Energy efficient, but still using more

[The2ndWheel]

http://www.startribune.com/535/story/1236326.html

Despite attempts at limiting power usage, Americans are using more electricity than ever to keep cool during the hottest days.

snip

Many household appliances have become more efficient, using less electricity than ever to cool rooms, wash clothes and chill food. But the increasingly wired American home, where outlets are charging cell phones and iPods and powering multiple computers and big-screen TVs, is creating higher demand for power than was the case even a few years ago.

snip

"Now we're constantly connected, living in controlled environments and are constantly entertained," Gillaspy said. "All of that takes electricity."

snip

Horowitz, the research scientist at the National Resources Defense Council, said he thinks it's going to take continued advancements in appliances' energy efficiency to keep the lid on peak electricity demand.

more...
_________________________________

"said he thinks it's going to take continued advancements in appliances' energy efficiency to keep the lid on peak electricity demand."

No, that won't keep the lid on it. Why did demand go up? Continued advancements in efficiency. Why will demand go up again? Continued advancements in efficiency. What will they think will put a lid on demand? Continued advancements in efficiency. Why will demand go up again? Continued advancements in efficiency. What will they think will put a lid on demand? Continued advancements in efficiency. Why will demand go up again? Continued advancements in efficiency. What will they think will put a lid on demand? Continued advancements in efficiency. Why will demand go up again? Continued advancements in efficiency. What will they think will put a lid on demand? Continued advancements in efficiency. If you don't want to read the whole book, it's just a thousand pages of those few sentences.

We either get a habitat, or everyone gets everything except a habitat.

[YankeyMCC]

1. K & R

This is an important point. Efficiency is good for the energy we need to consume but it is not going to resolve the issue or reducing demand at all.

[Deja Q]

2. Rather like eating diet food. It has 1/3rd the fat, so people eat 3 times as much.

Net result? No change.

[IndyOp]

11. Gore's new solar panels have been installed...

Therefore, those three screens are now powered by the sun.



On edit - to be clear - the picture above is of Gore's solar panels on top of his Nashville home - not just any solar panels, but the ones installed on Gore's home. Photo from Yahoo.com images...

[phantom power]

3. I hereby declare Phantom's Power Law:

Increasing population and increasing standard of living will dominate all improvements in efficiency as time approaches infinity.

[depakid]

7. A corrollary to I=PAT

A frightening thought with respect to China & India.

Cool little paper on point:

http://www.population-growth-migration.info/essays/IPAT.html

[NickB79]

4. Isn't this the very definition of Jovan's Paradox?

:shrug:

[GliderGuider]

5. That's sure what it looks like to me.

Efficiency or conservation effectively expand supply, expanded supply drives down price, lower price stimulates demand. I wonder why people keep being surprised by this?

[depakid]

8. Jevon's paradox is alive & well

one of the many reasons why technological fixes are essentially cornucopian fallacies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

[phantom power]

9. Oh. I guess I don't get to name it after all.

[jpak]

6. That's not been my experience - or anyone else I know.

Friends and relatives have reduced their electric bills by more than 60% by replacing their old inefficient appliances (including their computer monitors) with Energy Star rated appliances.

Granted, they also turn off their computers and unplug their phantom loads when not in use - and have not purchased Big Screen TVs either....

[NNadir]

10. Well the EIA data is somewhat more convincing than your parochial experience.

I know you don't believe in data: It hardly compares with the "me and my friends" "let them eat cake" approach.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table63.xls

You and your friends are provincials and have never even remotely attempted to live in the real world.

Your "conservation" song - which is basically a plea for the third world to remain impoverished so you can cruise web sites extolling the wonders of solar energy - is a nursery rhyme.

[Greyskye]

12. gratuitous insults

lovely.

:sarcasm: :eyes:

[jpak]

13. Yes, and as Dick Cheney is fond of saying...

"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."

Thanks for reminding me...

[NNadir]

14. Well it would seem that conservation is a failure..

Didn't the gas executive Gerhard Schroeder tell the world that Germany was going conserve its way out of nuclear energy?

Is there any evidence that Germany is going to conserve exajoule quantities of energy and cancel the 26 new coal plants you don't care about? Is there anyone on the planet who seriously still believes that?

How much "all new stuff" will the Germans buy to do this? Do you have any interest in the climate change cost of 100 million new German refrigerators or where they dump them in the third world? Any numbers connected with that?

Oh yes. I remember, your knowledge of mathematics involves repeating the phrase "Dick Cheney..."

Let's see, what number do you get when you subtract 511 billion kilowatt-hours from 540 billion kilowatt hours? Let me guess...

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table63.xls

Oh yes, the answer is "Dick Cheney."

Are you going to mutter "Dick Cheney" all night, or are you going to do something that indicates an awareness of electricity consumption in the German coal Republic you did so much to promote here.

All of your energy proposals are failures, but none so much as your ridiculous misrepresentations about nuclear energy.

The fact is bub, that as soon as people refuse to agree to be impoverished, they need energy. As it happens, neither you or Dick Cheney have any interest in the issues of the poor.

[hunter]

15. Residential energy use is not the problem, and never will be.

I could stop paying my electric bill, they'd disconnect me, and I'd have to wash our clothes by hand and light the house with solar powered LEDs. The house would be much darker at night than it is now, but nobody would die.

Natural gas is a little more problematic -- I like warm showers and cooked food, but it's still not a survival issue where I live. Nobody freezes to death here in the winter if there is no heat, or overheats in the summer if there is no cooling.

But we do need electricity to pump water, treat sewage, and keep the places where we all work running. We need fuel to grow and transport necessities. We need fuel to get to our places of employment.

Putting solar panels on your own roof to produce electricity for your own personal use really doesn't mean anything except that you have the money or the political influence to do that sort of thing. Solar rebates don't go to poor people, in fact they probably reduce social services overall.

Good for you, you've gone solar. It's like buying a swimming pool or home theater system, it's just another decoration of affluence, just like buying a Prius or remodeling your kitchen with fancy new stainless steel "Energy Star" appliances. But it really doesn't address the greater problems of environmental degradation or human misery. It's just a new manifestation of the old "trickle down" economic theory, you know, that if some rich guy buys solar panels, eventually the price will fall, jobs will be created, and even the farmworker living in a shack by a pesticide polluted sump somewhere will benefit.

Yeah, sure he will.... bitter :sarcasm: