How America uses energy

[bascule]

I found this chart long ago then lost it, but randomly stumbled upon it again. Yay Internet!

 

Anyway, this is a breakdown of how America uses energy:

 

 

It's pretty striking how much petroleum goes straight to automobiles and how much energy is wasted in general

[gcol]

It would be informative to compare that with other countries, but I guess the data is either not easily available, or is in a format that makes comparisons difficult.

[john5746]

I wonder what they mean by lost energy from transportation and how that is measured.

[swansont]

I wonder what they mean by lost energy from transportation and how that is measured.

 

"Lost" just might mean efficiency which is around 30-40% for an internal combustion engine, and can't come all that close to 100% anyway.

[DrDNA]

Interesting!

Along those lines, I recently read somewhere (as soon as I can recall where, I will post the source) that more energy is used to manufacture an automobile (making the steel, making and forming the plastics, running the factories, making and transporting parts, etc...) than will be used driving the vehicle during its entire useful lifetime (I believe that they assumed something like a 15 yr average lifespan).

The argument was also used against hybrid and electric only vehicles. For example, it was stated that by the time you account for the above and then toxic waste dipsosal related to the huge batteries, that these are a net energy loss compared to petro gas vehicles.

 

Of course I am skeptical of the validity of these statements. For example, the info could have come directly from Cheney's press office.....I"M JOKING. But does anyone know more about this that they could share?

[iNow]

But does anyone know more about this that they could share?

 

As always, verify with a more credible source prior to relying on this data for decisions or postulates, but here's a good place to start:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption

[DrDNA]

So you don't know? You just like posting links?

[iNow]

So you don't know? You just like posting links?

 

It appears that I misread your post. I was addressing the OP more than your question. To your question, it's a false dichotomy anyway, as manufacture and use of the manufactured product should be concatenated (both use energy), not stand alone, so it's not "either/or." However, it seems you just wanted to attack? Wouldn't any comment I made regarding this issue need a link or source to support it?

[DrDNA]

I actually apprectiate your (and of course others') 'useful' comments and supporting links and/or sources. It is why I come here.

In this particular case, your responce lacked a useful (or even polite) comment.

This looks to me like a dry negative stating that what I posted didn't deserve to be here. Insinuating that I'm too lazy to read Wikip

"As always, verify with a more credible source prior to relying on this data for decisions or postulates, but here's a good place to start:"

 

If *I* misread what you posted, I apologize.

I don't what kind of grudge you have, but I do know that life is too short this. Peace.

[iNow]

I actually apprectiate your (and of course others') 'useful' comments and supporting links and/or sources. It is why I come here.

In this particular case, your responce lacked a useful (or even polite) comment.

This looks to me like a dry negative stating that what I posted didn't deserve to be here. Insinuating that I'm too lazy to read Wikip

"As always, verify with a more credible source prior to relying on this data for decisions or postulates, but here's a good place to start:"

 

If *I* misread what you posted, I apologize.

I don't what kind of grudge you have, but I do know that life is too short this. Peace.

Well, perhaps you should PM me if you feel the need for further discussion on this, because I have NO idea how you got all of that from this:

 

 

As always, verify with a more credible source prior to relying on this data for decisions or postulates, but here's a good place to start:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption

 

 

Nor why you responded thusly:

 

So you don't know? You just like posting links?

[DrDNA]

I obviously completely misread/misunderstood that and apologize.

 

Perhaps I was still reeling from our exchange yesterday, which may have shorted some neurons that should connect my retina to my neural cortex, but instead shunted the impulses to my brain stem.

Peace.

...........now give me a hug.

[john5746]

"Lost" just might mean efficiency which is around 30-40% for an internal combustion engine, and can't come all that close to 100% anyway.

 

Thanks, I wasn't thinking along those lines for some reason

I guess transporting the fuel and refining it are also big wastes as well.

 

 

As for the link from iNow, that is where the graph comes from. Are you saying the link itself is not a valid source?

