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.

43 of 229 comments (clear)

  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 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]
    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. Re:EVs will change that by rogoshen1 · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    6. 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
    7. 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.
    8. 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.

  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 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
    2. 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] "

    3. 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;
    4. 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
    5. 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
    6. 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!

    7. 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.

    8. 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
    9. 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.

  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 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.
    2. 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!
    3. 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
    4. 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
    5. 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
    6. 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.

    7. 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
  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 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.
    3. 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
    4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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 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..

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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.
  14. 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