Slashdot Mirror


Power Demand From US Homes Expected To Fall For a Decade

We hear all the time that household energy consumption is rising, both in the U.S. and around the world. That's been true in the big picture for several decades at least, but reader captainkoloth, with his first accepted submission, points to an Associated Press article with some encouraging news on this front: the rate of growth in U.S. household energy use, and household energy use itself, is expected to decline slightly over the next 10 years. Take it for what you will, but that conclusion is drawn by the Electric Power Research Institute, "a nonprofit group funded by the utility industry."

49 of 261 comments (clear)

  1. Not a huge surprise by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As the last of the vacuum tubes (incandescent light bulbs and CRTs) get phased out, power consumption goes down. Now if we could just find a way to get rid of (most) fractional horsepower motors.

    1. Re:Not a huge surprise by bunratty · · Score: 5, Interesting

      California's per capita electricity use has been nearly level for decades due to their energy efficiency standards. Now that similar standards are being adopted nationwide, nationwide electricity use is leveling off. If we try even harder, we can reduce electricity use. Not only does it not harm the economy, it helps us all save money because we're paying for less energy, and we're paying less per unit of energy because demand is lower.

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    2. Re:Not a huge surprise by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You can use a little power as you like, the network costs will get you.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:Not a huge surprise by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Informative

      What a lot of people don't realize about CFL's is that they can have really fucking poor power factors, we are talking in the region of 0.3 for the really cheap ones, so you may only be getting billed for 20W but the power company is feeling the burn of 60.

      If by 'burn' you mean transmission losses then yes. If you mean 'burn' as in they have to actually produce 60W to run a 20W CFL then no, power factor does not work that way.

      Power factor comes from the fact that CFLs are not a purely resistive load. But energy stored in a capacitor or inductor is not lost. It is returned to the grid. Your utility does need extra equipment to manage apparent vs real power and make their distribution more efficient (mostly eliminating the one downside of low power factor, but that's as far as it goes (and they already have this equipment).

      Power factor as a negative of CFLs is a complete red herring, and whoever told you it was a big deal was taking advantage of you in order to slander a fine energy-saving technology. In reality all you can say is that there advantage over incandescents is slightly less great.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    4. Re:Not a huge surprise by hedwards · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There are minimum expenses, you have to have towers sufficient for at least one transmission line pretty much no matter how little your consumption. But, if you halved the power consumption you should be able to at least cut the transmission capacity by a third, if not a full half. And every line you run has to be maintained and every bit of capacity has to be paid for by somebody.

      Ultimately, it tends to be better to have the utilities owned by the local government than a for profit entity because any "profits" can at least be sure of going back into the infrastructure. That's how it's been around here for ages and our price and quality is quite good. Price isn't entirely fair because we do have hydroelectric dams to provide power, but even as we've demolished them the price has still remained lower than most other parts of the country.

      The thing which really hurt us was when Enron cheater our utilities out of that money when they went under.

    5. Re:Not a huge surprise by PPH · · Score: 4, Informative

      Now if we could just find a way to get rid of (most) fractional horsepower motors.

      Make that fixed speed, single phase fractional horsepower motors. Three phase motors are more efficient. And even more system efficiencies can be squeezed out by varying motor speed to match the mechanical load.

      As power semiconductor prices come down, small variable frequency drives (VFD) will become common. These take single phase input and produce variable frequency, multiple phase outputs for a motor and provide power factor correction and other efficiency improving functions as well.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    6. Re:Not a huge surprise by Technician · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Fractional HP motors are not the problem. Bad motors are a problem. Case in point, the circulation pump on a solar installation used a 1/10th HP pump. The pump drew about 300 watts or about the energy of 1/2 hp. The pump was replaced with a DC brushless motor. A single 60 watt PE panel was placed on the roof. Now when the sun shines on the collector the pump runs. This eliminated the differential thermostat controller and 3/4 of the power use to circulate the water. It removed 100% of the need for utility power to run the pump.

      The move was made for two reasons. One was power efficiency. The other was for reliability. The old system would boil over in a power outage. The new one is unaffected by power outages.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    7. Re:Not a huge surprise by hawguy · · Score: 5, Informative

      What a lot of people don't realize about CFL's is that they can have really fucking poor power factors, we are talking in the region of 0.3 for the really cheap ones, so you may only be getting billed for 20W but the power company is feeling the burn of 60. Add to that the fact that they are essentially an attempt to cram a LPMV lamp into a really awkward form factor (because for some reason having a strip light in the living room is unthinkable, but having it as a point source and then wrapping a shade round it to diffuse the light is fine) subjectively poor spectrum, mercury content (I know it's not a lot, but if I cant have lead in my solder you can't have mercury in your bulbs) and poor performance in cold weather they are a really a bad solution to an already solved problem.

