Gee…what could have happened between 2000 and 2001 that might have caused it to drop? And between then and now to be relatively flat, compared to the previous trend?? I guess it will just continue as it is right now, since it’s not like we are in a huge recession or anything, right?? 
-XT
Geez…
You’ll note that while the general trend is up there are dips here and there along that line. Get back to me in ten years to see if this is a momentary dip or an ongoing trend.
My money is on it keeps going up and my statement is true that power consumption has steadily risen throughout US history (granted with a few minor and temporary hiccups).
The American lifespan has gone up too, right along with energy use, but there’s a point when both level off. I don’t think we’re going to go from an average life expectancy of 78 now to 120 in a hundred years. Why would your energy use go up? Once you own an electric car, there’s not much else to use electricity for you aren’t already using electricity for. It’s not like all your appliances and electronics aren’t using less, rather than more these days.
Hopefully a future smart grid will be smart enough to tell when you’ve plugged in 23 computers and video games and wide-screen TVs and left them on, along with all the windows open in February in Minneapolis, and automatically shut off power in your house to everything, including the refrigerator, as the grid AI notes it’s currently 34 degrees F in your house.
So, as society slowly transitions to electric cars over the next 50 years average usage per capita will keep going up.
Considering the amount of electricity necessary to power all our automobiles it will go up quite a lot.
Maybe it will flatten out in the US then.
Of course other countries in the world will be ramping up all that time too.
Somehow you will do all this with solar and wind.
Good luck with that.
There you go again. Are we still talking about the US, or the world?
You wanna talk about global electricity growth per capita, let’s. Nuke has already been shown not to have a prayer of even holding its present share.
There’s only so much you can expect the US to do about the rest of the world’s energy consumption, unless you really do like Planet of the Apes, but even that wouldn’t be enough, if only the US were playing. You’ll have to slash the US’s population by about 90% too.
Sorry, we’re doing the best we can. Sort of. The grand kids are fucked. They’re going to have to get used to GW, and a few more nukes isn’t going to change that, except they’re going to get hit with our nuclear trash too. Sorry grandkids!
[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
Maybe it will flatten out in the US then.
[/QUOTE]
That’s the thing…it may flatten out (though I doubt we are at the top of our trajectory, electrical use wise, not to mention energy as a whole)…but the rest of the world, especially the developing parts of it are definitely not. Some of them are just getting started. If we remain exactly the same as today, we STILL won’t get but a fraction of our energy from alternative ‘clean’ sources (if we exclude nuclear, and if hydro is maxed out)…so, we won’t be able to balance the growth in other countries with CO2 cuts in our own. Our own will become basically a sunk cost in CO2, while their rate just keeps going up, meaning, ultimately that a hell of a lot more CO2 is going to go into the atmosphere than is going in today. Now, that might or might not be a problem (I think it is, but some don’t). Regardless, it’s what’s going to happen, since I think nuclear is a dead issue in the US.
Not in any time frame other than several decades we won’t. Even then, I tend to doubt it. I think beyond a certain point wind is just not going to scale up any more…and I think some prime sites where wind COULD make sense will be killed by NIMBYims. I will be surprised if, 10 years from now wind and solar combined are even doing 10% of our total energy in the US. And by then we will probably start to lose those nuke plants who’s shelf lives are going to expire, so it will simply be a trade off between one ‘green’ technology and another, without any real cuts in our CO2 production. Maybe new tech for automobiles will help there (I think it will, especially if we are able to serious switch from IC to hybrid or some other alternative), but from a electrical production perspective it’s going to be coal as the main supplier of electricity for decades to come. C’est la vie…
-XT
So basically nuke is out, wind and solar are out, I assume everything else is out too, so the whole world is fucked and there’s nothing to be done about it.
Do you have any positive, realistic suggestions or do we need to just lay in a huge supply of prozac and loin cloths?
[QUOTE=levdrakon]
Do you have any positive, realistic suggestions or do we need to just lay in a huge supply of prozac and loin clothes?
