Slashdot Mirror


After Rising For 100 Years, Electricity Demand is Flat (vox.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: The US electricity sector is in a period of unprecedented change and turmoil. Renewable energy prices are falling like crazy. Natural gas production continues its extraordinary surge. Coal, the golden child of the current administration, is headed down the tubes. In all that bedlam, it's easy to lose sight of an equally important (if less sexy) trend: Demand for electricity is stagnant. Thanks to a combination of greater energy efficiency, outsourcing of heavy industry, and customers generating their own power on site, demand for utility power has been flat for 10 years, and most forecasts expect it to stay that way. The die was cast around 1998, when GDP growth and electricity demand growth became "decoupled." This historic shift has wreaked havoc in the utility industry in ways large and small, visible and obscure. Some of that havoc is high-profile and headline-making, as in the recent requests from utilities (and attempts by the Trump administration) to bail out large coal and nuclear plants.

229 comments

  1. EVs will change that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When you switch to more energy efficient products, this is a natural side effect. EVs will change that obviously.

    1. Re:EVs will change that by AlanObject · · Score: 4, Interesting

      When you switch to more energy efficient products, this is a natural side effect. EVs will change that obviously.

      But with a corresponding drop in demand for fossil fuels at the point of consumption.

      Of course fossil fuels will still be used a lot for generation of electricity for EVs, but if renewables are actually dropping in price then that has to trend downward.

      Which, of course, will cause the price of gasoline to crash because of the resulting glut.

      The thing to watch for is if gasoline prices drop because of that then ICE cars become more cost-competitive against EVs than they were before. If that is true then EV cars need to become more cost-efficient than they currently are. And for that, Li-ION batteries have to both improve and drop in price.

      Maybe Elon is on to something.

    2. Re:EVs will change that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Most EVs will charge at night and so shouldn't change the demand significantly. Some people are even envisioning a future where EVs could function as storage and return power to the grid as needed when plugged in, thereby lessening demand.

    3. Re:EVs will change that by rlp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or Li-ion batteries will be replaced by supercapacitors. This will also solve the charging time problem. Assuming of course that low-cost commercially available supercapacitors ever become a thing.

      --
      [Insert pithy quote here]
    4. Re:EVs will change that by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The charging time problem is one of charging cable size. Supercapacitors do shit for that issue. If humans are expected to plug the cable in, you're limited to about current supercharge rates.

      What your looking for is superconducting cables or huge contractors that lift out of the floor.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    5. Re:EVs will change that by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Peak demand != demand.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    6. Re:EVs will change that by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      I think if you evolve supercapacitors enough, you end up with essentially a Li+ battery. ;-)

    7. Re:EVs will change that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that "electricity demand is flat" is misleading. It doesn't mean we aren't consuming more, rather a lot of industries that use electricity have been shut down.

      EV's and "those fucking cryptocoin miners" will send it soaring again once some idiotic government agency decides to start shutting down less efficient energy sources.

    8. Re:EVs will change that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >The thing to watch for is if gasoline prices drop because of that then ICE cars become more cost-competitive against EVs
      the petrol firms need to somehow make petrol cheaper to produce and deliver to the customer, but with decreased demand, petrol stations would become more expensive per litre sold.

    9. Re:EVs will change that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing to watch for is if gasoline prices drop because of that then ICE cars become more cost-competitive against EVs

      the petrol firms need to somehow make petrol cheaper to produce and deliver to the customer, but with decreased demand, petrol stations would become more expensive per litre sold.

    10. Re:EVs will change that by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The charging time problem is one of charging cable size.

      You can get around that by upping the voltage. Tesla Superchargers use 400 volts.

      Supercapacitors do shit for that issue.

      The biggest problem with super-caps is energy density, currently less than a tenth that of lithium batteries.

    11. Re:EVs will change that by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      Who says humans have to plug it in? See the Tesla snake.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    12. Re:EVs will change that by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Peak demand != demand.

      For energy producers, it is peak demand that is the problem. Plenty of solar energy at noon doesn't help when people get home and turn on the AC, TV, and oven at 6pm.

      EVs can be programmed to draw power only when supply exceeds demand, thus smoothing out the gaps. Currently, this means charging in the middle of the night, In the future, when solar is more common, it will mean charging in the middle of the day.

    13. Re:EVs will change that by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      The problem is that "electricity demand is flat" is misleading. It doesn't mean we aren't consuming more, rather a lot of industries that use electricity have been shut down.

      It would be interesting to see graphs of "consumer demand - consumer generation" and "industry demand - industry generation." I would expect that first graph would be climbing.

    14. Re:EVs will change that by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Wires/conductors are limited in *current* carrying capacity, not power transfer capacity. There is always raising the voltage to get more power at the same current.....

      The issue with charging rates has to do with the safe operating voltage that can be used at the rated current of the wires and connectors and more importantly the rate at which the battery can accept a charge and not overheat. It's actually the battery that is the biggest limiter here.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    15. Re:EVs will change that by rogoshen1 · · Score: 3, Funny

      that sounds like the lead-in to an Elon #meToo moment.

    16. Re:EVs will change that by crunchygranola · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which, of course, will cause the price of gasoline to crash because of the resulting glut.

      What glut? EV's driving down petrol sales will be a gradual process, and vehicle fuel plants shift production on a monthly basis. Gasoline production will be adjusted (as is true now) so that there is a razor thin margin of excess supply.

      Liquid fossil fuels is a world-wide industry in every respect (production, refining, consumption) and prices are set at the global level and on a world-wide scale U.S. shifts to EVs will have a small effect. And any drop in primary resource prices suppresses high cost fuel production (fracking, tar sands) which compensates significantly.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    17. Re:EVs will change that by nonBORG · · Score: 5, Informative

      supercapacitors at present are more sci-fi than fact if they are thought of as competing (in capacity) to batteries.
      The formula for a capacitor has in its formula A/d
      A is the area (of the plates)
      d is the distance (between the plates)

      so a small distance and big area is how to make super capacitors. The problem comes when you want to charge the capacitor because the d distance sets the limit of the voltage (due to the breakdown the the diametric, which is whatever material is between the plates) the charge stored on a capacitor is

      0.5 (CV^2) so the charge is proportional to the square of the voltage meaning you need lots of voltage to get a big charge (or amount of stored energy) so what makes the capacitor value large makes the amount of charge you can store small. This is the issue currently with super capacitors just because of the basic physics of capacitors. So unless an amazing dielectric is found that has super incredibly high breakdown voltage and is easy to form onto the plates we probably will have to keep looking to batteries.

      --
      You can't handle the truth! - Because I don't post left all my comments get modded down, bye bye Karma.
    18. Re:EVs will change that by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Why aren't they higher voltage?

      There are a bunch of practical limits on voltage. 1kv/inch for dirty insulator surfaces. 10kvDC/inch for humid air.

      You can safely assume they aren't running at a low voltage now by choice.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    19. Re:EVs will change that by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

      No. Just no.

      Peak is A problem, not THE problem.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    20. Re:EVs will change that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you seen the cost to run a TV for a year? A 55" TV is $12 a year. $20 if OLED. Your AC & oven will do the most hit to your bill, which is why APS (Arizona Public Service) has created a nifty time of day & demand plan to screw their customers: They shifted it later from 7PM to 8PM to grab more people cooking and running the AC when they get home. Not that there's any high power plant demand at 8PM to justify.

      Peak hour

      This rate has three parts: a basic service charge, a demand charge for the highest amount of demand (kW) averaged in a one hour On-Peak period for the month, and an energy charge for the total energy (kWh) used for the entire month. The energy charge will vary by season (summer or winter) and by the time of day that the energy is used (On-Peak or Off-Peak) The demand charge also varies by season.

      TIME PERIODS

      The On-Peak time period for residential rate schedules is 3 p.m. to 8 p.m. Monday through Friday. All other hours are Off-Peak hours.

    21. Re:EVs will change that by mysidia · · Score: 2

      The thing to watch for is if gasoline prices drop because of that then ICE cars become more cost-competitive against EVs than they were before.

      Which would result in demand for ICE cars increasing until the number of ICE cars causes gasoline prices to rise again, and eventually an equilibrium is reached.

      OR states could start increasing tax on gasoline fuel for on-road purposes in order to offset the decrease in price.

    22. Re:EVs will change that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Love replying to my own posts -- Here's peak power usage for the USA. Click on southwest, change the dates to July or August, and you'll see peak time is 3-4PM. https://www.eia.gov/realtime_grid/#/summary/demand?end=20160902&start=20160826&regions=008

    23. Re:EVs will change that by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Why aren't they higher voltage?

      Homes don't have higher voltages available, and charging speed really isn't that big of an issue.

      My spouse drives an EV. She comes home from work, plugs it in, and usually doesn't need to drive again for 14 hours.

      If she does need to drive to the grocery store or somewhere else, that is no problem, because the battery range is 240 miles, and her commute is 30 miles, so she has a cushion of 210 miles.

      Over the last few years, there have been a handful of times on long trips where faster charging time would have been convenient, but still waiting was no big deal. We just plugged into a Supercharger and went to eat at a nearby restaurant, or just used the restroom and walked around for 20 minutes.

      Waiting 20 minutes a few times per year is less inconvenient than going to the gas station several times per month.

    24. Re:EVs will change that by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Which, of course, will cause the price of gasoline to crash because of the resulting glut.

      I've got to admit, I'm not so sure about this.

      One issue is that gasoline is manufactured from oil. If there's "too much" gasoline, I just make less of it. Which means I buy less oil. Which moves the "glut" to the oil producing and exporting countries (OPEC). They will produce less oil in order to keep the prices where they want them to be.

    25. Re:EVs will change that by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

      The biggest problem with super-caps is energy density, currently less than a tenth that of lithium batteries.

      Another big problem is the initial steepness of the discharge curve. The voltage across a battery is much more constant, requiring less regulation and therefore delivering higher efficiency.

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    26. Re:EVs will change that by Curtman · · Score: 1
      The die was cast around 1998, when GDP growth and electricity demand growth became âoedecoupled"

      This predates electric cars. Isn't it more likely a result of us outsourcing manufacturing?

    27. Re:EVs will change that by darth.hunterix · · Score: 1

      And who do you think is in the trunk of that space-Tesla?

      --
      What is best in life? Hot water, good dentishtry and shoft lavatory paper.
    28. Re:EVs will change that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But that also means there's less money being made in the oil->gasoline business. Any time there's a shrinking market, businesses go under. Which means those companies that survive won't be operating at the same scale, meaning their costs will be higher which means they'll have to *raise*, not lower, gas prices which will push even more people to EVs. The long term future for oil for transportation is not bright.

  2. Demand is Still Rising... by sycodon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...but in developing countries.

    While TFA did point out, "US", it seems rather pointless because the demand, and thus the generation, and thus the pollution is occurring overseas.Just because it's not here doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

      It's like you cleaned up your back yard by throwing all the trash over the fence. Coming soon, we will be bitching at our neighbors about all the trash in their yard.

    So before the Enviro's celebrate, they should consider that they have successfully pushed the pollution into countries that are ill equipped to handle it from regulatory and societal standpoints, yet the US and other western countries are still benefiting from it.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:Demand is Still Rising... by gnick · · Score: 1

      It's like you cleaned up your back yard by throwing all the trash over the fence.

      It's not like the US is to blame for developing nations evolving to use more electricity. If we were forcing those countries to consume that power or if we were outsourcing power generation I could see your point. But how are we "throwing garbage over the fence"? Because these countries use electricity to produce things we buy?