      While it's true that CFL's can have bad power factors, it's not quite as bad for the power companies as it sounds.

      First, regardless of the PF, a 20W CFL uses 20W of energy, the power company doesn't have to burn 60W of coal to feed your .3 PF 20W bulb - they only burn 20W of coal.

      It is true that they have higher current draw from a CFL due to the 60VA apparent load, but that doesn't really matter since for most homes, lighting energy is dwarfed by other uses, so the power infrastructure to your home is sized to handle your 3000W oven heating element and 7000W tankless water heater. Granted, the low PF can lead to higher resistive losses in wiring, but not nearly enough to erase the gain in efficiency by moving from incandescent to CFL's.

      Large commercial installations with hundreds or thousands of lamps do take the power factor into account and size the electrical infrastructure accordingly. Those that are billed by power factor can use power factor correction to correct the power factor (or use high PF lamps), and still save money due to the efficiency of CFL's. Labor costs alone in reduced bulb replacement make CFL's a good deal for business with a lot of lights.

      Poor power factors are nothing new - many newer computer power supplies have built-in PFC to give them a decent PF, but older power supplies could dip to around .6.

    8. Re:Not a huge surprise by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Informative

      Returned to the grid arbitrarily out of phase, which requires utility companies to employ large PFC installations and / or take the hit with extra generating capacity.

      Only to compensate for the extra line loss! Which is important, but small compared to the real power consumed. You can measure watts produced at a generator, volt-amps in the load, and power in the load and see that the power produced by the generator is only slightly more than the real power consumed by the load. Implying that it is more, that CFLs don't save power and use the full volt-amps worth of power even with 0 PFC is pure ignorant bullshit FUD.

      But they do have PFC installed.

      Suggesting that widespread adoption of low power factor equipment is a non-issue is just another attempt at green-washing with bullshit.

      We're just talking about low-power usage lighting when the PF for the home will be dominated by HVAC and large appliances. Acting like the claim that PF is a red herring for CFLs is the same as saying it's a non-issue if your whole house was running a low PF is just a bullshit way to cover for you getting called out on your flagrant ignorance.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    9. Re:Not a huge surprise by arth1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I grew up pushing a manual lawnmower every week during summer. It worked just great.

    10. Re:Not a huge surprise by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

      CFL power factor depends on the quality of the ballast. Right now the issue is unimportant because the impact of CFL on the overall residential power factor is negligible. However as (if) CFL adoption starts to impact this expect Energy Star to start including power factor in their assessments.

         

    11. Re:Not a huge surprise by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Um... utility companies have a legal monopoly. They have already gamed the system and are outside of the free market.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    12. Re:Not a huge surprise by iamhassi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not only does it not harm the economy, it helps us all save money because we're paying for less energy, and we're paying less per unit of energy because demand is lower.

      Maybe in California, but some parts of the country have seen almost yearly rate increases, so cutting your energy usage by 30% doesn't help much when they raise rates 30%.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    13. Re:Not a huge surprise by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2

      A capacitor isn't a short, and where do you think the energy goes in this situation with no real power consumed?

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    14. Re:Not a huge surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      ...and we're paying less per unit of energy because demand is lower.

      I'm positive the exact opposite will occur. Again using California as an example, examine their water conservation efforts. First, water utilities actually raised their rates in order to promote "conservation" (making water unaffordable is not the same as conservation). Then, as the economy tanked AND usage dropped, water utilities raised rates in order to offset decreased revenues.

      I'm all for conservation, but with union strangleholds on these industries, the government in bed with the unions, all on top of campaigns by reckless anti-progress environmentalists and NIMBYs, things are only going to go from bad to worse. Every time a new round of environmental regulations gets handed down by a government (who despises electricity generation but wants to keep all the lights on), generation stations must be retooled or closed, both meaning higher costs for consumers.

      The reality is drops in power demand aren't primarily from conservation efforts: they're from the high cost of energy and the steady decay of American manufacturing, particularly on the west coast.

