Residential Energy Use Unchanged Since the 1970s
Tim
| Posted in Energy, Heating & Insulation on
WASHINGTON—The amount of energy that the average American requires at home has changed little since the early 1970s despite significant improvements in the efficiency of appliances. According to a Washington Post article, on a per-capita basis, Americans still require about 70 million Btu a year to heat, cool and power their homes, just as they did in 1971. A key reason, experts say, is that American homes are larger. Also, consumers are buying many more electronic devices.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/29/AR2010092906585.html
Replies
Yep, that's about what I'd expect.
apples vs oranges
That's an apples to oranges type comparison. Totally worthless. Actually worse than worthless. It leads to the wrong conclusions.
A real use analysis would examine how much energy, then vs now, is used just to heat the house per sq ft. How much is used for cooking, blah, blah, blah.
I have 3 hp table saw, 1.5 hp dust collector, jointer, planer, bandsaw, etc. that I did not have 30 yrs ago. At that time, I only knew one person that had a real wood shop at home. Now, just about everybody I know has a wood shop. Got a hot tub, 2 refrigerator freezers, another freezer, 3 dehumidifiers, etc. that I did not have back then.
Those trends are the same across the whole populace. More TVs, more video games, more tools and other items that rely on batteries whose chargers usually stayed plugged in. That says a lot about how much more we're getting from about the same per capita consumption, if the figures you quoted are correct.
The people that use current data to show how much we aren't conserving are totally missing the point. Expanding and improving the standard of living requires the consumption of energy. Anybody that claims that the total US use of energy should decline over time is a fool. If we can hold the per capita consumption near constant as the data you quoted implies, while greatly expanding the number of uses for energy, we have accomplished a lot.
Uhhh.....
Expanding and improving the standard of living requires the consumption of energy.
Right, but our consumption of energy (and other materials) seems to be destroying the planet, in the name of improved living standards. What's your plan for the long term?
Sorry, I'm not in a policy making position............;-)
Actually, I do have opinions on what should be done, but it would take years for us to go over all of it, and wouldn't do anyone a damn bit of good.
All of us here, even us former gov'mint employees, have been able to make a living because of commerce. Commerce as practiced in this world relies on growth. Growth & expansion are the main metrics by which any business model is judged. All economic models that I know of are based on some kind of growth in goods & services. Until the world learns to operate differently, it's the reality we live in.
Are you really saying that you won't be building any more houses because there are enough already out there? You won't be buying any more lumber because the forests are disappearing and the logging is destroying wildlife habitat? You won't eat anymore seafood because we are over fishing the oceans? You won't eat any more beef because raising cattle is a flagrant waste of food resources?
I try to do my part, but I realized a long time ago, that most others would consider many of my ideas to save the planet immoral, crude, or just plain weird.
The world has faced many crises before in it's history. Before the automobile, the rapid increase in horse manure production because of the need for horses in support of commerce and growth threatened the world's well-being. Scientific American magazine published an article predicting that within a few decades of that time, manure production would be enough to cover the entire world several feet deep. The automobile bailed us out of that one.
Will science be able to bail us out of the situation we're currently in? People are hoping, and scientists are trying, but such projects are not getting adequate funding from our government because "the people" don't want to pay for it. Are you advocating more $$ for alternative energy programs, or just saying that we should not use what is available & as a result make some people cold, hungry or dead? Whose manufacturing plant are you going to shut down. Whose cars are you going to take away?
I think history shows that you don't conserve your way to wealth, or progress (whatever you interpret it to be). That's not to say that improving energy efficiency is not a worthy goal. It absolutely is. That becomes a multiplier and allows that much more expansion.
"Commerce as practiced in
"Commerce as practiced in this world relies on growth."
Untrue. Commerce relies on inequality. Not necessarily financial, social, or legal inequality, but rather inequality of skills, means, and resources. Without that inequality everyone would do everything themselves and there would be no commerce. "Growth" (other than, eg, growing plants) is not required.