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    2. Re:Demand is Still Rising... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Fortunately those developing nations seem to care more about doing it right than we did coming up. China leads the world in renewable energy and in cleaning up. They hit peak coal a 4 years ago, something many developed nations can't claim. India is making a big effort too.

      Aside from helping their own people, they see it as their chance to leapfrog the developed nations. They represent vast markets in themselves, and are developing (i.e. patenting) a lot of the clean technology that will be key this century. 80% of new bus sales in China are pure electric, for example, and they are all built on domestic technology and domestic parts.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Demand is Still Rising... by Sperbels · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Um, *we* didn't do anything. Super rich oligarchs moved production overseas because labor is cheaper and laws are more lenient.

    4. Re:Demand is Still Rising... by dprimary · · Score: 1

      Worldwide most new power plants being constructed are renewable. They are cheaper and start producing power within weeks instead of years. Read the power and utility media and you quickly find out everything has changed in last 2 years. The rate of change keeps increasing.

    5. Re:Demand is Still Rising... by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 4, Informative

      Peak coal in China? Not according to the Chinese government.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_China

      "electricity consumption is expected to grow by 3.6-4 percent over 2016 to 2020 according to (China's Official) Thirteenth (five-year) Plan (2016–2020).[4] According to the same five-year plan, coal power capacity will be expanded from 960 GW to under 1,100 GW by the end of 2020 to meet some of the continued growth in electricity demand.[4] Indeed, in the first two months of 2016, China had added 22 GW of capacity, 14 GW of which was coal, according to the China Electricity Council.[5] "

    6. Re:Demand is Still Rising... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But how are we "throwing garbage over the fence"? Because these countries use electricity to produce things we buy?

      Exactly.
      His point is ridiculous.

    7. Re:Demand is Still Rising... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yup, they've agreed to peak emissions 'around 2030'

      https://www.reuters.com/articl...

      BEIJING, Nov 14 (Reuters) - China's total volume of carbon emissions is set to rise by a third in the next 16 years, according to scholars from China's Tsinghua University, even as the world's biggest carbon polluter has pledged the climate-warming gas emissions will peak by 2030.

      China's president Xi Jinping announced this week that the country would strive to bring its spiralling carbon emissions to a peak by "around 2030" as part of a joint commitment with the United States to combat global warming.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    8. Re:Demand is Still Rising... by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

      Yes, but only up to a point. Global CO2 emissions were essentially constant in 2014,2015 and 2016 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/28/global-carbon-emissions-stood-still-in-2016-offering-climate-hope. Now, they need to be not just constant but declining, but the fact they were constant shows that the trend in question is not just US specific. Obviously, electricity production is also not the only cause of CO2 production, but this is high up on the list.

    9. Re:Demand is Still Rising... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "pushed the pollution into countries that are ill equipped to handle it from regulatory and societal standpoints"

      Wow, do you stick in the mud types even try to be plausible in your fabrications anymore? Nobody pushed electrical generation into other countries. Those other countries ravenously pursued and continue to pursue more power generation. Power generation is not a matter throwing trash over a fence. In case you missed it (you did) , some of those "ill equipped" countries have added more renewable capacity than the US and other countries you are attempting to troll for victims.

      I have a dream that some day lying trolling trash will STFU.

    10. Re:Demand is Still Rising... by sycodon · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      WE regulated to the extent that production of products became too expensive.

      WE also loosed trade laws to make manufacturing more cost effective overseas.

      WE also seem to be fighting any efforts to put tariffs on products from over seas.

      And finally, WE purchase these products.

      So unless you are living in a cave, eating stick and twigs, and walking everywhere you go, you have a part in all of this.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    11. Re:Demand is Still Rising... by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      i think he mean "trash" literally as a lot of trash we produce gets sent to places like China to be dealt with (but no longer - China decided not to take any more junk throw away by the west)

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    12. Re:Demand is Still Rising... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think that's what he meant.

      ...the demand, and thus the generation, and thus the pollution is occurring overseas...

    13. Re:Demand is Still Rising... by Sperbels · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I'm sorry, but we are only guilty of one of those and that's of purchasing those products. The government did all of those other things because they were paid to do so by rich people. You overestimate the power of the people. It's interesting though that everywhere they blame the government when the government does something wrong. But in the US, everyone blames the people for when the government does something wrong. Or more frequently, we just blame the other party.

    14. Re:Demand is Still Rising... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So before the Enviro's celebrate, they should consider that they have successfully pushed the pollution into countries that are ill equipped to handle it from regulatory and societal standpoints, yet the US and other western countries are still benefiting from it.

      The real reason for offshoring. Us "enviro's" have known that since day one.

    15. Re:Demand is Still Rising... by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      Yes we expect overseas demand to continue to rise until per capita demand is about the same as it is here in the US. Then we expect per capita demand to level off in the same way. Why would one anticipate anything else?

    16. Re:Demand is Still Rising... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So China signed the Paris Accords, which allows China to SAVE ALL OF HUMANITY by pumping out more and more CO2 until 2030 when they pinky swear they'll stop increasing those emissions... maybe.

      But the U.S. under Adolph Trump *EVILLY REFUSED* to sign onto the accords to pay China U.S. Taxpayer money to pump out that CO2 into the atmosphere. The end result is the LITERAL DESTRUCTION OF HUMANITY SOLELY BY THE U.S. because without the Paris Accords the U.S. is actually reducing its levels of CO2 emission.

      In conclusion, more CO2 from China will SAVE THE WORLD and less CO2 from the U.S. is pure evil.

    17. Re:Demand is Still Rising... by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 2

      Fortunately those developing nations seem to care more about doing it right than we did coming up.

      That's the benefit of hindsight and piggybacking on all we learned along the way. That and the small fact that much of these "developing nations" were, until recently, pretty much third-world countries. It's easy to build shiny new infrastructure when you don't have anything currently in place with sunk costs to overcome.

      They hit peak coal a 4 years ago, something many developed nations can't claim. India is making a big effort too.

      China is nowhere near peak coal as several others have commented. As for India's "big effort", it still boasts some of the most toxic environments on the planet. Just like China.

      80% of new bus sales in China are pure electric, for example, and they are all built on domestic technology and domestic parts.

      If by "domestic technology" you mean "technology China illegally appropriated from the West without paying much -- if any -- in the way of royalties" then you're right. China's utter disregard for international intellectual property rights is well known and documented.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    18. Re:Demand is Still Rising... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      You are confusing coal generation capacity with coal consumption.

      The amount of coal they burn but peak a few years ago. Old plants are being replaced with more efficient, cleaner ones.

      http://ieefa.org/ieefa-update-...

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    19. Re:Demand is Still Rising... by upl8n87447 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, the US is to blame for trade agreements without any consideration for environmental regulation of our trade partners. We are a major consumer of the goods whose production was shifted from the US to those foreign nations. The corporations that sourced their goods from China are fully capable of reviewing their manufacturing and energy generation practices to ensure they're meeting a high standard. We may not be physically throwing garbage over the fence, but it's in our closing our eyes, plugging our ears, and holding our mouths shut that we ensure the same result.

      As the consumer, we are just as responsible for ensuring that our goods are sourced from those using environmentally sound methods. Instead we decided price is the only thing that matters. Yet, ironically, it's the market forces that determine prices, not the price of production. Cheap labor, cheap manufacturing processes, and cheap energy generation do not lead to a proportional reduction in price.

      In effect, the consumers have gladly handed over their money for a small savings, watched it filter up to the wealthiest individuals and businesses and stagnating there, while the workers didn't get paid for the value they produced and we destroyed our environment in the process.

      Go us!

    20. Re:Demand is Still Rising... by eaglesrule · · Score: 2

      In addition China is deploying Gen IV nuclear reactors to eliminate the need for coal. They are breaking ground for new fast breeder reactor designs. They are spending billions of USD in research towards the development of thorium molten salt reactors.

      It seems that China appreciates the potential for nuclear energy to combat emissions. I applaud them for this.

    21. Re:Demand is Still Rising... by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      It's like you cleaned up your back yard by throwing all the trash over the fence.

      It's not like the US is to blame for developing nations evolving to use more electricity. If we were forcing those countries to consume that power or if we were outsourcing power generation I could see your point. But how are we "throwing garbage over the fence"? Because these countries use electricity to produce things we buy?

      Well, yeah. I'm a "conservative" and I still can more or less agree with that.

      We moved so much of our manufacturing there, so it's not here. So the energy use, pollution, etc. happens there, not here.

      So unless we are bragging about shifting it over there, it's not much to brag about.

    22. Re: Demand is Still Rising... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, then they sell those things to us, and then we pay them to recycle it when it's no longer relevant. For like twenty years we just sent everything to China and Africa. They only recently said no more.

    23. Re:Demand is Still Rising... by cryptwhomp · · Score: 1

      It's not even flat in the US. It's just that people are producing their own power and don't use the utilities. Bad submitter, bad!

      --
      "Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin,
    24. Re:Demand is Still Rising... by guruevi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We are literally outsourcing power generation by outsourcing production. We have "bettered" the environment game not because we implemented "green" policies, but because we moved large swathes of power consumption out of this country.

      Steel production is a big user, we moved virtually all steel production to China hence moving the power generation issue. Same goes for most factories, moving it to South America and Asia moves the power generation and production issue.

      We are not 'forcing' them, they are bettering themselves and their population in the process, but that comes at an expense of energy. Luckily FOR ALL OF US China is bringing a decent amount of nuclear generators online

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    25. Re:Demand is Still Rising... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet for some reason China continues to import more coal than ever from Australia...

    26. Re:Demand is Still Rising... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because there are only so many places to export manufacturing to.

    27. Re:Demand is Still Rising... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China has already closed down more than two thousand coal-fired power stations in the past decade. The new ones it's building are state-of-the-art in efficiency, using combined cycle or even CHP techniques to get efficiencies virtually undreamt-of in the USA.

      So even rising demand for electricity doesn't necessarily mean burning more coal. Just ask the Australians, whose coal-mining industry has nosedived since the Chinese basically stopped buying it.

    28. Re:Demand is Still Rising... by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      I've been saying this for years. This is the primary reason that Trump pulled out of the Paris Accord because the agreement required almost nothing of the other countries except "nice to have" goals. The agreement wasn't equitable. You can't regulate an industry for environmental reasons unless you can ensure that the regulation isn't going to just force the industry into another country who has even less regulations than you started with. The big example of this was California's law on chicken cages. The citizens passed the law and most chicken egg production moved to Mexico where the cages were even smaller than they were in California.

    29. Re:Demand is Still Rising... by dogfood007 · · Score: 2

      Not sure what you mean by 'we moved steel production'. Am a retired process control / network server admin for a global or rather used to be huge Aluminum company. A few years ago there were around 30 aluminum smelters in this country. For various reasons , a transfer of French Aluminum smelting technology and very bad trade laws, the Chinese dumped aluminum on the market and drove everyone else out of business. The built around a thousand new smelters....a thousand. A typical smelter uses around 325,000 amps of electrical current to drive the smelting pots in their potlines with a bill of around eleven million dollars a month, 24 hours a day. This might have something to do with the lower demand of electricity this post is talking about. But Thousands of very skilled specialized jobs and a huge knowledge base for making Aluminum was lost, most likely forever. This is not good guys. We tried very hard to get the current political administration (obama's crew) back then to pay attention to what was happening but it was just crickets. No response from those guys at at all. And a key difference between the American smelters and the Chinese smelters is that we took environmental concerns very seriously. The gases were scrubbed and any waste was handled properly and disposed of properly, I doubt the Chinese smelters are doing this. Just another reason to keep smelters in the states or some other country where the environment is valued. So now we are dependent on the Chinese for Aluminum, they have questionable environmental controls and so pump gases and waste in to the air and an entire technology that Americans pioneered has been lost.

