4004 processor of 1971, it represented a transistor count of around 2300 devices (yes, two thousand three hundred transistors).  The new Intel Quad-Core Itanium Tukwila contains around two billion transistors - an increase of almost a million fold... so that’s good news, right?

In the scheme of higher levels of performance or simply improved portability (think Apple iPod shuffle), higher transistor counts are a wonderful thing. However, there are forces at work at the atomic scale that are making problems for these amazing shrinking transistors... as the size is going down, the total energy the chips are consuming is going up.  Why? First some semiconductor fundamentals...

Figure 1 shows the scale of a typical Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor (CMOS) FET. Like all semiconductor processes today, MOSFETs (Metal Oxide Semiconductor Field Effect Transistors) are fabricated using a layering process.  Currently, the layering is done using Deep Ultraviolet Lithography due to the extremely small line spacing used to fabricate the circuitry.  Basically, the UV light exposes sensitized areas of the device to either allow or avoid etching or ion infusion as the layers are built up to make the chip.  These are very tiny devices - the gate length of a modern MOSFET inside of a digital CMOS Cross Section chip is on the order of 65 nanometers - an average human hair is roughly 100 micrometers in diameter... over 1500 times larger!

As the transistor’s conduction channel is made smaller, so must the insulating oxide that sits above it that controls the charge carriers between the source and drain. As the oxide gets thinner, it becomes harder to prevent electrons from "tunneling" through the insulator to the underlying substrate, conduction channel or source-drain extensions.  This phenomenon occurs in both the "ON" and "OFF" states causing significant losses when considering large scale integrated circuits.  Also, sub-threshold leakage is a problem for digital devices.  This is the current that flows between the source and drain when the gate voltage is below the "turn-on" threshold - useful for analog circuits, but a dirge for digital designers. 

It turns out that as we shrink transistors, all of these parasitic problems that used to be minor at larger scales are now adding up primarily due to the higher number of transistors found in modern devices.  Equation 1 shows the relationship between some of these characteristics - most notably, the supply voltage "V".  As the supply increases, dynamic power consumption increases exponentially and is often dealt with first (being the larger source of power consumption).  However, the static losses (iLEAK) are CMOS Energy Equationincreasing as the transistor geometries shrink and the densities increase.  As the frequency of operation of the device is scaled back to conserve energy, the static loss predominates - a real problem for large scale devices with hundreds of millions of transistors.

There are structural ways to minimize these losses, but as geometries continue to shrink, power will become a much more serious issue... not only as a problem for energy consumption (i.e. operating costs) or battery life of equipment that uses these devices, but for the heat that builds up inside of the chips themselves.  As heat builds up and cannot flow away from the source, the localized temperature will also increase causing aging in the device.  A chip will fail sooner if operated at high temperatures, so by lowering the power consumption, the lifespan of the device improves.

Back in 2000 my company, National Semiconductor, pioneered a cool way to lower not only the dynamic power, but the static losses as well.  It’s called Adaptive Voltage Scaling and was used primarily on portable devices to increase run time when running on batteries.  However, as chips continue to grow more complex, AVS is now showing up in large scale devices such as the Teranetics TN2022 10G base-T Ethernet physical layer device.  AVS technology utilizes the principle that all digital chips are designed and implemented for worse case process, timing and temperature.  This is like saying the most out-of-shape person will consume one gallon of water while hiking a trail… therefore, all hikers are required to carry one gallon of water - even though most will do just fine with a single canteen full.  It burdens the better members of the group with the problems of the worse constituents.  So by using technology, each digital chip can be “assessed” for its "water consumption" based on how "fit" it is... that is, how well the chip’s process performs.  Like humans, they will all vary around a mean or average performance level, but the majority will fall near the center of the distribution.

AVS leverages this characteristic by placing monitor circuits inside the digital core (or cores) which report the current state of the chip to an embedded controller called the APC or Advanced Power Controller.  The APC then can make decisions whether the supply voltage is too high or too low and communicate those adjustments to an external power supply device called the EMU or Energy Management Unit. As temperature moves, the process ages or the digital load varies, the controller again makes updates that minimize the energy consumption of the overall system.  Energy savings of 40% or greater have been observed when using this technology especially in systems that use multiple devices.