With inequality it becomes mutually beneficial for two parties to exchange their wares. Eg, the potter trades pots to the baker and gets bread in return. This works out because the potter is better at making pots and the baker is better at baking bread, due either to innate skill, training, or an investment in "capital equipment", or perhaps due to an availability of natural resources.
The belief that the economy must keep expanding to survive is one of the Big Lies that lead us to situations like the current economic mess. At best "constant" growth can only (temporarily) hide flaws in the economic system.
Totally disagree
A lot of things are theoretically possible, but show me one totally static situation in terms of exchange of goods & services that has existed anywhere in this world for a period of decades.
Nothing in the real world is totally static (or, more properly, "steady state"). But there have been cases of trade patterns (eg, Mideastern caravans) that have existed reasonably unchanged for centuries.
"Growth", as we know it, is a relatively recent phenomenon, due largely to improved agricultural techniques and public health advances that have resulted in an exploding population. Up until about 1700 population growth was much slower than it's been since. But significant commerce (spanning national boundaries) has existed for at least 3000 years.
Don't get me wrong. I've been thinking for years that having the governments of the world make decisions on economic models where growth and expansion are the primary objectives is one of the problems.
That said, IMO, your reasoning is still invalid. Take the caravan example. Somebody had to have the first caravan. Then somebody else saw that dude making "money" and decided to run a caravan, too. That was a growth market just like today's smartphone market. Take a look at the communities that sprung up along the caravan routes, e.g. Petra. Those were prosperous, wealthy cities, working on essentially the same dynamics as we do today. Cities of traders, brokers, and suppliers. Sure, the technology remained unchanged for decades, or even, centuries, but the effects of the rate of technology advancement is a totally different discussion. When the caravans disappeared, so did many of the cities.
You point about "growth hampering commerce" is way off the mark. What we're discussing is the growth & expansion of commerce, not population, per se. Population growth is one factor that results in the growth of commerce........... and I will agree with you that population growth causes other problems. I've been a fan of ZPG for a long time.
"Take a look at the
"Take a look at the communities that sprung up along the caravan routes, e.g. Petra. Those were prosperous, wealthy cities, working on essentially the same dynamics as we do today."
That was growth due to commerce, not commerce due to growth. And I'd posit that it led to the same sort of excesses that we've seen of late.
It's a tautology that without change, nothing would ever change, so certainly change is necessary for commerce to develop. But "growth", in terms of constantly increasing amounts of "things", is not (with one reservation) necessary or sufficient for commerce to occur, and it quite often disrupts commerce.
The one fundamental relationship between growth and commerce is that as a pattern of commerce develops (and assuming a reasonably "fair" economy, free of coercion) there will be an initial increase in overall wealth in the system. It is this increase in wealth that motivates commerce to develop. But, once developed, that commerce can continue (quite happily) in steady state with no further increase in wealth.
Of course new innovations will come along from time to time and further increase wealth, but once again a steady state will develop if there's no further innovation.
I'm certainly not opposed to innovation (and, in fact, commerce is a sort of innovation), and that innovation (if valid) will inevitably increase wealth (which is a form of growth). But growth for growth's sake, with no innovation, will only line some pockets at the expense of others (or at the expense of the environment and our grandchildren's futures).
Growth for growth's sake is a Ponzi scheme, and innocent people always get stuck holding the bag when the carousel stops (to mix metaphors).
In fact, growth hampers commerce. Population growth has almost always created international frictions that result in wars, trade and otherwise, vs promoting peaceful commerce. Peaceful commerce can only really develop when conditions are relatively stable, so that the opportunities for differential advantages can be recognized and their interchange negotiated.
Consider, eg, the simplest interchange -- that between goods and money. If both the currency and the supply/demand of goods are relatively stable then the opportunity for negotiation is present. But in runaway inflation or a situation of scarcity this breaks down and conventional commerial trade cannot occur -- rather you get black markets, intimidation, and out-and-out thievery.