    30. Re:Demand is Still Rising... by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      This post is literally fake news. Try citing sources next time bro.

    31. Re:Demand is Still Rising... by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Well we should do that here. But the problem is mostly liberal politicians oppose new Nuclear reactors.

    32. Re:Demand is Still Rising... by dogfood007 · · Score: 1

      See my post about about the Aluminum industry in American being crushed by the Chinese, they're known polluters and having all of the Aluminum smelting in China now is not a good thing. So yeah I agree "Just because it's not here doesn't mean it doesn't exist."

    33. Re:Demand is Still Rising... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you think they will have higher capacity of coal-fire MWs, but still not hit their earlier peak in coal production MWs? I am skeptical.

    34. Re:Demand is Still Rising... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      India has 50 GWs worth of coal plants in the construction queue, which I guess could be classified as a big effort, though it is in the wrong direction. They also have a bunch of unused coal capacity due to lack of sufficient distribution lines to get the energy to consumers. Once the wires are in place, guess what will happen to their coal consumption, and thus CO2 emissions?

      Power producers have canceled some coal-fired projects as existing plants fail to sell all the electricity they can produce. Nearly 40 percent of the country’s coal-based capacity is unused because the core customers -- state-managed distribution companies -- struggle to increase purchases in the face of massive debts and losses through electricity theft, insufficient metering and selling power below cost.

  3. wrong title. Demand continues to increase by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What is NOT increasing, is the demand for UTILITIES electricity. That has been flat for some time depending on the state. If you are in a state that fights against Solar/Wind, then utility demand continues.

    However, what is missing is that this is about to change in a HUGE way. In particular, EVs will be coming on very strong esp with Commercial trucking. While cars will outsell the trucks, the trucks are ran 5-10x as much . As such, within 5 years, these will put a huge demand on electricity. Worse, it will not be a simple increase in electricity but will be heavy spikes in demand.
    It is for exactly this reason that we need base-load powers, such as nuclear.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:wrong title. Demand continues to increase by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      nonsense, charging can be done in off-peak hours, in fact the grid is already ready to handle electric vehicles, charged mostly at night

    2. Re:wrong title. Demand continues to increase by WindBourne · · Score: 2

      Numerous studies were done over the last 30 years about moving to EVs.
      The first thing it showed was that the grid could handle it just fine (save the northwest, which needs a bit of help), as long as less than 25% of the vehicles charge in the daytime. Note that it was NOT individual vehicles, but based on the demand. IOW, as long as no more than 25% of the total energy used by vehicles was in the daytime, things were fine. BUT, a Tesla Semi is going to draw 1MW, while a tesla Model 3 will draw say 50 KW. HUGE difference.
      Where the real issue came up was with the utilities ability to generate that electricity. If more than 25% comes during daytime, LOTS of new energy plants, specifically, inefficient, expensive peaking plants, will have to come on-line.
      Likewise, if only 15-25% of EVs charge in daytime, then plants are in good shape, and in fact, it will actually lower the costs of electricity by having increased the nighttime demand.
      Finally, if less than 15% charge in daytime, then utilities save a TON OF MONEY.

      This is why I continue to fight against our subsidizing hybrid and low MPC crap. These will cost ALL OF US, while the high MPC EV will be charged at nighttime except when doing a long distance drive. This is also why I continue to suggest that we charge .01-2/kwh on non-residential chargers from 0900-1800. That will discourage daytime charging, while pushing it all to nighttime.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    3. Re:wrong title. Demand continues to increase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so what happens when there's significant uptake in EVs (like reaching 25% or more replacing fossil fuel cars) and all of those are charging "off peak"?
      what happens is, you no longer have a "off peak" anymore. You increase demand so its on parity with peak loads. Same with Powerwalls and other charge shifting
      devices.

      Its like what happens with traffic and the addition of a swing shift at large corporate office, You have your rush hour that you had before, but now, instead of having deserted streets late after hours, you get another rush as those leave. Or, the difference in relative traffic from a town that "rolls up the sidewalks at night" and a city that "never sleeps".

      tho as an EV fanboy, this flattening is a "problem" I don't mind having. The biggest and first issue will be when utilities are able to cash in on this flattening.

    4. Re:wrong title. Demand continues to increase by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

      Utilities are the largest owners of renewable energy systems in the US so I'm not sure why you equate renewable with not being a part of the utility. The truth is ten years ago Nuclear was more cost effective than any other source of energy which is why it was so poplar with utilities. And ten years ago energy storage was too expensive. Fast forward to today and renewables are actually cheaper than nuclear and energy storage is cost effective. Many energy companies with nuclear facilities have already announced they will be closing them within the next five years. They are also deploying energy storage in high demand areas. Some renewables generate energy outside of peak usage. That traditionally got wasted because it would cost too much to store in a battery. Today that energy can be stored for use during peak usage. Many utilities are looking at co-generation plans where they install generation on-site of the customer and maintain the system for the customer. This alleviates stress on the grid and frees the customer from maintaining their own equipment.

      No demand is flat because so much of the electronics we use have become orders of magnitude more efficient while the number of devices has grown. Creating an offset.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    5. Re:wrong title. Demand continues to increase by whoever57 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is why I continue to fight against our subsidizing hybrid and low MPC crap. These will cost ALL OF US, while the high MPC EV will be charged at nighttime except when doing a long distance drive.

      Low MPC (I assume "miles per charge") driver here. I charge almost exclusively during low demand times: typically at night.

      Remember that most journeys are less than 15 miles (30 miles round trip), so that most use of any electric vehicle allows overnight charging.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    6. Re:wrong title. Demand continues to increase by WindBourne · · Score: 0

      First, you are looking at ALL AE, which would be hydro, bio, wind, and solar. The hydro, bio, and wind are either owned by the utilities OR are centralized and then sent over the grid.
      But solar is a different issue. It is far more split, and that is why utilities hate it.

      Secondly, the last time that nukes was popular with utilities was the 70s. Since then, it has been coal, then nat gas/wind. Think about it. They have not built a new nuke plant since early 80s (and started in the 70s). Many have been shut down over the last 10 years (sadly), and uneducated far left wingers continue to make large 1GW nukes far too expensive.

      Third, storage STILL remains expensive. Hydro storage is the only cheap one, but it requires the correct land for it. Batteries, esp li-ion, are expensive, so, will only be used in relatively small amounts. Small meaning, for homes, businesses and then for tiding a utility over for minutes at the most. IOW, large utility scale storage will not provide a day, let alone a week, worth of electricity for sometime.

      Finally, you are correct that efficiency is lowering demands, BUT, vehicle/truck transportation use more energy than what is used to make electricity. IOW, over the next 10 years, we will likely increase the amount of electricity that we produce by 50% or more. Regular AE, even with storage, is NOT capable of handling the coming peaking that we will see. As such, we WILL need other forms of power.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    7. Re:wrong title. Demand continues to increase by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      How many of those studies saw the rapid growth of solar and wind solutions and the potential of interconnected microgrids dealing with home/business solar with battery storage. Quite a lot of people still haven't realised that charging EVs can become part of the microgrid storage and can be temporarily tapped into for any peaks. If the current utilities got their fingers out of their collective arses, they could also tap into excess home solar power generation and save themselves the cost of producing it.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    8. Re:wrong title. Demand continues to increase by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 2

      Utilities are the largest owners of renewable energy systems in the US so I'm not sure why you equate renewable with not being a part of the utility. The truth is ten years ago Nuclear was more cost effective than any other source of energy

      Ten years ago? 2008? No, it wasn't. Natural gas.

      which is why it was so poplar with utilities.

      Ten years ago? 2008? No, it wasn't. The last nuclear plant built in the U.S. was the River Bend plant in LA, which was started in 1977 . You're off by thirty years.

      And ten years ago energy storage was too expensive.

      Now, on that one, you're right.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    9. Re:wrong title. Demand continues to increase by crunchygranola · · Score: 2, Informative

      ... and uneducated far left wingers continue to make large 1GW nukes far too expensive. ...

      Ah yes the all powerful hippies who crush multi-national corporations under their dirty Birkenstocks! Will their tyranny never end? Will the capitalist never get a break?

      The high capital costs of nuclear power plants are, as the nuclear industry's World Nuclear Association says are "In general the construction costs of nuclear power plants are significantly higher than for coal- or gas-fired plants because of the need to use special materials, and to incorporate sophisticated safety features and back-up control equipment."

      Cost could be cut pretty much only by cutting out those "sophisticated safety features and back-up control equipment". One argument that proponents of nuclear plants make is their intrinsic safety - that depends on those very features.

      Sorry you can't have safe plants, and cheap ones.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    10. Re:wrong title. Demand continues to increase by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      The problem comes when work places and parking garages install chargers. There are probably 20 people at my company who drive all-electric vehicles, and the majority of them do not have chargers at home. Instead, they rely on being able to use the chargers at work, so they plug in in the morning and move their car at noon when the other set of folks plug in for the rest of the day.

      Chargers are not cheap, especially if you have to have an electrician install a new circuit at your house because the electrical hookups there can't support one. I see a lot of growing pains, and predict quite a few cars will be charging during the daytime. Hopefully increasing solar panel usage will help offset that peak.

    11. Re:wrong title. Demand continues to increase by ArhcAngel · · Score: 3, Informative

      I work in the energy sector and I can assure you some of your assertions are inaccurate. Utilities actually still loved nuclear from a cost per KW perspective. It was simply the PR and strong NIMBY component which kept it from proliferating. Had fracking not caused the influx of natural gas to destroy the price I assure you Nuclear would still be a darling.

      You're right about solar but utilities are figuring it out and making it work.

      Battery storage is now cost effective and IS being deployed in large scale nationwide. It isn't intended to provide the total power for any location but to provide stress relief for the grid during peak usage.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    12. Re:wrong title. Demand continues to increase by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

      As I supported a natural gas trade floor in 2008 I can assure you Nuclear was still more cost effective although you are correct that natural gas was quickly overtaking it. And the reason no new plants were built wasn't because the utilities didn't want to. I assure you they did. But getting approval was beyond impossible with the negative perception due to the 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl disasters. The company I work for still had plans for three new nuclear facilities in 2008 if they could have gotten approval. But as I said previously they are now planning on shuttering most of their remaining nuclear facilities as they roll out co-generation and battery storage across the nation.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    13. Re:wrong title. Demand continues to increase by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      in fact the grid is already ready to handle electric vehicles, charged mostly at night

      Not with solar power cells, they're not. Small inconvenience caused by things called "sunset" and "darkness."

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    14. Re:wrong title. Demand continues to increase by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      Remember that most journeys are less than 15 miles (30 miles round trip), so that most use of any electric vehicle allows overnight charging.

      That may be true for maybe 80% of journeys by car, but what about the remaining 20%? What do you do then? Buy and maintain a separate car just for those excursions? Not likely, especially given the cost of current EV's.

      No, the likely "solution" will be consumers -- outside of a small niche -- opting to purchase internal-combustion-powered vehicles for the foreseeable future because they can't afford to have two vehicles sitting the garage.

