Average household electric use Dropping in US

[peakbagger]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/home-electricity-us-falling-2001-174647065.html

I would expect that the Energy Star initiatives have made a big part of the difference.

 

[semipro]

I was just getting ready to post this. Glad I read ahead.
A pretty good improvement considering there's still folks like those below that commented on the Yahoo article.
It amazes me that we made these gains despite the efforts (maybe lack of effort) of some that would rather invest in old technology rather than new despite the projected paybacks in energy costs.

Bonnie 1

Obama has us slated to be a third world country by 2016 ​

CAPT AMERICA 2 ​

The gist of this topic is that we all went out and bought $35 light bulbs that save on energy use. And we bought $4,000 flat screen televisions with LED this and LED that. And maybe all those I-PAD's and NOTEBOOKS or KINDELS even very expensive cell phones we replace every year because a new version comes out. Plug all this parc in for recharging everyday and see if you have saved anything. Me, I went out and bought a shopping cart of 60 watt bulbs and put them into storage. ​

 

[midwestcoast]

IMO the act of writing and reading Yahoo and Youtube comments on electronic devices is the greatest source of wasted energy and time in modern society. This is followed closely by the writing and reading of about 80% of Yahoo "news" articles themselves. Above link excepted.

The good news for the tech-addicted (nearly all of us at this point) is that we can use our e-devices with abandon so long as we make efficiency gains in buildings, transport, industry…
and maybe adopt some conservation strategies for our big energy hogs, like unplugging that 35 y.o fridge in the garage when we don't 'need' it, not running the A.C with the windows open...

 

[midwestcoast]

Maybe I spoke too soon:
Heating and cooling no longer majority of U.S. home energy use http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=10271

 

[Slow1]

Maybe I spoke too soon:
Heating and cooling no longer majority of U.S. home energy use http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=10271

Interesting data certainly. I have many friends who leave their entertainment systems (large TV, sound system etc) on the majority of the day. I wonder if this one category of energy use has perhaps increased the most. I hear folks talk about the 'vampire' loads of chargers etc, but in my home at least these are negligible.

 

[semipro]

Maybe I spoke too soon:
Heating and cooling no longer majority of U.S. home energy use http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=10271

So we've made houses themselves more efficient but need more improvements inside...

I found this statement telling:
While energy used for space conditioning has declined, energy consumption for appliances and electronics continues to rise. Although some appliances that are subject to federal efficiency standards, such as refrigerators and clothes washers, have become more efficient, the increased number of devices that consume energy in homes has offset these efficiency gains.

 

[Slow1]

Consider this from the article as well -

• On average, residents living in homes constructed in the 1980s consumed 77 million Btu of total energy at home. By comparison, those living in newer homes, built from 2000 to 2009, consumed 92 million Btu per household, which is 19% more.

I guess perhaps newer houses need to be larger in order to have someplace to put all these new toys? Hmmm...

 

[begreen]

Ah yes, the McMansion phenomenon. They should be converted to duplexes and triplexes.

 

[EatenByLimestone]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/home-electricity-us-falling-2001-174647065.html

I would expect that the Energy Star initiatives have made a big part of the difference.

I cut my energy usage so I can spend money on things I want to rather than send it to the power company. I'd rather take the wife out to dinner and a movie than pay the utility company, others to fix my house/car/boat/mow my lawn....... the list goes on and on. Too many people think that laws make people do things. The reason is often much simpler.

 

[begreen]

The Energy Star Initiative did help guide a lot of purchases and competitive design. I know it was influential when we upgraded our appliances and when I bought an AC for my mom. I will continue to use it as a purchasing guide for future purchases.

 

[peakbagger]

Many folk do not realize that there are a couple of aspects to Energy Star. The most obvious is that the upper range of efficiency products for a given appliance are given "energy star" certification which are usually covered by rebates. The other less understood aspect is that the standard sets minimum efficiency standards for all the appliances in a class . This makes even someone who doesn't understand that the initial purchase price is only a small part of the long term cost end up with a more efficient applicance. I know that when I first bought my house I bought an Energy Star (or a prior rating programs equivalent) refrigerator that when it was replaced 15 years later would have rated quite poorly on the latest ratings. This overall raising the bar of efficiency is probably the big driver.

I read recently that the government is going to impose standards on cable TV and satellite set top boxes as these units have the reputation of drawing a lot of power even when the TV is off. Unlike other consumer items, most folks dont get to choose what box to use and some those boxes pull 30 to 90 watts all the time.

 

[woodgeek]

Too many people think that laws make people do things. The reason is often much simpler.

I think laws make corporations do things. Like innovate in sectors where the market doesn't drive innovation.....like appliance, light bulb and auto efficiency. Then the people simply choose better products. Everyone wins.

 

[EatenByLimestone]

I'm not convinced that it's not the population that encourages corporations to do this or that.

Somewhere along the way consumer expectations changed and economy was placed behind size or speed or power or something else.