    15. Re:Not a huge surprise by davester666 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wonder if this 'report' takes into account all these sexy new electric/hybrid vehicles that are going to save Earth from greenhouse gases.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    16. Re:Not a huge surprise by Alamais · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm really glad that I decided to try a toaster oven a few years ago. It's so much quicker and efficient for small cooking tasks, and does a lot of things much better than a microwave (leftover pizza is awesome). Plus it doesn't heat my whole apartment up in the summer. Between toaster oven and crockpot, about the only thing I ever use the normal oven for now is an occasional traditional roast (either a whole chicken or pot roast w/ a bunch of veg).

    17. Re:Not a huge surprise by bunratty · · Score: 2

      I'm sure energy prices will continue to go up, even if we use less. As we remove the easiest fossil fuels to remove, the remaining are harder and more costly to remove. But they will go up more slowly if the demand is less.

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    18. Re:Not a huge surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      VFD's are the cats meow, but too expensive and complicated for most applications.

      PFC's are becoming insanely popular though, especially in heating and air. anything with 90+ AFU in a furnace will have at least a pfc motor, and the really high end stuff (98+AFU) has continuously variable VFD's for the blower motors. the problem with these motors is that they are MUCH more sensitive to power spikes. after replacing my pfc blower motor for the second time i wised up and put a whole house MOV in the electical panel, a surge suppressing outlet, and three MOV's inside the furnace for the mains power supplied to the motor, and three MOVs across the 24VAC supplied to the motor. haven't had a problem since.

      oh, and PFC's cost 3-5 times as much as a shaded pole motor!

      air conditioning compressor design is changing as well, almost all are scroll-type instead of the old piston style. and the super efficient ones are using variable speed motors in the compressor coupled to a variable rate TXV that adjusts to ambient conditions to eke out the last little bit of efficiency (20+ SEER). add a variable speed fan and the units suck about half the power of a traditional unit.

    19. Re:Not a huge surprise by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 2

      For residential, a local power company is pretty easy to make work. For light commercial, you can pull it off. Very few utilities have been successful at balancing the residential/light commercial needs against industrial users. The utility companies become just like the government though; trying to enlarge fiefdoms to make it look like they are doing more. LADWP was once a very well run utility, but now they are worse than SCE. Not sure how Silicon Valley Power compares these days, but they used to favor large customers significantly.

    20. Re:Not a huge surprise by PPH · · Score: 2

      You do know that most active PFC controllers don't differ significantly from VFDs. Basically, both are a bridge rectifier (sometimes synchronous), a DC link and an inverter stage. The difference between PFC and VFD functions is one of a few algorithms embedded in the driver chips.

      The 'expensive' VFDs you refer to are stand alone controllers designed to be adapted to numerous different applications in the field. But when integrated into high production volumes of consumer goods, they can be optimized and the fancy programming UI left off to save quite a bit of money.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    21. Re:Not a huge surprise by DCFusor · · Score: 2

      Yup. This has been true for a long time. Why should Generous Electric not make motors with too little iron and copper, saving themselves some money if the only increase in cost is to the end-user. And the energy ratings still suck on most appliances, and seem to be going away again. I live off the grid, I care, but lately you can't find a consumption (or even wattage when running) rating on a cheap refrigerator at Lowes...Blank stare is the best you can get. If you do care, it used to be you could go to Graingers, pay a little more, and get a premium motor, same type, with 90% efficiency, instead of 60-70% at best shipped in your appliance. Of course, it was all on you to do it. More radical - I'm now using an old maytag wringer washer with a DC motor on a variable drive, and you know what? It does a better job with less water than the new stuff for most things...you have more control than the dumb computer UI with presets.

      --
      Why guess when you can know? Measure!
    22. Re:Not a huge surprise by alexhs · · Score: 2

      cutting your energy usage by 30% doesn't help much when they raise rates 30%.

      You were paying:
      [reference power usage in kWh] * [kWh rate]

      If your usage is reduced by 30% and the rate raised by 30%, you're now paying:
      [reference power usage in kWh] * (1-0.3) * [kWh rate] * (1+0.3) = 0.91 * [reference power usage in kW] * [kWh rate]

      See ? It helped by 9% :)

      --
      I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
    23. Re:Not a huge surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      so wait a minute.

      If electricity last year cost 100 bucks per gigajoule, and electricity this year cost 130 bucks per gigajoule and you reduced your household useage from 1 gigajoule to 0.7 gigajoules, you still saved 39 dollars versus last year compared to having not upgraded.