      Keep in mind I'm all for EV's. I'd love to have one myself. But this isn't one of those problems where the 80% solution is good enough. EV's need range comparable to IC vehicles (which is mostly true already) and charging times a helluva lot closer to filling up at a gas station (which isn't even close to being true) before you'll see a consumer mass migration.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    15. Re:wrong title. Demand continues to increase by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      The last nuclear plant built in the U.S. was the River Bend plant in LA, which was started in 1977 . You're off by thirty years.

      No, you're off by more than thirty years. Might want to read up a bit. Or read up at all.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    16. Re:wrong title. Demand continues to increase by b0bby · · Score: 1

      My utility offers EV owners (and only EV owners) access to off peak rates, presumably to deal with exactly this. And it works; I set up my car to only charge in the off-peak hours and haven't overridden it yet. Maybe once a month I'll charge at a fast charger outside those hours, on a longer trip. I think it's going to be pretty easy to keep charging in the desired time periods.

    17. Re:wrong title. Demand continues to increase by b0bby · · Score: 2

      I have an ICE and a Leaf (~100 mile range). I use the Leaf for almost all my trips now, but the ICE is still easier for certain situations. Once the standard range is 250+ miles, though, I would have no problem ditching the ICE and being all-EV. Having lived with the Leaf for a while now I think that 250 miles is the point where 97% of my trips would be super easy, and 3% would require some thought or compromises. I'd be totally comfortable with that. For those who aren't comfortable with that, there's the Volt or Prius Prime etc. I just don't want to be lugging around an engine which I would rarely need in a vehicle with a decent range.

    18. Re:wrong title. Demand continues to increase by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      My point was to refute the idea that only long range EVs are charged at night.

      Not likely, especially given the cost of current EV's.

      You haven't actually priced up an EV, have you? You can get a Leaf either new via a lease or used, off-lease vehicle and they are cheap, when you take into account the cost of electricity vs. gasoline.

      Yes, we have another car: an ICE. Actually, two ICE vehicles, but one is a hobby vehicle (over 60 years old). We also have a deposit down on a Tesla Model 3. We need at least 2 cars anyway, so our Leaf isn't an additional vehicle, it's a replacement for an ICE vehicle. I don't claim that our situation can be applied to everyone, but it can be applied to many.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    19. Re:wrong title. Demand continues to increase by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      Solar power can be stored in molten salt systems.

    20. Re:wrong title. Demand continues to increase by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      nothing happens, peak demand during day still more than level 1 car charging draw at night at 25% uptake.

      Instead electric bills go up and the power companies put in more gear over many years. problem solved, because it will be profitable to solve that problem.

    21. Re:wrong title. Demand continues to increase by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Do not get me wrong. I am a STRONG proponent of fission and fusion. Even once fusion is going, I believe that we still need fission to burn up all of this 'nuke waste' that is being thrown away.
      If you are working in the industry, how come you folks are NOT pushing the GOP to support the nukes? While AE is fine, wind, solar, etc are NOT capable of replacing 100% of the baseload power. We need Nukes, esp. the SMRs. Is your company pushing this, i.e. lobbying for it?

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    22. Re:wrong title. Demand continues to increase by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      oddly, less than 25% of the utilities offer that. And then you have some like Xcel here in Denver, which replaced a .10/kwh for 3 seasons, .12/kwh for summer, with a .18/.12/.08 rate based on time (1400-1800/0900-2100/2101-0859). We are using that, but Xcel really would come out on top if we did not have solar. Now, they are kind of screwing themselves and are asking us to convert back.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    23. Re:wrong title. Demand continues to increase by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      ????
      U do realize that the vast majority of EVs are charged by simple 120V/15A outlets. Yes?
      Those ppl are charging at work because it is FREE.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    24. Re:wrong title. Demand continues to increase by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      by 2020, the mass migration will be here. ICE cars will be less than 50% of all consumer vehicles sold. The reason is that NOBODY will want to buy a vehicle for 30-100K and then have it be worth less than 5K in just 2 short years. Even now, Tesla Model S is outselling all of its competition in America and now in Europe. MX outsells its competition in America and appears to be on track for next year. M3? Just based on pre-orders, tesla outsold BMW, audi, and MB in comparable classes, and THOSE were the mainstays of those companies. The German car makers are finally panicking, and rightly. Germany's gov is now spending 10s of billions each year subsidizing the car makers to build out battery factories, and car plants.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    25. Re:wrong title. Demand continues to increase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Base-load power, heavy spikes in demand. Pick one, you can't have both in your argument.

    26. Re:wrong title. Demand continues to increase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why will it be heavy spikes in demand? All the truck drivers will stop work at 5pm plug in their trucks and go home for the night. LOL

    27. Re:wrong title. Demand continues to increase by ArhcAngel · · Score: 2

      It just isn't economical. Onshore Wind, Advanced Nat Gas, and Geothermal are all cheaper than advanced nuclear today. Even Solar PV can beat it on cost if it's done right.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    28. Re:wrong title. Demand continues to increase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worse, it will not be a simple increase in electricity but will be heavy spikes in demand. It is for exactly this reason that we need base-load powers, such as nuclear.

      So, you are saying that in the future, demand will primarily be spikes, i.e. peak power. You therefore propose to add base-load power.

      What the fuck?

    29. Re: wrong title. Demand continues to increase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My work place has chargers that bill the employees.

    30. Re:wrong title. Demand continues to increase by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Nope. We used to think that. Then the duck-curve emerged. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    31. Re:wrong title. Demand continues to increase by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      U do realize that the vast majority of EVs are charged by simple 120V/15A outlets. Yes?

      Ooooooo, at a whopping five miles of range / hour (assuming a very electrically efficient vehicle). Many, many people don't have access to a 120V outlet either because they don't have their own house and they park on the street or in a parking garage.

  4. LEDs I think. by Major_Disorder · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The price on LED lighting has come down so much, that I have just finished converting my entire house to LED lighting. It has made a big difference in my electric bill. Also big power sucking CRT TVs are being replaced rapidly with LED backlit flat screens.
    I would expect the electric use to start a downward trend from this point.

    --
    First law of people: People are generally stupid.
    1. Re:LEDs I think. by Gilgaron · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah when I was finishing my basement I drew out what lighting fixtures I wanted and went to add them up to see if I could get them all on one breaker... the single fixture that came with 3 incandescent bulbs used more power than the rest of the basement put together, since the others were all LED. I intend to use the 3 bulbs that came with the fixture until they burn out and then replace them with decorative LEDs, but maybe I should just get rid of them and let the LEDs pay for themselves... we bough the house just long enough ago that I'd replaced the rest of the lighting with CFLs, which themselves had a noticeable affect on the electric bill, and look forward to replacing them with LEDs as they burn out, too.

    2. Re:LEDs I think. by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      Not only has the price come down, but there are so many options now that you can pretty much find whatever you need for any purpose. I've found some sweet candelabra ones, I got some quirky fake-incandescent ones for the entry light fixture, nice flat-white globes for the bathroom, appliance bulbs, etc.

      The most expensive ones were all of about $5 each, have about a 10 year lifespan, and if run 24 hrs per day, would cost me about 2 cents. That's half to a third of the energy draw of CFLs, which themselves were half to a third of incandescent lights.

      What amazes me is how many lights are still incandescent, halogen, etc. Entire cities full of street lights and stoplights, millions of businesses, tons of appliances.... I agree that it's going to trend downward, at least until electric cars start to really take off. Then it will bounce back up, but that's no longer a fair comparison unless you also consider the lack of gas consumption.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    3. Re:LEDs I think. by Big+Bipper · · Score: 1

      I think that you're correct about LEDs and the switch away from CRTs for TVs and computers. Also demand is what you can pay for. We economized and reduced our frivolous gasoline consumption. We were very wasteful of electricity because it was also cheap. The people who switch to LED lights are also likely to be the ones to turn them, the TV, and other appliances off when not needed. In this environment of stealth inflation and increasing taxation, every little bit adds up and helps.

      --
      You live and learn, or you don't learn much.
    4. Re:LEDs I think. by KixWooder · · Score: 1

      demand is what you can pay for

      Demand is what you are willing to pay. I've been cutting my personal energy consumption for years, not because I need to, but because I would rather save or invest the money than give it to my utility company.

      --
      I hate fat people.
    5. Re:LEDs I think. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      I would expect, because a lot of electronics are far more energy efficient now, is part of the issue. For a lot of devices USB is the new power-plug and many devices are now working on 5 volt or 12 volt power. LED Lights+Energy Efficient TVs The general lack of mechanical parts in your computer Solid state drive, no CD/DVD... All this stuff adds up. However Normally such efficiencies just lead to greater usage. More Always on Devices and lights.

      I expect what is also a factor is people with their own power generation such as solar panels is helping stabilize the grid, especially during peak time, so the need of additional power plants isn't needed as much.

      What I would like to see as the next big step, is having a home powered by DC electric, so we don't need a bunch of bricks doing the conversion and wasting additional power in phantom energy draw. There will still be some loss from going from Mains to a ACDC Converter. But it would be one device, not a bunch.
       

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    6. Re:LEDs I think. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The contribution of LEDs to slowing or even reversing electricity demand has received a little, but not nearly enough, press.

      My wife and I converted our entire house to LEDs over the last two years, and we're very happy. Less $ spent on electricity, plus I don't have to change bulbs as often; in fact, I've yet to change one since we started the conversion.

      I was in a very large optometrist office recently and was bored out of my mind until I noticed their lighting, which was all incandescent bulbs in ceiling cans. And it was a LOT of bulbs throughout the entire place, easily several hundred. A rough, back-of-mind calculation of how much they'd save converting to LEDs, which would cost them nothing but bulbs, since the lights are standard medium base fixtures, was amazing.

      LEDs won't save the world, but they'll definitely help push us in the right direction.

    7. Re:LEDs I think. by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Interesting

      LED have a longer life, Can be dimmed, A wide verity of color hues, brighter bulbs can be put into lamps that normally would have cause a fire problems.

      There are a lot of Benefits from LEDs over Incandescent or CF. It isn't just greenies who use them. They are a practical light source. It just took the invention of the Bright Blue LED in 1995 (23 years ago) to help make it a reality. Otherwise we would be having Red-Yellow-Green lights with them, Which are not overly useful for normal lighting.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    8. Re:LEDs I think. by KixWooder · · Score: 1

      so we don't need a bunch of bricks doing the conversion and wasting additional power in phantom energy draw.

      That would be good, but it's a long ways off. Fortunately most ac to dc conversion is now done with much more efficient switching power supplies instead of the linear wall-warts that everything used to use.

      --
      I hate fat people.
    9. Re:LEDs I think. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Phantom draw hasn't been a major issue for a long time due to small switch-mode transformers. Most likely if the charging brick doesn't get warm, its not using power. Using DC for a house could be helpful in many cases, but not for the above.

    10. Re:LEDs I think. by Major_Disorder · · Score: 1

      My wife and I converted our entire house to LEDs over the last two years, and we're very happy. Less $ spent on electricity, plus I don't have to change bulbs as often; in fact, I've yet to change one since we started the conversion.

      I just recently had my first LED bulb burn out. I have been replacing incandescent and CFL bulbs with LEDs for the past 5 years.