My late 20s monitor top refrigerator has the same power usage as a modern energy star refrigerator. It has a door seal from 1928 or so! It has cardboard for insulation! When I eventually rehab it I'll install foam inside and put a new door seal on it. Will it be more efficient than the new ones then? Manufacturing has the ability to achieve much more than it does with the new technology available.

Ford's Model T got 25mpg. It didn't go very fast though and didn't have a lot of power. If we were satisfied with the power it had, we should be able to get 3 times that now. Why don't we? People don't want to buy these products.

The Prius is a pretty cool example of what can be done. People wanted a car with great gas mileage and Toyota made a car for that market. Then all of the other mfgrs rushed to put a comparable product out there.

People want a truck with better gas mileage. Ford will be putting an Aluminum frame in their next F-150. If they can keep corrosion away somehow I bet it will be a great truck and hopefully it will get great mileage.

 

[begreen]

All the other car mfgs are making more efficient vehicles because the EPA raised the fleet mileage requirements nationwide. If it was up to corporations they would have stuck with the most profitable SUVs and pickups and said screw fuel economy. Because of the changes in CAFE standards we are finally starting to see some meaningful progress towards greater fuel efficiency.

 

[Highbeam]

Because of the changes in CAFE standards we are finally starting to see some meaningful progress towards greater fuel efficiency.

I'm not so sure about that. I credit high fuel prices for "fueling" demand for the more efficient vehicles.

 

[EatenByLimestone]

I do too. It hurts to fill my 26 gallon fuel tank at $4 gas.

 

[begreen]

I agree the market has some influence, but not as much as you would think. Gas prices go up and down. My last fillup was at $3.19/gallon. It takes regulation to move car companies. They did little but push more big SUVs when gas went from $1 to $3/gallon. But when they know that all car companies, their competitors included must raise fleet mileage, they retool and make big changes.

 

[GaryGary]

Many folk do not realize that there are a couple of aspects to Energy Star. The most obvious is that the upper range of efficiency products for a given appliance are given "energy star" certification which are usually covered by rebates. The other less understood aspect is that the standard sets minimum efficiency standards for all the appliances in a class . This makes even someone who doesn't understand that the initial purchase price is only a small part of the long term cost end up with a more efficient applicance. I know that when I first bought my house I bought an Energy Star (or a prior rating programs equivalent) refrigerator that when it was replaced 15 years later would have rated quite poorly on the latest ratings. This overall raising the bar of efficiency is probably the big driver.

I read recently that the government is going to impose standards on cable TV and satellite set top boxes as these units have the reputation of drawing a lot of power even when the TV is off. Unlike other consumer items, most folks dont get to choose what box to use and some those boxes pull 30 to 90 watts all the time.

Hi,
We had a DISH satellite receiver in which the receiver/DVR used 55 watts 24/7 -- did not matter whether you were watching TV or not or whether it was recording a show or not -- 55 watts all the time. It used more power than our Energy Star fridge on a yearly basis.

We decided to change to Direct TV as they have much more efficient boxes. The new one uses 17 watts and will actually cut that back if its inactive for 4 hours or more (which rarely happens if you record shows). It would be nice to get below 17 watts, but still a very big improvement over 55 watts.
The new box is also quite a bit more capable, for example it will record up to 5 shows at once.

When I asked DISH about their power hog they just agreed that their box used a lot of power and were sorry to see us go after 12 years.

Glad to hear they will now be forced to meet some kind of standard.

Gary

 

[stoveguy2esw]

I think laws make corporations do things. Like innovate in sectors where the market doesn't drive innovation.....like appliance, light bulb and auto efficiency. Then the people simply choose better products. Everyone wins.

this would be the definition of "smart" legislation. energy star was a great idea, so was phase 2 for stoves. neither really had a huge impact on the size of government but both have accomplished great progress

 

[stoveguy2esw]

People want a truck with better gas mileage. Ford will be putting an Aluminum frame in their next F-150. If they can keep corrosion away somehow I bet it will be a great truck and hopefully it will get great mileage.

people want it, but the corporations do not want to do it, changes in manufacturing cost a boatload of money, retooling for a new product can be quite expensive, the more complex the end item, the more costly it is. a company like ford can afford this type of retooling and front end cost as its a huge company and will sell a boatload of these items,not to mention they are probably hitting up uncle sam for a large writeoff on the front end costs. smaller companies will not fare so well it takes a much larger percentage of their margin to do a major retool to keep up with legislated mandates, phase2 which I mentioned above put more stove manufacturers out of business than exist today

 

[webbie]

It's hard to be a "small" manufacturer in just about anything not craft related - this curve has been going on for centuries, and is largely beneficial. For instance, a small maker of commercial jets would be a tough slog.

Pollution and efficiency are metrics which are mostly solved by big solutions.....sure, Ford is big, but selling millions of cleaner vehicles does a big cleanup.

I think everyone should cheer energy efficiency standards because this is what allows fuels to cost less - and/or allows the same work done for less fuel or money. That is, when there is less use, the stocks of fuel build up and the price stays better.