[iNow]

As for the link from iNow, that is where the graph comes from. Are you saying the link itself is not a valid source?

Well, not really (am I speaking Swahili today or something ). The source of the OPs graph was not linked, but I don't see it on the wiki page I linked either. Can you clarify why you say that's where the graph was obtained? However, as with all wiki entries, it's a good place to start, but you should always verify your numbers with a peer reviewed article (or several) before making assumptions off of it.

 

 

 

BTW - Here is the source of the OP graph (page 8):

 

https://eed.llnl.gov/flow/pdf/ucrl-tr-129990-02.pdf

 

 

...which was pulled together from the data in the following report:

 

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/multifuel/038402.pdf

[bascule]

One of the most striking things I noticed in this was how much energy the power grid wastes... it's only 31% efficient!

 

Aren't there technologies like HVDC that could improve the efficiency of the power grid above this paltry level?

[Phi for All]

One of the most striking things I noticed in this was how much energy the power grid wastes... it's only 31% efficient!

To me this is a red flag that someone is making too much money to change. I don't know how it can be more profitable to be this sloppy with our energy but somehow it must be.

 

I remember a study done on a hydroelectric dam the US really wanted to build in a third world country. The country really needed the power but the study showed that if the US spent 1/10 of the money on buying energy efficient refrigerators for every household in the country, they wouldn't need the dam. And everyone in the country would directly benefit by having some state of the art US appliances. But since Amana didn't have as good a lobby as the hydroelectric companies, they built the dam instead.

 

With energy you'd think efficient would equal profitable but apparently that's not the case. Is it because of deregulation and all the money private companies spent buying and marketing the old utilities? Are they trying to recoup startup costs before investing in more efficient technology?

[Pangloss]

How efficient is nuclear power generation?

 

(Another great example of an area where scientists/engineers have to fight their own ideological base.)

[swansont]

With energy you'd think efficient would equal profitable but apparently that's not the case. Is it because of deregulation and all the money private companies spent buying and marketing the old utilities? Are they trying to recoup startup costs before investing in more efficient technology?

 

Some of the blame has to go to the consumer. Take the slow adoption of compact fluorescent bulbs, for example — they are more efficient, but all the consumer sees is the higher selling price and they continue to buy incandescents, even though the cost of the bulb is a small fraction of the operating cost. "This will actually save you money in the long run" just isn't pervasive enough in the American psyche; all they see is that it costs more now, and they can't do the math in their head to see how much it costs to run it for a year. (But of course they'll continue to curse the electric bill every month)

 

How efficient is nuclear power generation?

 

Operating efficiency is about 40% (though this can vary by reactor design), so a plant that generated 100 MW of thermal energy from the reactor will generate about 40 MW of electricity. Relatively large inefficiencies are going to be true of any system based on a heat engine operating at temperatures that our technology can withstand. You can improve that if you are in a situation where cogeneration can be exploited — use the heat produced in the secondary loop cooling cycle to actually heat things by piping steam around.

 

Of course, if one accounts for all of the energy needed to build the plant and process the fuels, etc, that will drop, but then you're really looking at whether the technology generates excess power

[Phi for All]

Some of the blame has to go to the consumer. Take the slow adoption of compact fluorescent bulbs, for example — they are more efficient, but all the consumer sees is the higher selling price and they continue to buy incandescents, even though the cost of the bulb is a small fraction of the operating cost. "This will actually save you money in the long run" just isn't pervasive enough in the American psyche; all they see is that it costs more now, and they can't do the math in their head to see how much it costs to run it for a year. (But of course they'll continue to curse the electric bill every month)

Too many people these days aren't taking the future into consideration on many levels. It's tough to think ahead when you're either spending at or above your income level. People tend to look at a CFL and think, "Wow, I could go to a movie for that price!" They don't think about the fact that they'll be able to see three movies next year if they switch just one bulb over to CFL today.