      --
      First law of people: People are generally stupid.
    11. Re:LEDs I think. by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      Yeah, my house is off grid and I can make it look like a car parking lot for under 2kwh/night. At least until I go to sleep. If I were using incandescent bulbs I'd get a few bulbs for a couple of hours. For me it translates to having to have a lot less night time storage.

    12. Re:LEDs I think. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with that is that, as a percentage, resistance losses in the wire are higher for low voltage than higher voltage. Dropping your house wiring to 5V for all those solid-state lights and devices may eliminate the power bricks (and transformers are (can be) one of the most efficient devices around, up to 97% efficient) , but now you're losing power heating up the wires. (A 1V drop at 110 V is less than 1%, but at 5V it's 20%).

    13. Re:LEDs I think. by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      LED have a longer life

      I don't know about that. 10 years into all LED bulbs and I'm on my 2nd or third replacement of all of them.. I'd still pat extra because my energy costs are so high, but I don't believe their longer life estimate. I have/had good quality bulbs too.

    14. Re:LEDs I think. by barakn · · Score: 1

      I had an LED "burn" out after a couple of months of use, and I suspect the ones that go quickly have manufacturing defects. Generally they should die a lot more slowly, until one day you notice the light is visibly dimmer than when it was new., and so dim that you decide to replace it.

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    15. Re:LEDs I think. by rgmoore · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I'd expect a continued downward trend. The big efficiency gains you get from upgrading your lighting and TV are one-time things. To see continued efficiency gains, you'll need to find more and more potential gains like those, and there aren't any obvious candidates. At the same time, there are potential new consumers of electricity that could drive demand higher, like electric vehicles. The only way we're likely to see decreasing utility demand is if we continue aggressively installing local generation (e.g. rooftop solar) to power those things.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    16. Re:LEDs I think. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. One big problem now is electrical codes. Current codes are based on groups of 100 watt plus bulbs in cans or other ridiculously inefficient past arrangements. I can completely light my small kitchen for under 100 watts. But code says I need a dedicated 15 amp circuit or lighting. Insanity.

    17. Re:LEDs I think. by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 3, Informative

      LED have a longer life

      I don't know about that.

      I do. I've been running LEDs since 2008; I have 75 of them in my house. Some of the earlier ones did die early, but the current versions just keep on going; a lot more long-lived than even the old CF bulbs.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    18. Re:LEDs I think. by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

      I think the downward trend he's talking about is just the phasing out of legacy devices and bulbs, at which point you hit a new equilibrium.

    19. Re:LEDs I think. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LED have a longer life,

      some filament lamps have been burning far longer than LEDs have existed, and in general LED lifespans are somewhat overrated, though the failure rate is quite low now due to streamlined development and manufacturing

      Can be dimmed,

      Not as such. I'm not sure where you got this preposterous idea. I suppose if tintshift is not an issue, there are methods. But I would never say any of the dimming available to LED is even remotely a positive argument against other light.

      A wide verity of color hues,

      The ballgame is natural light or an acceptably close approximation. All white LEDs are blue. The closer the phospors get to producing natural light, the less efficient the LED becomes.

      brighter bulbs can be put into lamps that normally would have cause a fire problems.

      Bright LEDs burn hot, and heatsinking is a necessity. The difference between incan and LED regarding heat is that incan shoots it all out the front, while LED builds it up behind the emitter. Again, I believe your argument is a poor choice to promote LED.

      There are a lot of Benefits from LEDs over Incandescent or CF.

      And likewise visa versa.

      It isn't just greenies who use them. They are a practical light source. It just took the invention of the Bright Blue LED in 1995 (23 years ago) to help make it a reality.

      LED per lumen watt is more efficient at providing "a light" than incan in certain common applications. The color spectrum matters, whether it consciously matters to you or not, brightness matters less than providing the ability to see.

      Otherwise we would be having Red-Yellow-Green lights with them,

      And that what's missing from the Blue LED

      Which are not overly useful for normal lighting.

      In a perfect world, normal lighting is sunlight, at whatever intensity our eyes desire. LED solves an immediate efficiency concern yet LED is closing in on the theoretical limit of its efficiency; in 2020, I believe,is the expected date. Incandescent lighting is practically inefficient, but not necessarily so. The theoretical maximum efficiency of LED is half that of incandescent is theoretically capable of, even if currently commercial LED is close to ten times more efficient than commercial incan.

      LED lighting is cheap to run, right now. That is its only advantage, and it may be fleeting. At best LED fails to match sunlight, or render color as accurately, at worst who knows what happens to life under a different spectrum than it evolved under and lives under up to half the day? No one. The point is you can't ignore what is wrong with LED. LED is not perfect, and other sources achieve close perfection (with less efficiency). Understand why it matters, and neither ignore LED's deficiencies completely nor bother attempting to downplay why LED sucks. LED sucks for good reasons. Application is everything, but at the end of the day, we all have human eyes.

    20. Re:LEDs I think. by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      One good reason to have the lighting on a separate breaker from other crap is that the lights don't go out when your hair dryer trips a breaker, but yeah you can probably put the whole house's lighting on one breaker now...

    21. Re:LEDs I think. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bunch of my LEDs lights have died within 2 years. Its the transformer units I think due to either poor workmanship and materials and/or overheating. It probably pays to get more expensive ones.

    22. Re:LEDs I think. by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Exactly, my power usage has dropped a lot from 10 years ago. LED lighting, CRT TV replaced with one that uses a fraction of the power, much more efficient heat pump and refrigerator and washer/dryer combo. The computer I use as well is about half the power drain, not to mention moving from a CRT monitor to an LED one which is a huge savings as well. My power bill used to hit 500-550 in the summer and now it's seldom over 300 dollars. My biggest power drain now is the hot water system and I plan to do something about that this year.

    23. Re:LEDs I think. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2

      But, how much is a 15 amp breaker? How long would that last drawing 1 amp? It is more convenient to have multiple breakers for different zones of lighting. It is always a good idea to have outlets in one breaker and the lights in another. Code or no code.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    24. Re:LEDs I think. by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      The oldest LED bulb I have is 5 years old. I guess I'll have to see how long it lasts. When I moved I took all the incandescent bulbs from my new house and swapped them out with the LEDs from my old one. Only time I ever moved and worried about bringing the bulbs with me!

    25. Re:LEDs I think. by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      LED's don't require high voltage sources that can cause EMI and noise and reliability issues, don't contain mercury, and they are easy to find in 3k kelvin temperatures rather than eye straining, harsh white light typical of CF. Been years since I've had to replace a bulb, too. There's no reason at all to use anything else.

    26. Re:LEDs I think. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same experience here. I have only lost two LED bulbs and they were both the 'filament style' bulbs. Even then, the problem wasn't the LED failing, both of them were damaged by hurricane force winds that caused the filaments to physically disconnect.

      I've yet to have any interior LED bulbs fail. With my old incandescents and CFLs, I replaced dozens of bulbs each year.

    27. Re:LEDs I think. by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

      Yes, there's a difference, I think, between the cheap ones and the good ones.

      I got a bunch of the Philips L-Prize bulbs when they just came out-- those were very seriously tested against extreme environmental conditions.

      These days I see you can get LED bulbs at the dollar store-- don't know how well those will last.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    28. Re:LEDs I think. by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Otherwise we would be having Red-Yellow-Green lights with them

      Would that make brown light? I wonder if it might have an unexpected effect...

    29. Re:LEDs I think. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You cheap bastard. 100% conservatard, I guarantee. Only people I ever hear bitching about codes are cheap ass conservatards.

    30. Re:LEDs I think. by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      It's the fixture, not the electrical code.

      If you're talking about a "stock" can light with a screw-in LED bulb, the fixture can hold that 100W incandescent bulb. So the building code has to assume someone will put those 100W bulbs in and size the breaker accordingly.

      If you have a special fixture that can only hold LED lights, then you can use fewer circuits.

    31. Re:LEDs I think. by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Color mixing in light is additive, not subtractive..

    32. Re:LEDs I think. by twosat · · Score: 1

      I have a Philips 13 Watt, 1055 lumens LED bulb in my bedroom light which I installed on 1 July 2013. I have the light on for many hours at night and it is still going strong after close to 5 years of usage. I am thinking of buying the newest version that now only uses about 10.5 Watts to see if there is any significant deterioration of light output. We have had an all-LED house for about 3 years now and we have not had a single one fail.

    33. Re:LEDs I think. by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Bases are standard across bulb types so this doesn't exist.

    34. Re:LEDs I think. by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Actually it does. There are specialized fixtures that can only power LEDs - usually a hard-wired "strip" of LEDs. There are also specialized fixtures that can only hold CFLs - 'pin' style connectors on the bulb's base.

    35. Re:LEDs I think. by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      If it's hard wired, I can just cut the cables and put in whatever I want and solder it back together. Pin bases support a plethora of bulb types. For instance GU24 base typical for CFLs also is supported on LEDs. https://www.bulbs.com/results....

  5. Clearly this problem can be solved by by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More cryptocurrencies.

    1. Re:Clearly this problem can be solved by by slazzy · · Score: 2

      Crypto mining heats my garage in the winter.

      --
      Website Just Down For Me? Find out
    2. Re:Clearly this problem can be solved by by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Crypto mining heats my garage in the winter.

      since reaction rate is a function of temperature, you are also massively accelerating the oxidation process that turns your salty car into a pile of rust

      i bet the depreciation rate of your car is greater than the your rate of bitcoin generation

    3. Re:Clearly this problem can be solved by by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Car? There are no CARS in my garage. Just CRYPTOMINERS!!! Lots and lots of 'em.

  6. Cryptocurrencies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And then they developed Bitcoin and all the other cryptocurrencies to increase demand for electricity. ;)

  7. Demand for utility power is down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not total energy consumption. Also most new plants are built by energy wholesalers and investors that fund them and not large utilities anymore. Electric wholesalers prefer natural gas, wind, and solar.

    1. Re:Demand for utility power is down by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      Electric wholesalers prefer natural gas, wind, and solar.

      Because the fuel is cheap or free while the plant is scalable and reasonably inexpensive. What a deal.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  8. Not surprising by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    growth outside the developing world has more or less stopped. There's been a pretty large scale transference of wealth to the top earners here in America. I know Japan's got out of control wealth inequality and even Europe's starting to see it. Less money means smaller homes, less activity, fewer new electrical devices and above all fewer children. Combine that with new tech (LED bulbs, LCDs, new air conditioners and heaters) and it was bound to happen.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  9. (n the US by bobstreo · · Score: 1

    Multiple factors:

    Flat screen TVs replacing most of television CRTs.

    LED Bulbs replacing Incandescent.

    Laptops and tablets replacing a lot of desktops, remaining desktops not using CRTs any more.

    Some of that is offset by huge gaming systems with enormous power supplies, and bitcoin mining rigs. They are probably a minority nowadays..

    The two things that use the most power in my household are my furnace (for the blowers) and probably my DVR.

    1. Re:(n the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you've got an ice maker there's a noticeable power draw, I shit you not, when it turns on the heater so that it can remove the cubes from the maker.

    2. Re:(n the US by bobstreo · · Score: 1

      If you've got an ice maker there's a noticeable power draw, I shit you not, when it turns on the heater so that it can remove the cubes from the maker.

      My ice maker is some cube trays I bought. Never hooked up the ice maker... It was an energy efficient fridge 20 years ago,,,

    3. Re:(n the US by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      The two things that use the most power in my household are my furnace (for the blowers) and probably my DVR.