[/QUOTE]
Nope…we can get some mileage out of efficiency, and I’m certainly all for that. Maybe a few percentage points. We can and will expand on wind and solar, and we might get those up to 10% or even a touch higher in a decade or so. Changing the grid would be major, and that might happen, and give us some more percentage points. All of this might even be able to make up for the nuke plants that will slowly die off…hell, maybe even for the hydro plants that will also slowly die off without new replacements. None of it is going to seriously cut into coal generated electrical power though IMHO.
No, where we MIGHT get some relief in that regard (as I said earlier) is in personal transport. As oil prices rise it’s going to push technology into alternatives…and we could potentially make some serious inroads along that path, depending on what emerges as the next thing (or things) that replace the current hydrocarbon based ICEs.
But killing nuclear kills the only real thing we could do to change the equation wrt coal and FF based electrical generation for decades to come. Maybe fusion will arrive in 50 years (I hear that it’s only 50 years out from being realized ;)), or maybe there will be some magic pony breakthroughs in solar or wind or something else that will be game changers, but today, right now, nuclear is it if you are serious about CO2…and that ain’t gonna happen. Like I said, c’est la vie…the world is how it is, and the well is completely poisoned at this point.
Yep…basically that’s where we are at, on the electrical generation side. Coal is gonna be it, with everything else either dying off or being a bit player in the mix. Oil is really the only place where there is going to be some serious flex, and that’s going to depend on a bunch of market stuff. There is technology that COULD replace a large percentage of our current hydrocarbon based transport system, but we have a huge investment in what we have today, so it’s going to take some serious market mojo to make it happen…and no idea what will finally emerge. If I knew then in 10 years I’d be rich enough to light my fine cuban cigars on the backs of the peasantry, using matches made with ground up $100 bills…
-XT
Cheer up Bunky! Here, have a radioactive banana, and turn that frown upside down!
We’ve got enough coal and oil for a loooooong time. Worst case, we use it and demand it’s clean and it’ll be really expensive and that will suck sort of but not really that bad and real-estate developers who specialize in hurricane zones & earthquake faults are increasingly prone to ulcers but who cares about those bastards.
That gives us plenty of time to build a holy-shit sized belt of floating solar towers around the entire equator and wherever it touches land huge-ass transmission lines send electricity and fresh shrimp north and south and then somewhen around that time solar power satellites will be vogue along with their associated low-gravity condominiums, Disney-themed sex and gambling parks and international banking and internet terminals. All will be great in the world!
See? Think positive.
FWIW, electricity consumption per capita in 2009 was 12,668 - lower than it was since 1995. Yes, it reflects the recession but dip for dip lower than 2001’s dip.
Will electric vehicles increase that number? Of course. But if charged in a valley filling fashion a large percent of the light duty vehicle fleet can be charged without increasing capacity (actual percent subject to Una’s critiques of the studies) and by making fuller 24/7 use of generation capacity they will make the average cost of generation/kWh go down. If vehicle to grid comes to pass then they may even serve as a means of helping decrease the need for as much spinning reserve and help stabilize the grid. And even using the current coal heavy grid mix will cut down CO2 emissions.
Transmission. HVDC and other transmission upgrades are long overdue. Will renewables become more attractive as a result of such overdue upgrades, as they will substantially decrease the concern of intermittency? Yes. But even without the renewables issue HVDC makes sense to invest in. As do utility grade storage technologies.
Once again you knock the intellectual ball right out of the park. In one sentence no less.
As I pointed out to SenorBeef (and not one person dared say I was wrong), the reason this is not being pushed by Governments at large is not because solar and wind power are ineffective - but because it will wipe out the profits of big centralized huge power plant companies.
Like I said, this is a fact that the pro-nuclear and pro-fossil fuel people are very, very scared to address - not just on the Dope, but in the corporate boardrooms of energy companies, too.
[QUOTE=Le Jacquelope]
As I pointed out to SenorBeef (and not one person dared say I was wrong), the reason this is not being pushed by Governments at large is not because solar and wind power are ineffective - but because it will wipe out the profits of big centralized huge power plant companies.
[/QUOTE]
Not one person who wasn’t on your ignore list? 
Heck, it would get old saying you are wrong about something…the hard part is finding the needle in the universe, otherwise known as the minuscule times you are right…
-XT
[QUOTE=levdrakon]
Cheer up Bunky! Here, have a radioactive banana, and turn that frown upside down!
