…Special Report, Green Nightmare for Americans…
The preceding three articles have been edited and combined into a single special report.
The report can be downloaded using this link https://bit.ly/33ekRH7
The report provides an accurate depiction of why it is foolhardy to attempt to eliminate fossil fuels.
Use this link to download the report https://bit.ly/33ekRH7
. . .
Many years ago, in Sydney Australia, I watched a panel of power company CEOs discus how they planned to double supply. The last CEO to talk shocked everyone by saying he planned no increases because of the improved efficiencies of things like lighting and appliances. By the look on the faces of the panel, I was sure they couldn’t wait to get back to their offices to critique their plans.
The NREL graphs show a leveling of use since 2000. How does this leveling, together with the science that CO2 is not an existential threat, enter into this discussion?
First, let me point out that in my latest post and in my special report, Green Nightmare for Americans, I didn’t forecast growth in consumption of electricity (other than that forecast by NREL) and, at the same time, didn’t include any savings from improved efficiency.
With respect to improving the efficient use of electricity:
The largest single technology that has allowed an improvement in efficiency has been LED lighting. Lighting consumes a large portion of our electricity usage and LEDs provide an approximately 85% reduction in the use of electricity for lighting. The main question now, with respect to LED lighting, is how much penetration LEDs have already achieved. Once they replace 90% of all incandescent lighting, growth in usage of electricity is likely to return. (Especially with BEVs.)
There arn’t many other technologies that can have such a large impact. Thermostats can help reduce usage, but they are now an old technology. A great deal of talk is given to reducing losses from buildings by using more insulation, and this is where climate change arguments enter the picture. If all heating of buildings is done using electricity rather than natural gas, and if, trillions of dollars are spent on re-insulating buildings, there could be an improvement in efficiency, but the growth in the use of electricity would actually increase.
There could be a slight gain in the efficiencies of appliances, but the real gains have already been made. There’s a lot of talk about IoT, but the main effect is on appliances where gains have already been made. I hope this provides some insight into the question of whether improvements in efficiency will have an effect on the growth of consumption of electricity.
The need for additional power capacity seems to be based on EVs and population. Left to the consumer (and not government), EVs will gain share as the convenience and price approximates ICEs. Annual population growth is forecasted to drop from 0.58% to 0.31% in 2050. In a free market, costs and dependability will determine the mix of energy sources. The take-away from the science that CO2 is not an existential threat is “Let the market decide – not government”.
I agree. The market is the best method for allocating resources… Not big government.
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #453 – Watts Up With That?
Thought you might be interested in this link
Thanks. Excellent article. Interestingly, a European organization reached the same conclusion a few months ago.