 

For too many people it's all about here and now. Convenience is horribly inefficient but no one sees it that way. Our "on demand" world caters to those who don't plan ahead, but at too steep a price, imo.

[Pangloss]

The biggest problem with CF is the lack of advertising, IMO. More people would buy them if they were better known. A spate of ads showing frustrated lightbulb-changers switching to CF would do the trick.

[Phi for All]

The biggest problem with CF is the lack of advertising, IMO. More people would buy them if they were better known. A spate of ads showing frustrated lightbulb-changers switching to CF would do the trick.

Great point. I don't watch commercial TV much and I didn't realize they weren't being advertised. Is this like the electric car, did they make something they really don't want us to buy?

[iNow]

Is this like the electric car, did they make something they really don't want us to buy?

I don't think so. They just need to make them cheaper. On Earth Day this year, Home Depot gave a free one to every single customer who walked into the store. I thought that was a great idea to overcome the behavioral inertia so many people probably feel when it comes to trying something new and different like a flourescent bulb.

 

 

They even make flourescent outdoor bulbs now. How freakin cool is that?

[bascule]

This was interesting:

 

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=49238

 

Traditional coal plants have 30-35% efficiency

Supercritical coal plants have ~45%

Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) coal plants have 60% efficiency

 

Transmission has a 6-8% loss

[john5746]

The source of the OPs graph was not linked, but I don't see it on the wiki page I linked either. Can you clarify why you say that's where the graph was obtained?

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_use_in_the_United_States

 

I came to the link above by selecting US from withing your link.

 

 

As fas as the light bulbs, I think government could help - add a tariff to the regular bulbs(democrat) or have a tax free month(republican) to generate demand. Increase in demand/supply would then decrease unit cost.

 

That is one of the problems with energy - the costs are not apparent in individual usage. If these perceived costs could be transferred down to each unit, it would drive more demand for the less wasteful products.

[dichotomy]

Some of the blame has to go to the consumer.

 

I never think blaming the misinformed consumer is a good idea, not even some blame, IMO.

 

The average consumer has no real comprehension of how to get more energy efficient in the first place. Let alone know what the cheap alternatives out there might be. Most people in the suburbs of the cities live in a bubble. It’s only when the bubble bursts that they might then look at how they might have gone about being more energy efficient.

 

Governments should always be the responsible party when it comes to informing the consumer about energy efficiency. Particularly because it effects future generations more so than the current populace.

 

Why should it be government responsibility?

 

1.It’s in the current and future interests of nations as a whole to be more efficient with energy.

2.Govs have the dollars, resources and time to invest in educating consumers.

3.Govs have the ultimate informed power to change energy (usage & adopting new energy tech) policy for the greater good.

[swansont]

I never think blaming the misinformed consumer is a good idea, not even some blame, IMO.

 

The average consumer has no real comprehension of how to get more energy efficient in the first place. Let alone know what the cheap alternatives out there might be. Most people in the suburbs of the cities live in a bubble. It’s only when the bubble bursts that they might then look at how they might have gone about being more energy efficient.

 

Governments should always be the responsible party when it comes to informing the consumer about energy efficiency. Particularly because it effects future generations more so than the current populace.

 

Why should it be government responsibility?

 

1.It’s in the current and future interests of nations as a whole to be more efficient with energy.

2.Govs have the dollars, resources and time to invest in educating consumers.

3.Govs have the ultimate informed power to change energy (usage & adopting new energy tech) policy for the greater good.

 

 

I don't think I'm blaming a misinformed consumer, I'm blaming an uninformed consumer. And to the extent that they could be informing themselves, they deserve some blame. I'm blaming the cognitive disconnect of the CF bulb issue and of buying an SUV and then complaining that gas is expensive and the government should do something about it. But I certainly agree there's plenty of blame to go around, starting with a government policy that has steadfastly downplayed conservation, and instead taken a "just make more energy" approach, which IMO is horribly misguided.