      The move is still very smart financially, your point regarding rate increases has no place in this discussion. The same thing happens with water and other infrastructure, a large portion of the maintenance bill for a utility was covered by usage costs in the past, so when usage drops the utility actually loses enough income that they cannot maintain the system and therefore your bill doesn't drop as much as you thought it should. Oftentimes you can see a transmission charge for electricity, this is the approximate cost of what it costs to get your power to you and is upkeep on the lines, poles, and transformers. Depending on the mix of power, your transmission charges can actually be greater than the cost of electricity (say a town fed entirely by a hydrodam 100km away). The fixed cost of electricity is low in this case, but 100km of lines are expensive to maintain. Some people also call this the hookup fee, with negative connotations, but it is well warranted because to use the system it needs to function.

      Imagine if people could choose which parts of the bill to pay, and they decided to not pay for maintenance, obviously at some point the system would break down and there would be insufficient cash to fix it so people can use electricity and the utility can bill again! This represents a death blow to a utility, FULL STOP for operations. (this obviously neglects possible short term financing opportunities)

      it also isn't surprising that yearly raises are occurring as the boomer generation has largely deferred the cost of maintaining the nations infrastructure time and time again while only applying quick or short term fixes to the grid.

    24. Re:Not a huge surprise by khallow · · Score: 2

      Ultimately, it tends to be better to have the utilities owned by the local government than a for profit entity because any "profits" can at least be sure of going back into the infrastructure.

      [...]

      The thing which really hurt us was when Enron cheater our utilities out of that money when they went under.

      The California government was another party to the Enron market manipulation. They created the deeply flawed market rules that led to the California "energy crisis". Then the California government sheltered tens of millions of electricity consumers from the costs of their actions. There seems to be some evidence that Enron bribed the California governor at the time to get that outcome.

      So it's interesting that your example contains government involvement in destruction of electricity infrastructure.

  2. Probably true by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you can't afford to pay the light bill, your electricity consumption is going to decrease sharply.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Probably true by transporter_ii · · Score: 2

      That was my first thought as well. I wonder how the housing market would correlate to electricity demand? But it would seem that more empty houses would = a decrease in demand, to me. I bet shipping all our manufacturing overseas cuts demand, as well.

      But seriously, if your money is tight and there is no sign of a raise in site, the only way to free up money is to cut your bills. If are hovering around minimum wage, you could almost have the choice of an air conditioner or using fan, and being able to afford gas for your car and some food.

      --
      Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
    2. Re:Probably true by Technician · · Score: 2

      You are correct that when the cost of energy rises and ways to conserve become affordable as a result, more investment in energy savings will be made.

      I now have a HE washing machine. Almost all incandescent lamps have been replaced with either CF or LED, A PE installation is slowly growing as the cost per watt drops. Insulation has been added. Wall warts are replaced with switch mode instead of transformer type, and I moved to a better insulated home. Sold my old house in the housing bubble to upgrade to an energy efficient home. After moving, upgraded the older windows for better insulation.

      In the last 6 years, my home energy use has been cut by about 2/3's. Some people only count the cost of their mortgage. I count the total cost. Cutting the electric from 250//month to 75/month was part of the budget.

      Part of where I chose to live affects cost. Mild winters with few below freezing days in the winter and mild summers play a part of the annual energy cost. I have not had an over 100 degree F day this year. Only a few days reached into the 90's. I don't do severe summers or winters.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
  3. Headline is wrong then by Vintermann · · Score: 2

    Power demand is not falling, increase in power demand is falling. Or is it increase in the speed of increase in power demand? Some derivative, anyway.

    --
    xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    1. Re:Headline is wrong then by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 2
      According the TFA, they apparently do think that actual demand will also fall:

      From 1980 to 2000, residential power demand grew by about 2.5 percent a year. From 2000 to 2010, the growth rate slowed to 2 percent. Over the next 10 years, demand is expected to decline by about 0.5 percent a year, according to the Electric Power Research Institute, a nonprofit group funded by the utility industry.

      Of course, this is trusting the AP article to have accurately reported the information, which is probably unrealistic, but the headline's in line with the article.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    2. Re:Headline is wrong then by AdamHaun · · Score: 4, Informative

      Both are right. The rate of demand increase is falling and is expected to go negative in a few years. From the article:

      Over the next decade, experts expect residential power use to fall, reversing an upward trend that has been almost uninterrupted since Thomas Edison invented the modern light bulb. ...

