Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
Tue Jul 17, 2012, 02:14 PM Jul 2012

Unexpectedly Good News Regarding Energy Trends

Ralph Cavanagh’s Blog - Natural Resources Defense Council

Unexpectedly Good News Regarding Energy Trends

Posted July 12, 2012 in Solving Global Warming

<snip>

1. Although the U.S. economy has almost tripled in size over the past forty years, oil use is up by only about one percent. Just since 2007, we’ve cut oil consumption by over 12 percent; that year will almost certainly rank as the all-time peak, given prospects for sustained progress in fuel economy and the continuing emergence of other alternatives to oil. Those who complain that the United States has made no progress in reducing its oil dependence are entirely wrong.

2. Looking ahead, higher fuel economy standards already adopted for cars and light trucks will be saving the equivalent of more than two million barrels of oil a day by 2025 -- that’s more than one-tenth of total U.S. oil use today, comparable to what we import from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela combined.

3. Since 2000, U.S. electricity use has grown more slowly than the population for the first sustained period since the industry was launched a century ago by Thomas Edison and Samuel Insull, who helped create the nation’s electrical infrastructure. In just the past decade, our use of coal to generate electricity has declined significantly – by the annual equivalent of more than sixty giant 500 Megawatt power plants, which represents about ten percent of total U.S. coal-fired generation capacity. The principal replacement sources have been natural gas and wind power (the latter of which boosted its production 20-fold in just a decade), yielding a giant national and international dividend in avoided emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury and carbon dioxide.

4. When you adjust for economic growth and inflation, the United States has cut its energy needs by more than 50% since 1973 and the trend shows no signs of slowing. If you treat this 40-year reduction as the equivalent of new energy supply, the resulting resource is now almost four times larger than the expansion of output from all other energy sources combined over that same period (including oil, natural gas, nuclear power, biofuels, wind and solar).

<snip<



http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/rcavanagh/unexpectedly_good_news_regardi.html
17 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
1. If the issue is global warming, is the problem energy consumption, or CO2 production?
Tue Jul 17, 2012, 03:05 PM
Jul 2012

And if the issue is CO2 production, is the problem local or global?
And if the issue is global, does it matter what the US does if the numbers are undone by China et al?

This is yet more self-affirming self-congratulation about solving the wrong problem. Yes, the USA is doing more, but it's not doing it with less. American CO2 emissions are up 16% since 1973.

Global CO2 emissions are up 100% since 1973. Go blow that cheerful smoke up the skirts of people who don't know better.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
2. I agree.
Tue Jul 17, 2012, 04:39 PM
Jul 2012

We should just take as hopeless any problem that can't be solved in one fell swoop. We should also incessantly make asinine and absurd statements anytime there is evidence we are wrong.

That is without a doubt the best approach to pursue in all life's endeavors. Thanks for bringing it into focus for me.

 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
3. So you will now stop making asinine and absurd statements? Good for you.
Tue Jul 17, 2012, 04:49 PM
Jul 2012

I prefer to keep my eye on the real problem, and try not to pretend that addressing one problem will fix a different one.

joshcryer

(62,269 posts)
4. The OP doesn't paint a hopeless picture, merely a dishonest one.
Tue Jul 17, 2012, 06:22 PM
Jul 2012


It doesn't help that the numbers come from the "bipartisan policy center" which has many articles on, wait for it, natural gas.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
5. How is the OP dishonest? Your post doesn't support such a view.
Tue Jul 17, 2012, 06:54 PM
Jul 2012

The arguments of nuclear supporters have always been carefully crafted to deceive, but since Fukushima drove y'all into the closet you have really jumped the shark.

Have you completely lost the capacity for honest discussion?

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
7. Google "myths nuclear power"
Tue Jul 17, 2012, 07:17 PM
Jul 2012

The nuclear industry is no different than the petroleum industry - they craft lies and spend millions spreading those lies with PR machines.

If you want to deal with people calling other posters a liar, I'd suggest you start here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=20016

joshcryer

(62,269 posts)
8. I posted facts and you go off on a tangent. What have I said that was incorrect?
Tue Jul 17, 2012, 07:31 PM
Jul 2012

Look at the facts. Why should I take what the "bipartisan policy center" has to say seriously when so much of its articles are devoted to natural gas pimping?

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
9. You said the OP was dishonest. It isn't.
Tue Jul 17, 2012, 07:36 PM
Jul 2012

Your claim, however, is unless you have something other than your previous post.

joshcryer

(62,269 posts)
12. It loads wind power "20 fold increase" while glossing natural gas.
Tue Jul 17, 2012, 07:48 PM
Jul 2012

If it was a truly honest portrayal of energy growth in the past decade it would note the explosion in natural gas expansion.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
13. Like I said, you have no basis for your claim they were dishonest.
Tue Jul 17, 2012, 07:55 PM
Jul 2012

"glossing natural gas"?

You've jumped the shark.

joshcryer

(62,269 posts)
15. Any rational reader can see that they are ignoring the growth of natural gas.
Tue Jul 17, 2012, 08:38 PM
Jul 2012

And painting a rosier picture than reality, which I provided the data for.

 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
14. My favourite piece of dishonesty in the OP is this:
Tue Jul 17, 2012, 07:59 PM
Jul 2012
When you adjust for economic growth and inflation, the United States has cut its energy needs by more than 50% since 1973 and the trend shows no signs of slowing.

Climate change doesn't discount for inflation, all that matters is the absolute amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere. Climate change doesn't give a rat's ass about how rich human beings are or how many vehicle-miles they travel. This article is pro-growth spin of the most egregiously mendacious sort.

joshcryer

(62,269 posts)
16. Well, their concern isn't pollution on a global scale.
Tue Jul 17, 2012, 09:16 PM
Jul 2012

If it was, for example, the IP rights for renewables would be given freely to developing states. Instead it is in the energy industries best interest to maintain the status quo and develop resources that are finite. They have found a way to effectively do that by binding renewable energy to fossil energy in such a way that they're inseparable (at least in the short to medium term, until the fossil fuels start to run out).

Efficiency is grand, though. There was a great article about how if we implemented new efficiency standards we'd save lots of power (it had a comparison but this is the closest I could find). But efficiency doesn't consider what happens when the developing world reaches our standard of consumption, even if we halve our consumption again, it's still a shit ton of energy.

 

Nihil

(13,508 posts)
17. I like that link ...
Wed Jul 18, 2012, 05:36 AM
Jul 2012

> For half the cost of a new nuclear power plant, we can retrofit 1,600,000 homes
> for energy efficiency and save the same amount of energy. Retrofitting the houses
> would create 220,000 new jobs – that’s 90 times more jobs than you’d get
> from the replacement nuclear power plant.

> The impending nuclear power plant “retirement boom” provides a great opportunity
> to think about getting more efficient ...

... and not just "with electrically heated homes" (as the article continued) but with
everything that uses electricity.


> enjoy all the side benefits that come with going the retrofit route: healthier and more
> comfortable homes, lower utility bills for homeowners than what they would have paid,
> no increased burden of storing spent nuclear fuel for thousands of years.

It's hard to pick holes in such a strategy but I'm sure that someone will be along
soon to point out how this is just a pro-nuclear article really ...

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Unexpectedly Good News Re...