Yes, in conditions of relative economic stability the opportunities to make a "killing" are rarer, but the population as a whole is much more likely to benefit. As a carpenter, eg, you're less likely to get rich (or go bust) building McMansions, but more likely to be able to make a decent living maintaining and improving the existing housing stock.
Conclusions
to be drawn are up to the reader. If you draw the wrong conclusions, the flaw is not with the information or its presentation, but rather the ability or lack thereof, to interpret it. Information is neither good nor bad, useful or not. Those features depend on how it is put to use.
I didn't research or write the article. I found it interesting and thought others might as well. Seems to have generated an interesting discussion, which is the point.
By your admission, the article "...says a lot about how much more we're getting from about the same per capita consumption, if the figures you quoted are correct." While you seem to be distracted initially with fruit, you did actually understand the point of the article.
Careful there....
... in this country we don't question growth in polite company.
Start with the wrong premis and you always get the wrong answer. The article is wrong. In 1997 the US used 94.76 quadrillion BTUs of energy. In 2009 we used 94.66 quadrillion. That may not seen like much of a savings but considering population growth, increasing demand, millions more houses, etc. it's quite an accomplishment. Our energy consumption per dollar of GDP was over 15K in 1973 and is now just over 7K. We are the most energy efficient economy in history and we're moving to more efficiency all the time, not because of government mandates but because it's good business.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/mer/pdf/pages/sec1_16.pdf
"We are the most energy
"We are the most energy efficient economy in history"
??? Per-capita energy use in the US is the tenth highest in the world, exceeded mostly by oil exporters. Energy efficiency has improved over time, but a big part of that was due to government pressure. Eg, CAFE held total US motor fuel consumption virtually constant while mileage increased substantially, but when CAFE was broken then motor fuel consumption shot upward.
Per-capita energy use in France is about 58% of what it is in the US. Germany is 54% of the US.
And energy use per-capita in the US has increased more or less steadily over time, and is now 4 times higher than it was in 1850.
(The chart you reference is energy per $ GDP, and if you look closely you'll find that most of the improvement came 1976-1986, corresponding very closely to the period when CAFE was in full effect.)
In any case
who gives a rat about energy use per GDP? Stuff like that is just sound bite material.
Our "efficient economy" is busy producing and distributing a huge volume of needless short-lived consumer goods, using massive amounts of energy and other raw materials to do so, and then struggling to find places to put all the trash and other waste. Good thing we're all so peaceful and happy!
Well, at least we don't have to import oil from the Middle East where the profits go to supporting Osama Bin Ladin and his buddies.
read the english
Efficiency doesn't imply anything about total use. It's the measure of output vs input. Whether you think that output is useful or superfluous doesn't change the definition of efficiency. GDP is actually an output of energy usage. "Per capita" energy usage doesn't say a dang thing about efficiency.
I can't copy & paste here, stupid forum s/w, but you made a quote about US per capita energy usage today vs 1850. What in the world is the point? Are you really arguing that we should go back to largely unheated, totally uncooled houses, horse & buggy transportation, and the level of commerce that existed in the 1850s. If you want to go back to basics what the heck are you doing using a computer & the internet?
While it may be indicative of some goals to be achieved, your comparison to other countries is largely meaningless. Again, apples to oranges. Few other countries have similar infrastructure or usage requirements. That's just like running a computer program and taking the results of analyzing invalid data as gospel. Ever hear the phase, "Garbage in. Garbage out." The US doesn't have the population density to allow some of the efficiencies the European countries have. You going to be the first to give up your car, house, and yard and move into a high rise to decrease the "per capita" energy consumption in the US? Why not?
Half of the US population
Half the US population lives within 50 miles of a coast -- the median US population density is much higher than you think. Australia has a much greater disparity in population density than the US and uses only 73% as much energy per capita.
As to "efficiency" being related to GDP, I somehow don't see that it's more efficient to heat a 5000 sq ft house with a 95% furnace than to heat a 2000 sq ft house with an 80% furnace. Any way you look at it, it's not efficient to waste energy.
You don't think that France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, et al have as high a standard of living as the US?