      From 1980 to 2000, residential power demand grew by about 2.5 percent a year. From 2000 to 2010, the growth rate slowed to 2 percent. Over the next 10 years, demand is expected to decline by about 0.5 percent a year, according to the Electric Power Research Institute, a nonprofit group funded by the utility industry.

      Overall demand, including from factories and businesses, is still expected to grow, but at only a 0.7 percent annual rate through 2035, the government says. That's well below the average of 2.5 percent a year the past four decades.

      The article is actually pretty detailed and quantitative (at least for the AP). It lists the big drivers as being more efficient lighting and appliances, federal and state efficiency subsidies, and people trying to save money. Over the next couple decades they're projecting ~20-25% reduction in appliance energy use and ~50% reduction in lighting energy use.

      --
      Visit the
  4. Obviously by roman_mir · · Score: 3, Informative

    US energy consumption is falling even where it concerns oil, that's due to the inflation and thus higher prices in dollar amounts, though measured in gold, the oil is cheapest in history.

    September 2009 â" Current (US Population 307,006,550)
    Total input to refineries 14,600,000 Barrels per day
    Total Imported Crude and products 11,721,000 Barrels per day
    Total Imported Crude 9,223,000 Barrels per day
    Total Domestic Oil Production 5,444,000 Barrels per day
    Gasoline Consumed 8,779,000 Barrels per day
    Diesel Fuel Consumed 4,099,000 Barrels per day

    September 2004 - 5 years ago (US Population 293,045,739)

    Registered vehicles: 243,010,539 Passenger Cars: 136,430,651 Comm Aircraft: 8,186
    Total input to refineries 15,254,000 Barrels per day
    Total Imported Crude and products 13,438,000 Barrels per day
    Total Imported Crude 9,697,000 Barrels per day
    Total Domestic Oil Production 5,062,000 Barrels per day
    Gasoline Consumed 7,993,000 Barrels per day
    Diesel Fuel Consumed

    Also here is a graph of per-capita consumption.

    It's not a surprise that energy consumption is falling in USA, as the population has less and less that it can spend because less and less is produced domestically. Same thing that is applied to oil can be extrapolated to all other forms of energy.

    1. Re:Obviously by roman_mir · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Of-course, this is consistent with the depression that US and many other Western nations are in.

      Depression is huge loss of production capacity - too few people have meaningful goods producing jobs in the market. The way USA is dealing with the loss of production is by abusing the status of its reserve currency, so it's printing dollars to buy consumer goods and the producers also vendor financing this spending.

      So there are fewer and fewer jobs, the production capacity is going down (53Billion USD/month trade deficit), the debt is growing because government spending is constantly increasing in absolute numbers. The so called main stream 'economists' are saying that commodity prices do not matter because consumers are not buying commodities, this is completely dismissing the fact that somebody must buy the commodities to build all those consumer goods. Gold is going up only relative to the destroyed currency. Silver is almost a monetary metal itself, and Apple is selling not only in USA (which has no real purchasing power left since it has almost no production capacity left), but it's selling world wide. Of-course at some point the government will come after all of these American companies that are still making money abroad, saying that they must pay more for 'fairness' sake and will force them to liquidate various assets and to pay gigantic taxes on what will be called their "windfall" profits.

      Money destruction is the same reason HFT is up, and bogus government "Job Acts" will only worsen the situation, while the crowd will be calling for various misplaced solutions that come out of general misunderstanding of what is happening.

    2. Re:Obviously by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      Why don't you read what I linked to on this very issue - my journal, if you wanted to get your question answered? I have enough comments here explaining all of these problems in detail.

      Debt is not the cause of recession, debt is a consequence of the broken fiscal policy, which allows government to counterfeit currency. Currency counterfeiting combined with business regulations (and here is what a business regulation looks like,) combined with taxation of work and with subsidies to preferred monopolies, all of that is responsible for the recession and depression. Debt is just a consequence and a symptom of these things, and without fixing the underlying problems, neither debt nor absence of jobs will be fixed. However thinking that you can fix the unemployment without fixing the debt problem comes from complete misunderstanding of why there is debt and unemployment and why they are one and the same issue.

    3. Re:Obviously by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      Normally I put it differently.

      This is price of gas since 1919 till now, lowest number there is 17 cents / gallon.

      Silver dime minted between 1946-1964 is worth almost $3 (2.995USD)

      Here is price of gas in Washington DC - it's between 3.59 and 3.65USD/gallon.

      OK, let's say it's $3.65/gallon and $3 for the dime to round this thing.

