Energy Discussion

[DNK]

Lets talk about energy use and efficiency. Please, no discussion on the merits of global warming.

After skimming through this IEA report, I noticed a few things I figured I might as well share. You can just breeze through the charts and graphs, as there are many of them, and they are quite useful.

On the whole, the US isn't very efficient in many respects, and even falls behind China in some manufacturing methods, but at the same time the US' position is not as bad in other respects.

Although the US' energy/capita numbers are high, energy/GDP numbers aren't much higher than Europe's, and the US' efficiency is actually increasing morethan Europe's. Why do we always focus on energy/capita numbers? Because they make the US look worse? Can't get people riled up over a 10% difference in GDP numbers?

By comparison, China and India are absolutely horrid in J/GDP terms.

In terms of CO2 emissions, the US has been stagnant throughout the past 15 years, while Europe has steadily decreased emissions.

In the great road debate, the US again is about equal to Europe in what percentage of its travel is done on the roads. The major differences are in how much air travel Americans do (a hell of a lot more than anyone else), how much total travel is done, and how efficient cars are. Americans travel far more than Europeans, don't utilize public transport at all really (although in most cases this is a small percentage either way), and have fairly inefficient road transportation.

So, when looking at how to improve things, there are a few conclusions to be made:

1. China, India, and Brazil are becoming as much of a problem as the US in energy usage and CO2 emissions. I have to agree that ANY CO2 treaty needs to include them at an equal level to everyone else, at the very least China needs to be included.

2. The US needs to decrease how much it travels (difficult due to geography), seriously decrease air travel (national rail network), and seriously increase car mileage (30-50%), and work on adopting more efficient manufacturing processes.

3. Lighting accounts for almost no electricity usage in homes. 5%. Taking away incandescent lights is the most asinine thing you could do. It's the energy equivalent of a gas tax holiday, except that it pisses people off at the same time.

4. Heating (water and space) accounts for 70% of home energy usage. Buying a smaller water heater and taking smaller/cooler showers could make a difference, but the real difference will be seen in cooling the house in winter and getting better insulation. Appliances account for about 20% of the rest, so getting the most efficient appliances and not running them when unnecessary would also help.

5. Recycle metals, especially aluminum. I'm not sure paper recycling is as important, same with glass, but metal recycling makes a large difference.

6. Travel less, adjust your driving habits to be less aggressive/fast, and try to buy efficient cars. It does make a difference.

 

[Mise]

I don't like this business of comparing one country with another. We ALL need to reduce our carbon emissions.

Taking away incandescent lights reduces lighting's electricity usage from 5% to 1%, and it saves you money.

And yeah, changing your driving style really does make a difference (and again, it saves you money... It saved me a LOT!).

 

[innonimatu]

Although the US' energy/capita numbers are high, energy/GDP numbers aren't much higher than Europe's, and the US' efficiency is actually increasing morethan Europe's. Why do we always focus on energy/capita numbers? Because they make the US look worse? Can't get people riled up over a 10% difference in GDP numbers?

By comparison, China and India are absolutely horrid in J/GDP terms.

You should also take into account that some economic activities require far more energy than others. Often with lower economic returns.

In terms of CO2 emissions, the US has been stagnant throughout the past 15 years, while Europe has steadily decreased emissions.

Just a note: this does not seem coherent with your earlier conclusion that the US' efficiency is increasing more than Europe's.

4. Heating (water and space) accounts for 70% of home energy usage. Buying a smaller water heater and taking smaller/cooler showers could make a difference, but the real difference will be seen in cooling the house in winter and getting better insulation. Appliances account for about 20% of the rest, so getting the most efficient appliances and not running them when unnecessary would also help.

Interesting. It seems better building standards are really necessary.

Years ago I would think that the other measures you propose are all difficult (or at least slow) to implement, as they that people change their habits. But I've seen first hand that if that change is made easy (separate collection of garbage, having stores receive and channel old appliances to recycling centers, that sort of thing) it's very easy to achieve.

 

[DNK]

Well, the graphs are in the link. I mixed them up a bit, but the conclusion is the same: CO2/J is lower in Europe than in 1990, but the same in the US; J/GDP is slightly lower in the US than in Europe, relative to 1990 levels. Could be any number of reasons.

Even making a 20% difference would be huge.

I also think it's not the best to compare countries, but it happens, and I felt like defending the US a bit, as it's usually made the scapegoat of world CO2 emissions and energy usage. The US is not "good", and there's plenty of work that can be done, but it's not the Great Polluter that's going to kill humanity in 50 years either.

 

[Mise]

Well, the thing I don't like about comparing countries is that we (Europe and the US) have outsourced most of our most highly polluting industries to China and India. In other words, China and India produce all that CO2 on our behest; if we didn't ask them to produce the products, they wouldn't produce as much CO2. If we added up the CO2 emissions from the production of all the goods that we consume, we'd be FAR worse than China or India.

So if we want China and India to clean up their industries, we should stop buying their stuff.

 

[scy12]

Heating (water and space) accounts for 70% of home energy usage. Buying a smaller water heater and taking smaller/cooler showers could make a difference, but the real difference will be seen in cooling the house in winter and getting better insulation. Appliances account for about 20% of the rest, so getting the most efficient appliances and not running them when unnecessary would also help.