      Heating coils and compressor motors are usually your biggest draws.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  10. Electric reserves will be needed for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The upcoming Windows 11 forced upgrade.

    1. Re:Electric reserves will be needed for... by supremebob · · Score: 1

      Funny, I figured that Microsoft will do the same "OS Version 10 Forever" strategy that Apple is doing.

      I wouldn't expect a major UI revamp from either Apple or Microsoft without a major technology breakthrough like 3D holographic displays. After the Windows 8 debacle, I think that most of their customers are afraid of change.

  11. Re:Obligitory Trump Bashing by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Oh for fuck's sake.. if you're going to troll the Trump supporters, could you at least be bothered to try? That was pathetically weak.

  12. When stability is considered bad, you know your so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, the "market" is the only thing on the planet that considers infinite growth, or even exponential explosions, a "good" thing.
    The only things in nature that act like that, are deadly pathogens and explosions.
    Everybody else is smart enough to figure out the inevitability of death, resulting from such a dynamic in a world of non-infinite resources.

    That's what you get, when you let people "make" money without working for it (like thieves and forgers), or even completely make it up, like banks and the stock market.

  13. Very interesting development by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...but in developing countries.

    While TFA did point out, "US", it seems rather pointless because the demand, and thus the generation, and thus the pollution is occurring overseas.Just because it's not here doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

      It's like you cleaned up your back yard by throwing all the trash over the fence. Coming soon, we will be bitching at our neighbors about all the trash in their yard.

    So before the Enviro's celebrate, they should consider that they have successfully pushed the pollution into countries that are ill equipped to handle it from regulatory and societal standpoints, yet the US and other western countries are still benefiting from it.

    This is a *very* interesting development, for the following reason:

    All modern theories of economics ("schools of thought" as they are called) assume infinite demand, either by infinitely increasing population or infinitely increasing demands per person, or both.

    So for example, theory has it that you can double your sales income if you double your sales outlets - by opening stores in other states, for instance. Problem with this is that the world is finite and eventually you reach diminishing returns. Many companies found this out the hard way when they started selling through WalMart - once your jeans (or pickles) are sold at Walmart, you're done. You can no longer increase sales *at all*.

    We know that population begins to level off and decline when countries become modernized, and now it looks like demand itself has a fixed upper limit.

    If consumption is fixed, then lots of macro economic theory is simply incorrect. If efficiency per-worker reaches a level where half the available workers can fulfill the demands of the population, what do you do with the other half that can't find work?

    It's these sorts of observations and extrapolations that lead people to think of possible solutions like reduced-hours work week (for the same pay), or UBI.

    1. Re:Very interesting development by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      All modern theories of economics ("schools of thought" as they are called) assume infinite demand

      They assume infinite aggregate demand, not infinite demand for any particular product.

      I own one laptop, and would have no use for two. My demand for laptops is fixed.

      On the other hand, I would love to have my own starship.

    2. Re:Very interesting development by swb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      On the other hand, I would love to have my own starship.

      Which implies another laptop, doesn't it? I mean, you can't run a starship with just one laptop..

    3. Re:Very interesting development by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      I mean, you can't run a starship with just one laptop..

      I can use voice commands: "Alexa, go to warp one."

    4. Re:Very interesting development by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The demand for education, cultural activities, personal attention, and new experiences can grow without any obvious limit, without using more electricity. If you start from the standpoint that people spend 80% of their time in climate-controlled rooms, with lights and a few electronic appliances active, and travel a certain amount per year to new experiences, then you're using the same amount of resources no matter what kind of education or activity you're attaining. It's only energy-intensive activities and (inter)continental travel that would increase it significantly. Conversely, if people start wanting to take more day hikes outdoors, a reasonable distance from home or using public transit to get there, then their energy footprint might decrease compared to whatever they would have done instead.

  14. Obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    outsourcing of heavy industry,

    Since industry jobs are bound to come back, this would mean that electricity demand will rise up again. Wouldn't it be a better thing to think ahead and prepare energy production beforehand?

    1. Re:Obviously by Muckluck · · Score: 1
      Speculation about customers aside, a future rise in demand is one of the reasons the power industry is regulated in the U.S. Building a power plant is insanely expensive. Regardless of whether it is coal, nuclear, hydro, gas, renewable or any other fuel.

      The incentive for anyone to be in the business, at all, is driven by customer demand as well as the ability to produce bulk quantities at reasonable rates. Demand is not only quantity, but also includes the expectation of real-time delivery "on-demand". A lot of people also like to argue what is reasonable when it comes to rates, but these are also the some folks that complain loudly when they lose power for any period of time (1 minute to a few hours). Reliability is part of the demand and resiliency comes at a cost. It is a key element of the infrastructure which technology is utterly dependent upon.

      Many folks are not forward thinking enough to see that we either need to start building now to meet future demand OR change the way in which we demand the service.

      --


      --I like turtles...
  15. Outsourcing? by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Demand for electricity is stagnant. Thanks to a combination of greater energy efficiency, outsourcing of heavy industry, and customers generating their own power on site, demand for utility power has been flat for 10 years, and most forecasts expect it to stay that way.

    Assuming that demand has been flat domestically, the outsourcing of certain energy intensive industries doesn't mean the demand has gone away. It just places it in a different geographic location. That's not the same thing as flat demand.

    1. Re:Outsourcing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I question just how much "outsourcing" is actually happening. Energy intensive industry such as steel and cement production is happening in the US so it can be exported to China. Energy numbers for those two industries are so huge that China's unmatched demand for those two industrial outputs makes any notion that the US is just exporting energy demand very difficult to entertain. If anything, energy production in the US is inflated by Chinese demand for energy intensive goods. Steel, cement, aluminum.

  16. business adoption of flat screens and LEDs helped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we've seen a lot of recent adoption of flat screens and LED lighting, over the last couple of years, in businesses and homes, which should have shown a significant *decrease* in demand. But since it flatlined, you can guess that the surplus was taken up by EVs perhaps, and increased population demands.

    What can be predicted is, as we near "peak energy efficiency" is a slow, then rapid climb of demand as we run out of ways to make lights and computers and such more efficient. Increased uptake of EVs will require more of the horsepower in kilowatts that used to be fossil fuels.

    At least greater EV uptake is the hope. So either we increase demand because of that, or we've failed with EV adoption and will only see growth in load to match population needs.

  17. EVs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will eventually push demand up, a lot. Which is why it's good we are at least leveling off other demand increases.

  18. Um, the utilities helped make this happen by Solandri · · Score: 1

    This historic shift has wreaked havoc in the utility industry in ways large and small, visible and obscure.

    The utilities (at least the power companies at my workplace and at my home) have very aggressive energy efficiency programs and rebates for things like upgrading to CFLs and LEDs. Every time I open a bill, half the contents are literature on other ways I can reduce my energy consumption.

    Perfectly flat electricity demand is the ideal case for the utilities. They don't have to spend money on building new generating plants, which may end up superfluous if demand doesn't increase as much as expected. They don't have to string up new transmission lines to meet higher consumption. Under flat demand, their only expenses are fuel, maintenance, and labor.

    1. Re:Um, the utilities helped make this happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every time I open a bill, half the contents are literature on other ways I can reduce my energy consumption.

      Open (i.e. paper) ... how quaint!

    2. Re:Um, the utilities helped make this happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Perfectly flat electricity demand is the ideal case for the utilities. They don't have to spend money on building new generating plants,..."

      I don't buy that. Utilities generally are alloted profits based on return on investment, e.g. the value of their physical plant. That means that the more they build, the more money they make for their stockholders. It's a great racket, because the ratepayers pay to build the plant, and then the ratepayers pay an annual percentage of the value of the plant.

  19. Rounding errors by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Some of that is offset by huge gaming systems with enormous power supplies, and bitcoin mining rigs. They are probably a minority nowadays..

    I think you hugely overestimate the number of people who have gaming rigs with their attendant out sized power requirements. Compared to the number of computers out there it is a fraction of a single percent. In other words a rounding error. Same with bitcoin mining. It's getting way more play in the media than it really justifies and really the number of people involved is a good approximation of insignificant.

  20. And with demand, comes supply by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    the demand, and thus the generation, and thus the pollution is occurring overseas.

    Exactly - and with demand up just where are all these countries getting coal? Why partly from the U.S. of course, which saw an INCREASE in both price and production of coal in 2017.

    The summary claim that coal is "headed down the tubes" (much less that it is the "golden child") is sadly yet more Fake News by people who don't understand the modern world economy, they only see things as they wish them to be.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  21. Re:Obligitory Trump Bashing by MrTester · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Oh for the love of God. You are just as bad at "facts" as our president. Making it all caps doesn't make it more true.
    The fact is that the Russians TRIED to influence our election. There is tons of proof of that. What we dont have proof of is that their attempts changed the result of the election. Not saying it didn't, just that its not something that has been "proven." Im completely ready to believe that we legitimately have enough idiots to vote the man in.

    Prediction: The moment that the Republicans get trashed in the midterm elections the Republicans will start screaming about how Russian meddling has screwed up the mid term elections.

  22. Re:Joke's on you: Putin was put in power by ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    a continued line of thought would be : they were all put into power by BANKs.

  23. Re:Obligitory Trump Bashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It says something about Trump and his supporters when they freak out over completely factual statements about things Trump has said and declare it to be "Trump bashing".

  24. Commercial Industrial Residential differ by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Residential electricity consumption is down. Some of this is people buying solar panels and wind turbines for their houses. And managing that "in house". Some of that is much more efficient appliances and lighting and consumer electronics. While PCs have not decreased power draw, laptops have. As more people switch to LEDs and high efficiency washers, dryers, ranges, ovens, microwaves, and fridges, they notice their utility bills plummet.

    Commercial electricity consumption is only growing slightly. For much the same reasons as residential electricity consumption. But many firms like Google with a large presence build their own solar and wind farms to provide their own power at their buildings, instead of paying a premium for off site electricity generation. The move to DC server farms has also impacted this.

    Industrial electricity consumption is actually growing. However, many industrial firms are also building their own solar, wind, and hydro power generation units, much like the commercial sector.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  25. What about electric cars? by lfp98 · · Score: 2

    The average US household drives 20,000 miles a year. If all of that were electric, it would be roughly 6000 kWh per year, or about half the average total consumption of a US household. EVs will very soon be as convenient as gasoline cars and much cheaper overall to drive, so I would think adoption could happen quite rapidly and would sop up any excess electric power demand. It is a perfect match for solar energy because the cars can be charged anywhere anytime.

    1. Re:What about electric cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very much this. Residential consumption is going to significantly increase with the adoption of EVs, which I believe is going to lead to a shifting of peak periods to being overnight.

      If the average household has two cars and they both become EVs, that house is liable to double its electricity consumption if all charging is done at home. This is going to lead to peak demand periods shifting to what is now off-peak and going to spur the deployment of smart meters that chargers can communicate with so they can start and stop charging according to price changes.

    2. Re:What about electric cars? by sad_ · · Score: 1

      in EU, some countries are very worried about mass EV adoption because they have calculated the electrical grid couldn't handle it.

      --
      On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
  26. and the loser is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Electricity use has plateaued because the biggest industrial users of electricity have moved overseas. This includes the manufacture of aluminum and steel, which are hugely energy-intensive, as well as pretty much all other manufacturing. So, not only is the global pollution not mitigated, it also means a lower standard of living in the US.