      So for 1 silver dime you can get .82 gallons of gas. Or one full gallon would cost 1 dime + 18% of another dime :), so maybe 12 cents rounded.

      That's cheapest gas since 1919 in terms of silver. Not the same as to say it's cheapest oil in gold, but I should have said what I normally say - cheapest gas ever in real money.

    4. Re:Obviously by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      There is no such thing as fixing the economy, or making economy "grow" somehow without restructuring the debt (and I say restructuring, because clearly USA cannot pay the debt).

      This is basically a bankruptcy, the bad debt, bad loans must be restructured, government needs to liquidate assets, all of those mortgage backed securities, all of the derivative instruments and SIVs that are now on Treasury books, all of that needs to be liquidated and put towards debt repayment.

      This must happen immediately, and all of the debt must be paid at some amount of cents per dollar, so bond holders must be forced to take a serious haircut, they need to be punished for their nonsense.

      But without this USA will absolutely, with 100% certainty NOT be able to grow the economy at all ever.

      There will be a monetary collapse that will restructure the debt if the politicians are not honest enough (HUGE LAUGH, and a round of applause here, whistling and booing), this means that if Ron Paul does not win the next elections, the economy will collapse with 100% certainty, no exceptions.

      The reason for this is very obvious, it's right on the surface, and only Keynesian charlatanism cannot clearly see this: interest rates.

      Interest rates cannot be at 0% for the economy to grow. I explained this in my journal, when I talked about money and HFT. The problem is that savings in USA are punished by inflation, and 0% interest rates allow money printing, this is inflation. There is no way to save investment capital that is legitimately saved from underconsumption, so there is no way to restart business creation.

      The 0% loans that are given to the banks are given to the banks so that they would then immediately buy T-bills from the Treasury. This is monetization of the debt, but this requires 0% interest rates, which in turn is used for gambling in the market with stock, which does not have to compete against government bonds with dividend payments.

      There is no way to invest in this economy to make a return as long as the debt exists by definition at this point, because this debt requires 0% interest, and 0% interest means inflation, which creates more debt.

      Raise the interest rates by 1% and owe near 300Billion more in just interest payments, so the government decided to inflate this problem away, but by inflating it away, it's going to destroy the currency and then this will be the cataclysmic event, which will put US in front of the question: do you now reclaim your individual liberties and start rebuilding, or do you turn into a command economy, with everything that follows that completely wrong decision.

      USA economy is like a giant toilet, it needs to be flushed off the bad debt before the toilet can be used again. If you don't flush it, you can still use it for some time, but it will overflow, and you'll have all of the consequences where you don't want them.

  5. LED TV, New Refrigerator, New Furnace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    We've replaced the broken tube TVs with LCD and now LED TVs. The old refrigerator broke and the new one laps it terms of efficiency. And the new furnace is better than the old one.

    These things alone took our bills down 30-40%.

    Add some switchable powerstrips for all the phantom draws of those power supplies and it gets even better.

    Industry group or not, my experience jibes with their report.

  6. Efficiency is only part of the equation by antifoidulus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    demographic changes and societal changes are probably at least as responsible, if not more responsible, for the changes. Due to the "great recession" American kids are finally figuring out what their counterparts in other rich countries(Italy and Japan foremost among them) that living with mom and dad after graduation and even employment isn't as bad as either forking out massive amounts of money in rent to someone else every month or buying a house/apartment that is pretty much guaranteed to be worth less than you paid for it the second you sign the lease.

    As such, as more people live in the same household per capita energy consumption tends to fall as there are more "economies of scale" in things like refrigeration and heating/cooling.....

    Whether or not this will be a long term trend like it is in Italy and Japan still remains a question and is critical to long term residential energy consumption estimates.

  7. It could far less for more if they would only try by Shivetya · · Score: 2

    My Georgia electric bill for June to July was 130, for July to August it was 134. I live in an area zoned for tiered rates, meaning as your usage goes up you pay a lot more. All my lights are either CFL (where they aren't easily noticed) or now LED. There are some good deals on packs of three LED bulbs. The only place without either bulb is the master bathroom because we can't find anything acceptable to replace the clear six inch globes. Suggestions are appreciated on that matter. So we simply have half them off unscrewed enough to not light; those above "my" sink. Common electronics in the house include one iMac and a laptop. Throw in a DLP television and a 32 LED in the exercise area and finally a hot water heater. The reason I posted our monthly electric bills, the house is 3900 square feet.