As Moore’s Law marches on, the number of transistors on a singe chip will grow to levels never before imagined... and to keep these amazing devices running, technology will also need to address the methods for powering them.  As in my previous post, "The Personal Supercomputer in Your Pocket", the potential for capabilities is only limited by our imagination and our ability to manipulate our physical world.  Till next time...


 

March 19, 2009

AC / DC Wars Continue... Part II

Bookmark and Share

AC or DC? You decide... My previous post "AC vs. DC - The Westinghouse / Edison War Continues..." has created some very active feedback and thus compelled me to create a "part two" post on the subject.  Surprisingly, there are individuals on both sides of the fence.  Some are very pro-DC, others pro-AC.  It’s fascinating to see the reasons for each point of view.

Some readers are promoting DC for use in HV transmission systems where the higher voltage (as in AC transmission systems) lowers the resistive loses (see my previous blog for the math).  For example, ABB (a manufacturer of HVDC equipment) makes very good statements on the advantages of HVDC transmission such as connecting grids of varying frequency (60 Hz to 50 Hz) and lower cost over long distances (only 1 wire is required not 3 or 4 - makes sense).

Others are promoting DC in the home providing a universal DC bus for equipment such as PCs and other electronics.  Since there would be only one DC supply, it would be much easier to back it up with batteries - possibly fed from solar panels.  Why have Uninterruptible Power Supplies (UPS) on every computer, DVR or gaming console when you can have one, low voltage DC supply.  Again, this makes sense.

On the other side are some very good reasons for alternating current.  AC power transmission systems are extremely reliable, well understood, fairly universal and ubiquitous.  We have had AC with us for over 100 years and to universally convert our transmission systems to DC would be unrealistic (for now... in 100 years, who knows).  Home and commercial systems are all engineered to work with AC from circuit breakers to florescent lights (an incandescent bulb would work either way).  Today’s incandescent bulb dimmers require AC power to work... a completely different technology would be required to dim them using DC power.  LEDs will eventually replace CFLs and incandescent bulbs and could greatly benefit from a DC lighting bus.

I take the position there’s a place for both.  In many applications, local DC buses could provide a uniform, uninterruptible supply of power that easily integrates with local power generation (solar, wind, etc.).  An AC/DC "gateway" can provide the interface between the energy producers (e.g. the power company) and the local generation capability (e.g. solar panels) and manage the power flow.  The direction of flow can be from the grid to the home or visa versa when the sun is shining with low local consumption.  This device can also provide a gateway to the power consuming devices in the home to help manage and lower the consumption.

The future of energy management is bright and will require a rethinking of how we use power whether it is AC or DC in nature.  I believe that AC and DC power can live in harmony where each has a place that simplifies the application.  Let me know what you think!  Till next time...

February 26, 2009

AC vs. DC – The Westinghouse / Edison War Continues...

Bookmark and Share

AC High Voltage Power Lines Did you know if Edison had his way, all generation and transmission of electrical power including the outlets in your house would provide direct current (DC) instead of alternating current (AC) that we have today?  Around the turn of the 20th century, Nikola Tesla invented alternating current generation, transmission and AC induction motors.  He then licensed his patents to George Westinghouse and the war with Edison began.  Edison went as far as electrocuting animals with AC power to show how lethal it was compared to direct current. The fact is ANY electrical current can be fatal. It does take more current to place your heart into fibrillation with DC than AC (around 60 milliamps for line power AC, and 300 to 500 milliamps for DC). Above 200 milliamps muscles contract so violently, the heart cannot pump at all...  Thus the reason you should always throw off the circuit breaker when working on an electrical project... I do (well, most of the time).