    1. Re:and the loser is... by crunchygranola · · Score: 2

      Electricity use has plateaued because the biggest industrial users of electricity have moved overseas. This includes the manufacture of aluminum and steel....

      U.S. steel production has fluctuated in the broad range of 6 million and 8 million tons a year for 35 years and has been pretty much level since recovery from the Great Recession. U.S. primary production of aluminum however has dropped sharply, the large majority of aluminum production is secondary (recycled) aluminum, which uses much less electricity (and even the primary production consumption per ton has been cut with superior technology).

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
  27. Not a recent "problem" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This has been known for years. I believe there were even some articles a few years back where utilities were complaining that they needed to be able to hike rates because people "weren't using enough electricity". Of course few years before that many were demanding similar rate hikes because people were "using too much electricity". And we've barely scratched the surface of potential energy savings technologies/methodologies. Hopefully co-generation will catch on more in the next decade, for example before going to heat your home/water a fossil fuel could be fed through a system to generate electricity. Thermal energy goes to waste in many places throughout our lives (cars, homes, businesses), if we're making it we might as well get our moneys worth out of it.

  28. Re:Obligitory Trump Bashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Prediction: The moment that the Republicans get trashed in the midterm elections the Republicans will start screaming about how Russian meddling has screwed up the mid term elections.

    The Senate isn't at risk, given the seats up for election, no way democrats gain, but many ways they lose a seat or two. The house is an open question that's harder to call, but not all indicators are saying the dims get enough seats back to win control of the house.

    IF the dims don't get control of the house, NOTHING will change. Even if the dims do win the house, the only possible thing that might happen is a Trump impeachment attempt. Trump won't leave office (if past behavior is any indicator of how he'd handle being impeached) and WON'T be convicted by the Senate (because there is zero chance the dims have enough votes there). We will only have gridlock and a bunch of exploding heads on the left going into the 2020 election with a deeply divided country, AGAIN, and the specter of Trump winning AGAIN....

    So don't be betting the farm on this idea that the mid-terms will go well for you. There ARE reasons it won't be what you think and the reality will be that nothing will really change if you get what you hope for because Trump will still be in the Oval office and the voters will be steamed with all the poisoned partisan politics being driven by the democrats. The second Trump wave may be worse than the first in that case.

  29. Maybe not for long... by rbrander · · Score: 2

    Electricity is the key to de-carbonization over the next few decades. The easy part is carbon-free electricity generation. As noted, renewable prices are in free-fall. I've been a big nuke-booster for decades, but even that option may not be needed, so low are wind and solar prices getting to be. (We need a major new grid to make that work, of course: only across a large continent is the wind always blowing somewhere... Also, we need some power storage; people had been thinking mountain lakes, pumps and turbines, but the Australian mega-battery has me wondering...)

    Then there's transportation, and battery improvements would indicate we might be able to replace most cars and light trucks with electric; trains can be electric.

    And there's home heating. Heat pumps have gotten so good we could ditch our entire piping infrastructure that moves, basically, an explosive around the city into every home. That's been a nutty idea since it started, and now there's more reason than ever to move off of it.

    We can eliminate 90% of natural gas, 90% of gasoline, half of diesel, half of avgas, with technologies that now exist, given only determination and, well, a huge pile of money. We'd have to build a lot of infrastructure, from that trillion-dollar grid, a few trillion in renewable power plants, to a zillion changing stations to an all-electric train system. But it's engineering and accounting, not new science.

    Even the staggering costs are not that daunting, really. Yes, you're talking a whole year's GDP for the US ($13 T) but that would be spread over about 25 years, and most of it would be private investments into utilities and trains and private vehicle purchases. [No, I don't know *how* you get 100 million households to all convert to heat pumps at $10K each when they hated giving up light bulbs; I'm just saying the engineering and money are do-able. ]

    And it would all depend on using a LOT more electricity instead of combustible gases and fluids.

    1. Re:Maybe not for long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heat pumps are awful and only got traction due to government handouts. My state of the art, brand new, extremely expensive, heat pump system runs nearly 100% of the time even with moderate (spring / fall) temp differentials (really efficient for it to run all the time, right!) and still requires a full traditional HVAC system for the real seasons. Yes my house is large.

      Top of the line traditional HVAC systems are extremely efficient and are probably better for the environment then heat pumps. The heat pump may be "designed" to be efficient but the reality is it doesn't work as intended and would need to be even more expensive to deliver the intended results.

    2. Re:Maybe not for long... by GregMmm · · Score: 1

      Another issue with heat pumps as soon as the outside temp heads to near freezing they are useless. That's when they switch over to the backup electric elements and really suck the power.

    3. Re:Maybe not for long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like your heat pump was specified incorrectly for your requirements and climate.

      Our 3,000sqft home is heated and cooled via a ducted air-source heat pump (we call them "reverse-cycle air-conditioners" here). We're in a mediterranean climate so don't really need to use it except for during hot summer days (>90) or cold winter days (60). It's much more energy efficient than the systems we have had in our previous homes, but then our home is also a lot better insulated than our previous homes.

      It's an inverter-type (or variable-frequency drive), so the compressor has a longer duty-cycle, but only works as hard as it needs to to maintain the temperature. Non-inverter systems consume at least 25% more electricity to achieve the same outcome.

      It's also a zoned system so we have the ability to turn the flow of conditioned air on and off to individual rooms. We generally only heat and cool the main living area which is about half of the floorspace of our home. We only cool to 77 in summer, which really helps save electricity on those 100+ days and during winter we heat to 67.

      My eldest son built a home with insulated concrete and underfloor hydronic heating and cooling running from a ground-source heat pump and if we ever build a new house again we will definitely build with that. It is very comfortable and extremely efficient. His house is a constant 73 throughout the day and 65 overnight.

    4. Re:Maybe not for long... by NJRoadfan · · Score: 1

      I just moved to an all electric condo. It was built in 1973, so not exactly well insulated. It has a fairly new heat pump for heat and despite being efficient, its far from cheap to run. Electricity on a per BTU basis here is much more expensive as a heating source then directly burning the natural gas, hence why all those pipes are routed all over the place. Modern gas furnaces are over 90% efficient at converting natural gas to heat, while electricity generation from the same natural gas (primary source here in Northern NJ) is much lower.

      One place heat pumps have been making inroads is conversion from oil heat. High heating oil prices made heating with electric economical, but only because folks who are heating with oil are usually far from any sort of natural gas distribution system.

  30. Re:Obligitory Trump Bashing by Rakarra · · Score: 1

    There's some trolling going on here, but I'll be more specific: hostile tone, trying to masquerade as a /. admin, frothing about Donald's election win (yeah, ok, we get it), and then there's the second paragraph:

    Also, "flat" is not good thing. Electricity should go DOWN to prevent climate change. Only can then we be certain ice bergs will not melt and so forth. Ban natural gas. Ban coal. Ban hydro. Only solar and batteries is the real solution in the end game.

    This is either total trolling as well, or just someone who really hasn't thought things through. Or you're twelve, pre-teens typically believe in fairies and unicorns and think solutions fit into a few words. "Ban natural gas," oh, ok! Geez, you make it sound so simple, as if we can issue a proclamation and everyone's home heaters, ovens/ranges, water heaters, et all will just magically convert themselves to electricity.

    What a stupid, stupid statement. But the goal here wasn't to offer a workable solution, was it? No, the goal here was to troll and try to rile up as many people as you could.

    Just be careful with the whole "trying to impersonate an admin" thing. You might make some enemies on the site quickly, people with access to the servers and can tell where you're actually coming from.

  31. Headline is right, details are bonkers by stomv · · Score: 1
    Utilities are not "freaking out." It's true that utilities make their profits not from selling electricity but from building infrastructure. The article states that The problem is, with demand stagnant, there’s not much need for new hardware. This is wrong, for several reasons:
    • Existing generators wear out after lifetimes of 30, 40, 50 years, and even with flat sales, utilities will need new sources of power
    • New low-cost generators (natural gas fired and renewables) have different operating profiles and will be built in different locations -- so the utilities will have to build different grid stabilization infrastructure and transmission to interconnect those new generators
    • With customers installing PV, distribution circuits will have to be reconfigured, requiring new distribution hardware investments
    • Widespread EV charging? We'll need to beef up distribution wires for that, requiring investment
    • Advanced ratemaking, so prices are low when utility costs are low (lower demand, high renewable output) and higher when utility costs are high (higher demand, low renewable output) will require investment in meters, distribution system infrastructure, and billing infrastructure
    • Widespread battery storage will require utility investment
    • Sales will climb again as we electrify transportation and heating to cut CO2 emissions, requiring electric utility investment
    • Sales are flat, but Americans are moving south, west, and into cities. That means that those places will need traditional electric utility investment to meet the growing population

    Sales are flat. Natural gas generation is increasing. Renewable electric generation is increasing. Coal is being squeezed. That's all true. But the electric system will go through unprecedented change over the next 4 decades, and all of it will require electric utility investment. The power company isn't going broke any time soon, and the utilities are decidedly not freaking out.

  32. Developing Country Demand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Developing country electricity demand is a combination of manufacturing demand, of which a lot of that production is exported to the developed world. However there is a lot of domestic consumption too as the standard of living rises in those countries.

    It's not quite as simple as, "the developed world outsourced pollution to the 3rd world".

  33. Re:Obligitory Trump Bashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obvious troll is obvious. Trying to make an argument and shame them from a position of +2 mod only feeds the trolls. Please stop.

  34. Temporary plateau due to LEDs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LED and CFL bulbs have hit rational price points, with some LED bulbs selling cheaper than incandescents did. Can;t be the whole story, but a lot of people are switching to low power lighting, high efficiency appliances, etc. The number of items needing power might still be growing as normal, but the per-item power usage is dropping this year and perhaps for the next few years, but that will hit a wall, and the overall demand will explode again.

    captcha: rebound. I can't make that up

  35. Re: Obligitory Trump Bashing by peragrin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The only reason Trump won is because Democrats underestimated the raw hatred people have of Hillary. I am a liberal and I can't stand her. She stands for nothing but power for herself.

    Democratic leadership is just as corrupt and incompetent as Republican.

    --
    i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  36. Re:Obligitory Trump Bashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of simply calling attention to something good happening in the world, they throw in mostly irrelevant, inflammatory information regarding Trump. Instead of talking about the issue at hand, we are left with people screaming and trolling each other. Just report the facts, and let people form their own opinion about the current president.

  37. Solar Panel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    320 watt 22 in a pallet for 2200.00 is all you need to know. DYI.

  38. Consider the source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was an article in VOX. Don't expect quality journalism from the warmed-over Daily Kos.

  39. Dude, wrong website by Medievalist · · Score: 1

    Nonpartisan reality checks don't get the "insightful" mod around here any more. You need to be more loudly in favor of nuclear railguns.

  40. The Shoe Dropped and Now the Socks. by JimSadler · · Score: 0

    Flat demand creates all kinds of mischief but flat demand is nothing compared to declining demand. As more and more homes are able to go off grid the problem will become dramatic. Imagine being the only home left on your block connected to the power grid. Your electric bill will go through the roof as you are supporting more and more of the power companies needs. The use of solar roofs and solar walls may also collect enough power to supply our vehicles as well. That points to two other big events. Normal cars and trucks will suddenly be obsolete. And homes and apartment houses that are not up to date with solar roofs and solar walls will need at the very least a complete remodeling. even getting a mortgage for a on the grid type of home will probably become impossible. . Getting a car loan could also become a huge problem for conventional vehicles as investors may correctly think that conventional vehicles have no real value and that borrowers will walk away from car loans financed when normal vehicles were desirable. I'll bet that we see companies spring up to do nothing but convert specific vehicles to modern, electric units. For example there are plenty of Ford F 150 pickup trucks that could be converted to electric or hybrid trucks.