    How is it done, well being militant with the heating and AC helps a lot. Since no one is upstairs after 7 the AC goes up to 82+, it is only below 82 from 8PM to 7AM and then its 75 (a slight cave in but hell who cares). The downstairs is 78 during the day mostly because of pets but goes to 82+ at night though it rarely heats up. Ceiling fans grace every room. Laundry and loads of dishes are done as full loads only. Modern dishwashers are more efficient than washing by hand in most cases. Modern washers (both are less than five years old) are the same. Oh, watch the lights. Its not hard to teach turning out the light when your not in the room (though it can lead to some silliness - as in its ONLY YOU in there"). Toss in a light colored shingles and that might help a bit. I would try white as a story mentioned years ago but HOAs are the law in these parts. Outside the only control I have over the elements was planting Chinese Thuja (very fast growing conical pines) to the S/SW to block direct summer sunlight in evening. Even the orientation of the home benefits, most windows are on the North side.

    While I doubt every thing we do would work for most, it works for us. Make it a game. That can get everyone on board. That and have something tangible as reward to do with the savings. Like trips, hell even pizza nights paid for being smart work.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  8. Re:Good by Squirmy+McPhee · · Score: 2

    Now maybe they can reverse that ridiculous incandescent light ban.

    There is no incandescent light ban, despite what Joe Barton (who co-sponsored the "ban" in the first place) would like you to believe. There is only a mandate for lights to become more efficient -- there is nothing in the law mandating that a particular lighting technology be phased in or out. In the end, it is likely a moot point anyway as market forces (partly as a result of European regulations, which the US Congress can do nothing about) have been pushing incandescent bulb manufacturers to close factories. In other words, with or without the law, incandescents are on the way out.

    Like others, I would suggest LEDs. The prices are coming down fast, and the quality (and directionality, or lack thereof) is improving fast. Right now you still have to be pretty careful about what brand you buy and such -- the cheapest available bulb is likely to disappoint -- but by the time you have a hard time finding the incandescents you need I suspect LEDs will be much more viable.

  9. Incandescent lights NOT banned by Relayman · · Score: 2

    As we discussed in an earlier article, incandescent lights are not being banned. Only low efficiency lights are being banned. Higher efficiency incandescents are available now but the cost more (surprise!).

    --
    If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
  10. Re:Good by arth1 · · Score: 2

    As for CFLs not strobing... everyone says that they flicker at 22 kHz or something ridiculous, but they give me instant seizures anyway, so I'm not quite convinced.

    Have you been blind tested for this? I.e. have you been subjected to both CFLs and other forms of illumination at the same color temperature without knowing beforehand which is which (and for double blind testing, the person flicking the switch not knowing either), and you get instant seizures from CFL only?

    That would be very interesting, if so.

  11. Re:Growth falling is not consumption falling by cfc-12 · · Score: 2

    >"From 2000 to 2010, the growth rate slowed to 2 percent. Over the next 10 years, demand is expected to decline by about 0.5 percent a year, according to the Electric Power Research Institute, a nonprofit group funded by the utility industry."

    That means the rate that GROWTH is increasing will slow down.

    No, I'm pretty sure "demand is expected to decline by about 0.5 percent a year" means just that. A decline in demand is negative growth in demand (demand meaning the actual amount of power people draw from the system in a given period of time, not the increase in that amount).

    Also from TFA:

    Over the next decade, experts expect residential power use to fall, reversing an upward trend that has been almost uninterrupted since Thomas Edison invented the modern light bulb.

    Surely when an upward trend in residential power use is reversed, it becomes a downward trend, not just a trend going upwards a little more slowly?

  12. Where are these bulbs? by cnaumann · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Even today's 'high efficiency' halogen lights only produce about 10 lumens per watt. By 2020, all general purpose lights must produce 45 lumens per watt. This effectivly bans all current forms of incandescent lights.

  13. Re:Who cares if it is his first accepted submissio by symbolset · · Score: 2

    They are encouraging first time submitters. There has been a dearth of timely submissions lately. I'm for it. A bunch of the most prolific submitters like "twitter" have been harassed away, and somebody's got to submit this stuff.

    I wonder if declining power requirements of homes have anything to do with declining power needs of computers, the migration to LCD TVs, proliferation of heat pumps and so on - or if it's just a tough economy finally driving folks to adjust the thermostat.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  14. How to Lie with Statististics by WebManWalking · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You were absolutely right to be concerned about the rate of growth metric. Consider 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ...