We all know that Tesla and Westinghouse won the battle. AC power has the advantage of easily being "transformed" to higher and lower voltages allowing transmission over vast distances.  Additionally, AC power propagates down a wire with lower loss than direct current.  DC power suffers seriously from Ohm’s Law (R = V / I where "R" is resistance in ohms of the wire, "V" is the voltage drop across the length of the wire in volts, and "I" is current flowing through the wire in amperes).  To calculate the power lost for DC power due to the resistance of a wire, you simply use ohms law plus the power equation (P = I * V) and find P = I^2 * R where P is power in watts.  If you consider a transmission line carrying DC power with a current of 10,000 amperes and a transmission resistance of only 0.1 ohm, you will be losing 10 million watts of power! Also, there would be a voltage loss (a drop in voltage) of over 1,000 volts from one end to the other. Depending on the length of the wire it will either get warm, catch on fire or explode! Since it was known that transmission losses would be much higher than zero ohms (unless the wires were made from super conducting materials), DC transmission was considered impractical and abandoned. But interestingly, the battle still rages on in pockets of our industry.

There are complexities with AC power namely maintaining the correct frequency (50 or 60 Hertz depending on your country) and phase synchronization.  When generators are brought on-line, they must exactly match the phase and frequency of the "grid" otherwise "seriously bad things happen".  Consider what would occur if a 100 megawatt generator was switched into the grid with as little as 1 degree of phase difference between the generator and the grid. The phase angle of 1 degree at the zero crossing (the point where the sine wave power goes to zero before reversing) would be equal to a power loss of over 1.74 megawatts! Well, in reality the power wouldn’t be lost... it would show up somewhere you wouldn’t want it to -  like a high voltage transmission transformer (i.e. imagine a large boom followed by much panic). That’s why our transmission grids have safeguards - like high power circuit breakers the size of automobiles. There are other problems with large distributed networks that span a nation - the phase of the power will be different along the grid and there is always the issue of Power Factor.

With all the problems associated with AC power, our modern world runs on it.  What’s interesting is that in most homes, the electronics (including your PC) immediately turn the AC power into high voltage DC and then using a switching power supply convert the power into lower DC voltages required by the system.  Most electronic subsystems run on DC voltages that range from less than 1 volt to around 48 volts.  There are losses with the conversion from one DC voltage to another, but most designs can provide about 80% efficiency with many above 90%.  To learn more about switching power supplies, go check out National’s Analog University tutorial on switching power.  Also check out their WEBENCH tools which allows you to design a complete switching power supply on-line.

Another reason for converting to DC is the ever increasing need for alternative energy sources such as wind and solar. For instance, photovoltaic panels used for solar installations supply DC power which must then be converted to AC. As LED lighting begins to overtake the traditional incandescent bulbs and CFLs, they will require direct current.  This again is supplied by switching power supplies that convert the power into a constant level direct current for the LEDs. 

But this begs the question, "what about our existing infrastructure?"  I doubt anyone would say, "sure, come on over and tear up my entire house and rewire it for DC power."  Just the issue with appliances is enough to stall any initiative.  However, a dual power system might actually have some merit.  For those systems that can benefit from DC power (such as charging your electric vehicle’s batteries), making a DC gateway into the home might provide some benefits.  You would have one very efficient DC power supply that would reduce the AC line current to around 48 volts DC.  Then, any appliance or electronics that would require DC could start at the 48 volt point and easily convert it to what ever the system requires.

There is a silent movement to move back to DC power for some of the above reasons at least at the final destination. I seriously doubt that Edison will finally win the war which is pretty much over at this point. But as applications for direct current emerge in the home a master DC home gateway may one day show up in your garage.  Something to think about... till next time...
 

February 02, 2009

The Role of Semiconductors in Energy Conservation

Bookmark and Share

The Future Chip I’ve been hearing a great deal about how various technologies will be deployed to help reduce our carbon foot print as well as provide a sustainable energy future for all... these include alternative energy generation, smart grids, new solid state lighting, and more.  The most interesting thing is that underlying all of those technologies (and many others) are the semiconductors that provide the computational engines, the sensing and signal conditioning as well as the power conversion.  It is the humble "chip" that defines the semiconductor industry and has made such amazing strides in the last 50 years since its debut.  Now it’s time to leverage that technology in saving energy - not just consuming it.

Without semiconductors, very few of our modern technologies would exist.  It would either be impossible to manufacture them or they would simply be too complex to implement (think "mechanical or vacuum tube" based computers).  Today with energy on everyone’s mind, conservation is in the forefront along with improved efficiency.  If you consider that almost no one owned a computer in 1981 (except geeks like me), the conversion efficiency of the power supplies were not a major issue - cost might have been a higher priority.  However, today just about everyone has at least one computer and the energy consumption of the system is a high priority. Building computing platforms that use less energy is a focus for the major microprocessor vendors as well as the system designers.

