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.
When you switch to more energy efficient products, this is a natural side effect. EVs will change that obviously.
...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.
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.
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.
Crypto mining heats my garage in the winter.
Website Just Down For Me? Find out
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/
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.
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
...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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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".
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...
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! --
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
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.
Nonpartisan reality checks don't get the "insightful" mod around here any more. You need to be more loudly in favor of nuclear railguns.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
[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
There are only so many plugs in which to put a wall wart.
if it is cheaper to buy australian LPG in Japan than piped to a house in Australia then something is screwed
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.)
{^_^}
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.
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...
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