  41. Re:Obligitory Trump Bashing by GLMDesigns · · Score: 2

    Ha. Ha. Ha.

    You're funny.

    The Russian economy is dependent upon oil revenue. Putin's power is helped by higher oil prices so Putin would be far more interested in preventing fracking than just about anything else that could be promoted (or discouraged) by a US President.

    Which of the two candidates was for fracking (which brings prices of oil down)? Hillary or Trump?

    Whatever the case may be about the environmental consequences of fracking Hillary and her supporters were (and are) dead set against it. Trump and his supporters tend to be for it.

    --
    If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
    Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
  42. Re: Obligitory Trump Bashing by morethanapapercert · · Score: 3, Informative

    can someone mod this comment up?

    --
    I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
  43. LED Bulbs by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    These have been huge for me.

    And they are so cheap now.

    And the light quality is finally good as of a few years ago.

    I have 20-30 in my house. They use the energy of 3 incandescent bulbs.

    I haven't had one go bad yet. Tho I have rolled 4 out of use because they were so bad compared to current bulbs (I had a "20" watt that probably put out about 150 lumens. lol)

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    1. Re:LED Bulbs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same. I replaced 12x 45W downlights and 3x 35W downlights with 12x 8W and 3x 4W LED globes a year ago. The globes cost $7 each, produce light that is almost indistinguishable from the incandescents they replace and are also dimmable (although the dimmed light is markedly different to the incandescents, but we rarely dim them).

      Those lights light the main living area of our apartment and are in use for hours each day. The electricity savings paid off a globe per month.

      I'm not going to bother replacing the incandescents that remain in the bedrooms and bathrooms until they and the globes left over from the ones I replaced have all blown as they're not used enough to justify the cost of LEDs.

      The four incandescent globes that I'd really like to replace are the two in the range hood and two in the oven as they are used for many hours each week. It's crazy that I use more electricity to see what I'm doing on the gas stove than I do to light the entire living area. Unfortunately the range hood uses a very obscure light style that I had trouble tracking down replacement incandescent globes for.

    2. Re:LED Bulbs by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      LED bulbs are down to $2 now in my area.

      In at least one case, my friend's electric bill increased by more than the cost of the bulb each month.

      Incandescent not only puts out light- it puts out heat. Not an issue this time of year in the states but come summer- that heat increases the most expensive electricity usage due to variable pricing.

      So you pay even more to light and then even more to cool down the heat they introduce.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    3. Re:LED Bulbs by twosat · · Score: 1

      Be careful replacing the oven lights, LEDs contain plastics and can't handle high temperatures. I have seen special replacement LED bulbs for fridges though.

  44. for now by buddyglass · · Score: 1

    Figure that will change if/when we transition the U.S. civilian fleet of automobiles from gasoline to electricity. The amount of juice needed to fully replace gas-powered cars is enormous.

  45. Re: Obligitory Trump Bashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ur just a repbulikan shill

  46. Re:Obligitory Trump Bashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL oh lookie the rabid Trump supporters have shown up and they've got mod points! Y U SO MAD, Trump supporters? Is it because Mueller is getting closer and closer to the truth about how your boy is a TRAITOR, and surrounds himself with CRIMINALS? LOL it'll be bad for the country in the short term but when the fireworks start I'll be pulling up a chair and grabbing a six-pack and some popcorn to watch the show when they march him off to Leavenworth in chains; LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! xD xD xD

  47. Sensationalism - properly present the update cycle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The author is either being sensationalist or does not comprehend the difference between the time span of the plan and the update cycle of the plan.

    From the article:

    Every five years, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) — the federally owned regional planning agency that, among other things, supplies electricity to Tennessee and parts of surrounding states — develops an Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) meant to assess what it requires to meet customer needs for the next 20 years. ...
    This startling shift in prospects has prompted the company to accelerate its schedule. It will now develop its next IRP a year early, in 2019. ...
    TVA wanted a plan for 20 years; the plan lasted three.

  48. Re:Obligitory Trump Bashing by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

    Could you at least be bothered to read the user name of the poster?

    --
    Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
  49. Other reasons, IMHO by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    [less growth in developed world due to wealth concentration ... Little guys have] Less money means smaller homes, less activity, fewer new electrical devices and above all fewer children. Combine that with new tech (LED bulbs, LCDs, new air conditioners and heaters) and it was bound to happen.

    IMHO the big issue is that the cost per watt for solar photovoltaic, in a reasonably sunny mid-latitude site, crossed-over that of grid power - and then dropped farther. It's not just the drastic efficiency of the new devices (Like LEDs, at about 1/8th the power of incandescents and only about a factor of two above theoretical perfection). It's that it's becoming cheaper to go solar even with paying the up-front cost.

    And some of that IS accessible to the allegedly impoverished 99% masses: There are a number of companies that will cut you (or your landlord) a deal where THEY lease your roof area, buy, install, and maintain the new equipment, then sell you electricity at a rate that splits the savings with you.

    IMHO the utilities are in for a hard time - and would be on their way to join the dinosaurs in the tar pits if it weren't for electric cars coming on line. It takes a LOT of power to move vehicles. Even with hystreically good efficiency and regenerative braking they need enough that it may be better to feed them from the grid than pave your yard with panels, too.

    Which is good for those who AREN'T in a sunny area, as it might keep utilities afloat and their prices affordable.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  50. Re: Obligitory Trump Bashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She stands for nothing but power for herself.

    And surprise. She stands for nothing but power for herself, and surprise. And fear. Other than power, surprise, and fear, she stands for nothing. And ruthless efficiency. Her four main standings are power, surprise, fear, and ruthless efficiency, and an almost fanatical devotion to civil service. Five. Amongst her standings are such diverse elements as: self-empowerment, surprise, fear, ruthless efficiency, and an almost fanatical devotion to civil service. And nice red uniforms. Oh, damn!

  51. Thank building codes by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    There are only so many plugs in which to put a wall wart.

  52. Aus sells LPG to Japan for cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    if it is cheaper to buy australian LPG in Japan than piped to a house in Australia then something is screwed

  53. Re:Obligitory Trump Bashing by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

    Which of the two candidates was for fracking (which brings prices of oil down)? Hillary or Trump?

    I know it's trendy to insist all Democrats are rabid environmentalists, but the correct answer to your question is both.

    Clinton's support of fracking pissed off the rabid environmentalists that are in the Democratic party. It's one of the many reasons the activists in the party dislike her.

  54. Re: Obligitory Trump Bashing by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    She stands for nothing but power for herself. So let's just let the other candidate roll in, who is even worse in that regard. Not only does he want power for himself, he only wants power for the sake of enriching himself. Yeah. Very clever of you to let the worser person win. That'll teach 'em.

    --
    Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
  55. Correct Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It should say US demand is flat. World demand is still growing as the industrial world continues to electrify.

    1. Re:Correct Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assume you mean developing world not industrial but point taken.

  56. Average energy cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Demand is stagnant because the price of energy is pushing against the most the market will bear. Try asking any average American household if they would be willing to add another $100+ to their energy bill for a new whizbang coffee maker. EV is the main exception because people see it as a net neutral or better investment in oil prices.

  57. New Tech by speedlaw · · Score: 1

    My 60 watt bulbs are now all 8-12 watts. The TV has gone from a power eating tube to a backlit LCD. Major Appliances have all gone on a diet.

  58. HeatPumps also... by ClarkMills · · Score: 1

    We used to heat with fan heaters / gas heaters. The heatpump we installed made a huge difference. Much more output for less power consumed. Don't tend to use if in Summer (now, NZ); just open a couple of windows and the cross-ventilation is enough.

    LEDs for sure too but for us the power consumed in winter is^H^H was significant.

  59. Re: Obligitory Trump Bashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump and Brexit won on immigration. Until the left wakes up to the idea that giving one's country away is bad strategy, the civilized world is, and will remain a one party system.

    One corrupt party.

  60. Re:Obligitory Trump Bashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, Fuck Off you Butthurt.

    Seriously, you people are pathetic.

    Obviously they spent too much time watching the conservatives & rednecks lose their f*cking minds year after year once the Kenyan Muslim was elected

  61. Re: Obligitory Trump Bashing by haruchai · · Score: 2

    The only reason Trump won is because Democrats underestimated the raw hatred people have of Hillary. I am a liberal and I can't stand her. She stands for nothing but power for herself.

    Democratic leadership is just as corrupt and incompetent as Republican.

    I would have preferred Sanders but the fact is that Clinton got many more votes.
    Someone figured out a way to score a strategic win. Trump didn't think that up - he doesn't have the brains.
    Conway might have been cunning enough but the likely strategist is Manafort.
    Or perhaps someone closer to Putin.

    --
    Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  62. Fine piece of blather by Wizardess · · Score: 1

    Does the fine analysis account for things like the 70 kWh we developed here at home, today? Demand from the electric companies may be down. But I bet we're still using more energy than ever before if you include all the energy generated on site that does not get billed by the electric companies. They know what we get from them. They know what we give to them. They have no idea how much we use here. And we use the greater part of those 70 kWh. (Or the 90+ on a good day when it's not cloudy.)

    {^_^}

  63. Re: Obligitory Trump Bashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The question you should be asking: is it better to elect a power seeking individual with a track record of efficacy, or to elect a power seeking individual with a track record of incompetence?

  64. Re: Obligitory Trump Bashing by Voyager529 · · Score: 1

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    He sums it up perfectly.

    If I could add anything to it, it's that Hillary engaged heavily in identity politics and bet the farm on that. That might not have been so bad if it was a matter of saying "less-privileged people need a voice", but it commonly morphed into, "if we deem that you have privilege, we demand your silence". That's not the sort of thing which helps in a general election.

  65. Beneficial Electrification will double demand by bobwyman · · Score: 1

    Environmentally Beneficial Electrification, primarily the increased adoption of electric vehicles and heat pumps, could double electricity demand by 2050 while increasing energy efficiency and reducing both pollution and GHG emissions. Any flattening of electricity demand is temporary and should not influence policy. We should be pleased to see electricity demand begin to grow more and more rapidly after about 2024. This fuel-switching from end use fossil fuel combustion to electricity will constitute the Second Great Electrification of our society and will result in a massive transfer of revenue from the fossil fuel to the electricity sector.

    It is essential that we begin planning now to produce and consume twice as much electricity rather than being swayed by a temporary moderation of demand. We should also begin to plan the managed de-capitalization of the retail natural gas utilities. Natural gas, if used in the future, should only be used for generating electricity. Homes and businesses should be "all-electric" and rely on electric vehicles, induction cooking, and heat pumps. Although utilities are still trying to expand their natural gas customer base, it is essential that we recognize that any new natural gas infrastructure is likely to become a stranded asset prior to 2050.

    See: Brattle Group Report, projecting doubling of electricity demand: http://www.brattle.com/news-an...

  66. Well Sure! by Ferretman · · Score: 1

    LEDs are pretty danged awesome tech, really. I think some folks *are* using less power overall due to light pollution concerns.

    It's a good thing, to be sure.

    Ferret

    --
    Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
  67. ICE is 15-20% efficient, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So reduce that figure by 80%. 1200, or about 10% of the total consumption.