Extending the view out into the Internet, the picture becomes cloudy on exactly where the power is going.  However it is going somewhere and in gigantic quantities.  Yahoo and Google both are building new data centers in the Pacific Northwest to move closer to sources of hydroelectric power which is (for now) plentiful and less expensive.  With the growth of the Internet continuing for the foreseeable future, the power consumed by this infrastructure will continue to climb.  Estimates are that by 2050 an additional 300 gigawatt power plants (coal, nuclear, natural gas, etc.) will need to be built to support the increasing consumption of electrical power.

So, if the semiconductor industry has enabled so much through higher levels of integration and performance, why can’t the next big challenge be to make these systems more energy efficient? I have no doubt that is exactly the thought on everyone’s mind.  In the past, the goal was to put as many active devices on a single "chip" as possible.  Today, a billion transistors is standard operating procedure.  Now the goal is to reduce how much energy each transistor uses to do the same job. New technology such as quantum well transistors holds the promise to reduce the energy consumed to around 1/10th of today’s modern CMOS (Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor) transistors.  Other technologies such as carbon nano-tubes will also play a role, but we may not see the fruits of these technologies for another 5-10 years.

So, remember while you’re talking on your cellular phone or watching that brand new 50" flat panel HDTV... without the semiconductor industry most of modern life would not exist... and the future is more dependant on the success of that industry than most think.  Till next time...

January 07, 2009

Energy Consumption in Consumer Electronics

Bookmark and Share

Bulb Happy New Year... with CES around the corner, it is interesting to think about consumer electronics and how energy efficient they are today.  I often think that with so many new devices available to consumers, the amount of energy consumed is actually growing at an ever increasing rate.  This is most likely true simply due to the decreasing cost of certain technologies. As consumers buy more, it is even more imperative that the energy efficiency of these devices continues to improve.

An interesting twist in the mix is large format flat-screen HDTVs.  What most people don’t realize when they rush out and buy that new 50" panel is that it probably consumes quite a bit more energy than their old 27" tube model.  A 50" plasma HDTV will draw near 500 watts, where their older 27" tube model draws closer to 300 watts.  With the prices of the larger displays dropping, consumers would rather have the bigger picture, than simply replace their 27" model with a similar sized LCD HDTV which actually draws far less - around 150 to 200 watts.

A similar phenomenon exists for LCD monitors for PCs.  With the performance of PCs improving orders of magnitude over the last several years, gaming and other display intensive applications are now driving consumers to purchase larger LCD displays - or even multiple displays for the same PC.  I’m guilty of the later since I find having multiple displays for my PC desktop provides me a larger, more efficient work-space.  You’ve seen the stock trading setups with 6 LCD panels... I’m not quite that far yet... but it does make you think that if more monitors are hooked up to PCs, then the energy consumption - as a whole - also rises.

Speaking of PCs, they have come extremely far in energy efficiency.  However, you need to look beyond the watts that flow into the machine and consider what it is doing for the energy it consumes.  If you consider my first PC, which ran at 4.77 MHz, only could squeak out 0.25 MIPS for the 100 watts it consumed (not including the CRT monitor) you could calculate an efficiency rating of only 0.0025 MIPS/watt. A modern PC can exceed 1000 MIPS (considering the graphics engine as well) and may only consume 250 watts including the LCD monitor.  That provides an efficiency rating of 4 MIPS/watt - an improvement of 1600 times over my PC of 28 years ago.

Also, software is very important in the efficiency equation. The operating system is well aware of the user’s current processes and can greatly reduce the PC’s energy consumption by various methods such as turning off hard drives, powering down LCD monitors or simply lowering the back light intensity when you’re pondering your next move in game-land.  All modern PCs with any energy efficiency rating tied to it will have these features.