[/QUOTE]
Whatever you say, chief. Don’t worry, be happy, ehe?
We have coal for centuries, and we have oil for decades, no doubt. I find this less than a comforting thought, but whatever floats thy boat.
That’s the spirit…fiddle while Rome burns and all that jazz! I don’t live in a coastal zone (yet) so probably no worries here…
-XT
Don’t forget we’ll be using wind, solar and every other kind of renewable at the same time, and who knows? Maybe thorium reactors will work some day. Maybe. We aren’t putting all our eggs in any one energy basket.
If we listen to the rabid pro-fossil fuel propaganda and accept it on its face, then we must come to this conclusion. Fortunately some Americans are smarter than that.
ROTFLMAO
No kidding. I personally think the short term dangers of global warming are a bit overblown. I also think the modeling isnt as “correct” as some believe (there are just too many positive and negative feedback loops that need to be very well modeled for the whole thing to work). Short term it could be bad or it might not do much at all, and there is a fair chance we don’t really know which it will be.
However, given the basic physics and geological history, I don’t doubt that if you pump a whole damn bunch of CO2 into the air, eventually you will cause some very serious problems global warming wise.
So, yeah, the fact we have enough coal to burn to REALLY crank up the CO2 levels doesnt give me the warm and fuzzies either.
[QUOTE=Le Jacquelope]
If we listen to the rabid pro-fossil fuel propaganda and accept it on its face, then we must come to this conclusion. Fortunately some Americans are smarter than that.
[/QUOTE]
So…you either didn’t read what I wrote or didn’t understand it. And then you put yourself in the smarter Americans category…
Exactly.
-XT
Ok, I will.
A few things.
Solar efficiency does not “double” every year. In fact, there are hard limits in solar efficiency. The Shockley–Queisser limit places a hard cap of 33.7% efficiency on solar panels with a single p-n junction. With multiple layers that can be improved upon but even with a theoretical infinite number of layers the limit is 86% efficiency. Such theoretical efficiencies will never be achieved. If we doubled solar efficiency every two years, as you claim, we’d be at that limit already and we are nowhere close (I have seen 40% claimed for some new technologies).
As for collecting solar energy at night I have seen infrared solar cells which in theory will convert infrared energy emitted at night and convert to electricity. I have not seen a working prototype or an analysis of its efficiency. If you want to debate hypothetical power sources fine. Maybe someone will invent a way to capture infinite zero-point energy tomorrow. We cannot make energy decisions today however in the hopes some magic future tech will save us.
As for solar energy being “free” it is far from “free”. You are merely front loading your costs for electricity.
According to this calculator when I input $150.00/month of electric usage for my zip code (Chicago) and Commonwealth Edison as my electric provider it tells me I’d need to spend $112,680 to achieve 100% energy independence. With incentives my cost is $55,213. For that I will need 1,600 feet solar array (close to my whole rooftop).
At $150/month it’ll take me a little over 30 years to recoup my investment. Problem is solar panels have about a 25 year lifespan. They also become less efficient over time (after 25 years somewhat better than 80% efficiency from what I have read). There is also some maintenance costs with solar. Not much but some.
So, solar makes no sense price-wise for me (it might if you live in a desert or something). In order to even come close it needs substantial incentives (which means you would be paying for my solar setup). Without incentives it needs to drop HUGELY in price. While solar prices have been falling input prices (silicon in particular) have been rising recently.
My problems get worse though. I live in a condo. There are eight units in the building. So far I have used my whole roof to provide myself with 100% of my electrical needs. What about the other seven units? How can they use solar to achieve energy independence? Where will the solar panels go?
Not sure where the systems that will store power at night will go either. We have no basement in the building.
It is all well and fine for you to say this is doable if you have plenty of land to plop solar panels on. It does not work so well in areas with high density living.
So, while I agree power generation is big business and they will do their level best to squeeze out competition you have in no way shown how your free sunshine world would actually operate (not to mention operate at a cost that is not exorbitant).
I’m glad someone finally called him on this. I saw the post this morning before work and was going to post something at lunch if no one else had.
I have a friend who says tidal power is a good option. But it isn;t something I ever hear about.