It's all win-win as long as the standards are phased in...as most have been. Look at the new stove standards - yes, they may be tough, but think about two things. First, some stoves from as early as 1990 or so met or almost met them (Encore). So here we are 24 years later and makers will STILL have 3-8 years to work their way into them. Vehicle standards...well, we certainly lagged behind the rest of the world for a couple decades on those! Europeans were getting the same mileage per liter as many of our cars were getting with a gallon! This did not happen by accident. Certain administrations decided to cater to a so-called "American Lifestyle" which was basically an entitlement to both cheap fuel and the "right" to spew as much pollution and use as much fuel as $$ could buy. That's not smart planning, IMHO, but it appeals to the public like candy does to a baby.

Many manufacturers like nothing more than improved efficiency. It helps them produce products for less money - that is, their machines get more and more efficient - and also allows them to rise above the competition by making a better (more efficient) product.

 

[stoveguy2esw]

It's hard to be a "small" manufacturer in just about anything not craft related - this curve has been going on for centuries, and is largely beneficial. For instance, a small maker of commercial jets would be a tough slog.

Pollution and efficiency are metrics which are mostly solved by big solutions.....sure, Ford is big, but selling millions of cleaner vehicles does a big cleanup.

I think everyone should cheer energy efficiency standards because this is what allows fuels to cost less - and/or allows the same work done for less fuel or money. That is, when there is less use, the stocks of fuel build up and the price stays better.

It's all win-win as long as the standards are phased in...as most have been. Look at the new stove standards - yes, they may be tough, but think about two things. First, some stoves from as early as 1990 or so met or almost met them (Encore). So here we are 24 years later and makers will STILL have 3-8 years to work their way into them. Vehicle standards...well, we certainly lagged behind the rest of the world for a couple decades on those! Europeans were getting the same mileage per liter as many of our cars were getting with a gallon! This did not happen by accident. Certain administrations decided to cater to a so-called "American Lifestyle" which was basically an entitlement to both cheap fuel and the "right" to spew as much pollution and use as much fuel as $$ could buy. That's not smart planning, IMHO, but it appeals to the public like candy does to a baby.

Many manufacturers like nothing more than improved efficiency. It helps them produce products for less money - that is, their machines get more and more efficient - and also allows them to rise above the competition by making a better (more efficient) product.

true Europeans were driving cars which were smaller and got better mileage, albeit with leaded fuel lighter bodies with less safety equipment built into them (I was there in the mid 80's) to take your car over you had to remove the catalytic before it was shipped and reinstall it after purging your fuel tank to get the leaded gas out before you could ship it back. I didn't take a car over for that reason, figured the leaded gas would mess up my car. so I bought a beemer while I was over there, the car was great, but it was very light compared to the same model sold in the US , the biggest reason was the structural demands required in America compared to over there. would have loved to bring that beemer back but in order to convert it to US standards it would have been more costly than the car was worth to start with. so yeah they got great mileage but they were not built to the mandated standards needed to be sold in the US.

as for us , i'd love to have more modern machinery so I could produce a more efficient product, but it ait in the cards for our business as much as it is for a larger business that can absorb the cost of these machines much more easily especially with the writeoffs their "fairy god congressmen have given them to do so. smaller businesses in manufacturing have less help and a subsidy percentage which works for a fortune 500 company just isnt enough to stake the entire future of your company on, just don't work that way

 

[webbie]

Mike, it's all a matter of what you are investing in and for how long.....

Some stove companies which sell 1/10 the number of units are investing in R&D as well as equipment and machines. When you look at a 10-20+ years window (and any manufacturer SHOULD), this becomes reasonable. Example - invest one million US dollars in new efficient equipment, and the yearly cost is about $60,000 for the capitalization (being really rough here!). Add $2-$4 wholesale to the cost of each stove and you are there....add $10 or $20 if the product soars above the competition because of your smarts. This does not even compute the possibly cost savings in energy and materials.

My assumption is based on some spent on machinery and some spent on smarts....test equipment, outside consultants, engineers, etc.....

Heck, did you read that free book by Henry Ford? He figured this stuff out 100 years ago. What he would do is to increase efficiencies and sometimes lower the cost of the car by 20% in one year! Free on the Kindle...or get the free app for your computer (kindle app)
http://www.amazon.com/Life-And-Work-Henry-Ford/dp/1920265171

 

[stoveguy2esw]

henry didn't have to deal with the "big box"( do a little research on what one has to do to stay in a mass merchant market) walmart is a great example we do not and I pray we never will , sell through them, the manufacturers that do are literally slaves of that company, they have to literally lower their wholesale prices to what walmart is willing to pay for them, or lose the contract (and go under just like that) bear in mind im a capitalist, but walmart is everything that is bad about capitalism its the bane of manufacturing in this country. problem is , nobody is big enough to challenge them

as for investing , we do that , heck we just built a second factory about 5 years ago (millions)
new machinery and 175K sq ft of space, new smartstove line in wood and pellet, but what im talking about is the difference between major manufacturers and smaller ones in the way they have to parse out what they can afford to spend. now im a big fan of new tech, so don't get me mixed up with the old guard type here. all im saying is that the big guys have major advantages over the not big guys when it comes to rolling with the punches so to speak of when it comes to big swing mandates.