    The 2 represents a doubling of the sum so far (200%). Now the sum is 3, so the 3 represents a 100% increase. Now the sum is 6, so the 4 represents a 67% increase. Now the sum is 10, so the 5 represents a 50% increase. Now the sum is 15, so the 6 represents a 40% increase. And so on.

    Now suppose that these numbers represent electricity usage. Although usage is monotonically increasing, the rate of growth is monotonically decreasing. Other commenters have pointed out that "TFA" says actual usage will go down. But you were right to be concerned. If actual usage is expected to go down, why didn't they say that? Why did they say that the rate of growth is expected to go down?? That phrase is a major red flag to identify someone who's trying to lie with statistics.

  15. Legalizing pot would bring it down too by istartedi · · Score: 2

    I heard one estimate that 3% of PG & E's power goes towards indoor grows. There would probably be a lot less indoor growing if it were legal.

    Another factor is the ongoing housing mess. Poor people conserve electricity in a variety of ways: Moving back home with the folks, not keeping the lights on in the investment house that they plan to flip (it's decaying instead), and not providing jobs for illegal immigrants who are either moving back or enterring at lower rates.

    Then of course there's the CFLs and other devices that do the same thing with less energy.

    "If present trends continue" is one of those phrases that will come back to haunt you. If the economy picks up and kids move out of the house, hire illegals to do their outside gardening, use growlights for their indoor gardening, and drive a spiffy new electric car to work then we'll be back to talking about how the grid can't handle it.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  16. Doing my part, off the grid since 1980 by DCFusor · · Score: 2
    So I won't show up in this, but some of us got going and got it right way back when. I run 4 buildings on my campus off two independent solar systems, no power company wires come within half a mile of me. I probably use less electricity than most - all our "vampire" loads are on switched power, turned off when not in use, no blinking clocks on things that don't need them (and never did). Doesn't matter so much now as the system has grown, but walking lightly on the earth (and I'm no greenie) seems like a good plan generally, it's better to work with nature than attempt to dominate it -- revenge can be pretty fierce if you don't succeed.

    The system has and does support a computer lab (about 10 machines back when I ran a consultancy here), a machine shop - big tools, welders, and now a physics lab in addition to all the usual home entertainment stuff and lighting -- mostly CCFL, but other types too (even good old halogens for reading and the stereo microscope where they rule). Freezer in an unheated room, freezes two liter bottles of water to put in coolers used as refrigerators in the houses. Saves a ton. In fact, nearly all we do could be done in an on-grid house, whereupon you'd find out why they are called the power company -- they find a way to increase all the other non-electricity charges till you pay the same anyway -- same thing as is called Cramming when the phone companies do it.

    As I started with bare land, and built on that, I found out something really interesting. In most counties, including mine, the county has delegated the issuance and enforcement of building permits to guess who, the aptly named "power company". Ha! So all four of my dwellings needed no permits, and are "barns" insofar as taxes go. Now, think how much money that saves yearly -- and now recalculate the payoff time for solar. Laughing all the way to the bank on that one!

    More on my forums, link below.

    --
    Why guess when you can know? Measure!
  17. Re:Good by nanamin · · Score: 2

    The place my neurologist sent me for testing only tested with fluorescents, but it did show up on the EEG. Psychogenic seizures don't show up. Also, I've had seizures when friends accidentally forgot to screw in incandescent lights instead of their normal CFLs when I came to visit. I didn't have any prior knowledge that they were using CFLs and we only discovered it *after* I reacted to them. It's hard enough to get an appointment for testing (let alone getting to the appointment; my girlfriend is the only way I can get there since I can't drive and need to best escorted in with a blindfold), let alone asking them to set up something specific with multiple lamps, different types of lights, lampshades, etc, which may not be all that accurate anyway because the people slamming me on /. would just claim it wasn't truly blind because maybe I could distinguish between the bulbs based on the colour of the light. I don't get why people are attacking me on here. I have a serious health problem and I'm not asking for a ban on CFLs or a change in anyone's lifestyle... I do however want people to be aware of what I'm going through.

    As far as the people who say everyone would know about this if I truly had this problem, it's simply not true. The media had no interest in picking this up, I wrote to all of the politicians in my state (California) and only got generic template responses, I tell everyone I meet, but the information just doesn't spread. I'm not looking for handouts, to push some agenda, or anything. I just want to be able to see in my house after dark.