Solar panels can do the water heating(and are efficient , i have used one , all my life( in several parts of the world and i must say their use is also widespread in China. Though i more than seriously doubt about it being a large percentage of the total energy consumption of the house , every bit helps.

 

[Tee Kay]

5. Recycle metals, especially aluminum. I'm not sure paper recycling is as important, same with glass, but metal recycling makes a large difference.

About recycling. I'm curious about the amount of energy it takes to recycle stuff like aluminum. I think it's less than processing ores but I'm not sure.

 

[Cutlass]

Metals recycling is less energy intensive than raw ore processing in most cases. It's better with copper and aluminum and less so with iron.

 

[DNK]

The article quoted 20x more energy intensive to produce aluminum from ore than to recycle it. I think the energy to produce from ore was about 12 GJ/ton, so 0.6 GJ/ton to recycle?

Iron and steel weren't as distinctive, but it was about half to one third to recycle for those, although that included mixing recycled metals with ore, I think, so probably less for pure recycling.

It's in the report. My list is hardly complete, I just hand picked some of the more interesting facts.

scy12, page 46 of the report lists it as 16% of home energy use, along with the other factors.

 

[Adebisi]

Producing new metal products from scrap rather than from ore is not only about lower energy consumption. Yes, it also requires less energy, but when ore is processed into pure metal, the metal in it's oxide forms reacts with coal to form CO2 and pure metal. Why coal? Well, carbon is the only known reduction agent that is suitable. The downside is that it produces tons of CO2. All of that is avoided if you recycle.

Well, the thing I don't like about comparing countries is that we (Europe and the US) have outsourced most of our most highly polluting industries to China and India. In other words, China and India produce all that CO2 on our behest; if we didn't ask them to produce the products, they wouldn't produce as much CO2. If we added up the CO2 emissions from the production of all the goods that we consume, we'd be FAR worse than China or India.

They do get something in return for what they produce, money
Seriously, DNK compared CO2 emissions to GDP and found that China was far less efficient than the US and Europe. When China produces goods, it adds to their GDP so your argument is only valid for extremly CO2-intensive industries such as steel.

 

[Mise]

They do get something in return for what they produce, money
Seriously, DNK compared CO2 emissions to GDP and found that China was far less efficient than the US and Europe. When China produces goods, it adds to their GDP so your argument is only valid for extremly CO2-intensive industries such as steel.

Obviously, yeah, they get money for the goods they produce. The value of the goods that China produces is less than the value of the goods that the West produces. I therefore don't see what the point in comparing it in terms of the value of goods produced (a hunk of steel is less valuable than a car, for example). What does it add to compare it on those terms?

What we should be comparing is how each country contributes to global warming. We should do this by comparing how our actions cause global warming. If an action (e.g. buying a car) causes China to emit CO2 (i.e. emitting CO2 during its manufacture) then that action should be attributed to us -- the originators (i.e. cause) of the CO2 being emitted.

If this sounds like I'm just re-iterating what I said before, it's probably because I'm not sure why CO2 from production is a more meaningful measure than CO2 from consumption.

At the end of the day, if we didn't consume, China wouldn't produce. I'm not saying that it's our fault that China produces stuff in such a highly polluting way (I've already said that China has a real responsibility to reduce its CO2 emissions), but the CO2 that China produces in the manufacture of goods that we consume should be added to our CO2 account, not theirs.

(The opposite is true too; if we produce goods and services that China consumes - and we do - then the CO2 associated with those products should be added to their CO2 account.)

 

[Adebisi]

I dont see the point of your reasoning. Every country has to produce something in order to raise their standard of living - is there really a difference between CO2 that China would produce if they didn't trade with us, and CO2 they produce when they do trade with us? As I said, they aren't doing it because they are forced to, they are doing it to grow, which is a good thing. The wealth of every nation has to come from somewhere and China's wealth comes, to a large extent, from exports.

It's most meaningful, IMO, to measure CO2 emissions at the source, where it is produced. If they are to be prevented, they should be made costly there. According to your logic, who is the "cause" really? It's a voluntary trade between two parties.

 

[Narz]

LED bulbs are pretty cool (literally also).

Don't buy bottled water.

Use cloth diapers (most of you won't have to worry about this one for awhile).

Don't accept plastic bags.

Use it up. Wear it out. Make it do. Or do without. (words of wisdom from the Depression era)

Of course I'm talking on a personal level because there is little the average individual alone can do to influence government policies.

 

[Mise]

I dont see the point of your reasoning.

And I don't see the point of yours!

Every country has to produce something in order to raise their standard of living - is there really a difference between CO2 that China would produce if they didn't trade with us, and CO2 they produce when they do trade with us? As I said, they aren't doing it because they are forced to, they are doing it to grow, which is a good thing. The wealth of every nation has to come from somewhere and China's wealth comes, to a large extent, from exports.

It's most meaningful, IMO, to measure CO2 emissions at the source, where it is produced. If they are to be prevented, they should be made costly there. According to your logic, who is the "cause" really? It's a voluntary trade between two parties.

Okay, I'll put it in a different way:

China has no incentive to make its own products more costly. Westeners can buy alternative products from either home markets or competitor markets in the East that don't produce CO2. The impoetus for reducing CO2 emissions must come from the consumer, not the producer. Therefore it makes sense to measure CO2 emissions based on consumption, not production (to provide consumers with greater visibility to decide on what changes are needed and where).