And there is always the ubiquitous cell phone.  The only problem is that you really can’t call them simply a cell phone anymore.  Most modern cellular phones include MP3 players, video games, calendars, contact management tools, cameras, and many more features.  What’s also interesting is the size of the battery " not just the capacity, but the mechanical size.  I took the battery out of my Blackberry and it measures approximately 1" x 1.5" x 0.25".  The old "bag" phone I used to carry in the 1980’s had a battery that looked more like a lap-top pack.  The lack of cell towers and early analog (AMPS) cell technology required a 3 watt transmitter in the phone which needed a big battery to provide adequate talk-time.  Today, CDMA or GSM technology is far more efficient with bandwidth and power consumption.  Also the mobile processors use energy saving technologies such as Adaptive Voltage Scaling pioneered by my company, National Semiconductor to further improve the efficiency of digital cores.

So to sum it up, consumer electronics have come a long way - not only in features and performance, but in their efficient use of energy.  Just about every consumer electronic device or appliance carries an EnergyStar rating sticker so you know exactly how much energy the device will use.  It even spells it out in dollars so you can compare equipment.  With energy prices bound to rise again, most savvy consumers will look at those stickers and think about their monthly power bill before they make their purchase... till next time!

October 01, 2008

Performance and Energy Consumption... Are They Exclusive?

Bookmark and Share

IStock_000006760484XSmall In my position I hear a great deal of discussion regarding the physical trade-offs between performance and power consumption.  "If you want to accelerate quickly in a car, you need power to overcome inertia."  I agree... but increasing the size of the power plant in a car isn’t the only way to get it to accelerate faster.  Inertia is a function of mass (F=ma) so by decreasing the mass, you can get faster acceleration with the same power plant. 

This is a very common approach to improve either performance or fuel economy in today’s modern sports cars as well as jets, boats and other vehicles. But these principals also apply to electronic systems as well.  Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor (CMOS) based devices define modern digital and mixed signal electronics.  In the very design of these devices are issues with power as the performance is increased.  For example, DRAM designs have capitalized on the supply voltage vs. power equation for CMOS processes to reduce the power consumed (see the equation below).

 CMOS Equation

This equation shows that the frequency and capacitive load terms contribute linearly to the power consumption.  Reduce the frequency by half and the power will also be cut in half.  However, the supply voltage is a square function, so by reducing the supply voltage from 1.8V (DDR2 memory) to 1.5V (DDR3 memory), the power consumption is reduced by 30% which is a major savings.

As process geometries continue to shrink the conduction channel gets shorter (good) and the gate insulator gets thinner (bad). To reduce leakage (electrons that "tunnel" through the thin insulator) manufacturers have moved to lower supply voltages. By reducing the voltage across the transistor, the associated electric field that exists between the gate and the conduction channel is reduced as well.  New materials such as nitrided hafnium silicates (HfSiON) are being used to replace silicon dioxide in an effort to prevent leakage and electron tunneling (Intel is already shipping processors using hafnium based high-K dielectric in their 45 nm process).

No matter how you slice the problem, when you have a billion transistors all using a tiny amount of power, you end up with a large amount of power being consumed.  Processors and digital systems require large amounts of transistors and for the foreseeable future will only increase in density.  To increase the performance, there must be another way...

My impression is that the industry can take several paths in an effort to increase performance while minimizing power consumption.  One path (which is currently the path of choice) is to continue to shrink the process geometries to 20 nm or below which becomes extremely hard to fabricate.  This will allow more transistors on the same size die and utilize sub one-volt supply voltages.  Another avenue is to migrate away from silicon processes altogether and find another way to make transistors.  There is on-going research in the area of quantum well transistors made in indium antimonide which may be the next step for higher performance digital functions with extremely low power - one tenth of today’s power consumption.  There is a large capital investment in integrated circuit fabrication technology so the next step that will be the least painful will need to be similar to silicon based manufacturing.  There is also research being done in diamond based semiconductors as well as carbon nano-tube technologies to also reduce power while improving performance.

But what about revolutionary change?  What if we abandon semiconductors all together and move to optical non-linear crystal based computing and analog functions?  Is this even possible on the scale of which we currently build processors, analog-to-digital converters, amplifiers or other electronic components? Maybe our industry needs to take a step back and consider the new horizon in front of us...  a world were energy consumption is as much a factor as how fast we go... something to think about.  Till next time...