4 ms·

The authors of that paper are estimating that energy use for lighting will eventually reach past levels because of the rebound effect and population growth, not

The authors of that paper are estimating that energy use for lighting will eventually reach past levels because of the rebound effect and population growth, not Jevon's paradox. Jevon's paradox occurs when an increase in efficiency results in so much additional use that per capita energy consumption increases. If the average car is made twice as efficient and that leads to it being driven three times it's annual mileage, that's Jevon's. If it's driven one and a half times it's annual mileage, that's the rebound effect.

spodek 9y ago
> Jevon's paradox occurs when an increase in efficiency results in so much additional use that per capita energy consumption increases. They also describe that we are lighting things we didn't use to light, keeping the lights on longer ( not just households but decorative building lights, decorative bridge lights, etc), and other per capita increases. The quote above states per capita increases clearly: > "It's not just a question of turning on a light to read a book or to see something on your kitchen counter, you can do lots of stuff with LEDs that you really couldn't do very well with other kinds of artificial light sources," said Theis, a co-author of the study. "They are being incorporated into wearable lighting now, there is just no end to it." The Sandia article also states clearly about per-capita increases, "No empirical evidence is found for a saturation in per-capita consumption of light" > We have collected and self-consistently analyzed data for per-capita consumption of artificial light, per-capita gross domestic product, and ownership cost of light. The data span a wide range (three centuries, six continents, five lighting technologies, and five orders of magnitude), and are consistent with a linear variation of per-capita consumption of light with the ratio between per-capita gross domestic product and ownership cost of light. No empirical evidence is found for a saturation in per-capita consumption of light, even in contemporary developed nations.
- omgwtfbyobbq 9y ago
  Per-capita light use does increase. In order for Jevon's paradox to apply, per capita energy use would have to increase more than the decrease from improved efficiency. So if LEDs are ten times more efficient, per capita light use would have to increase by 10+ times for Jevon's to apply. Putting it another way, Jevon's is just an example of the rebound effect where more energy is used after the efficiency improvement than before. It can happen, but it's not very common. If people were to switch to LEDs and their energy consumption dropped to a tenth of what it was, they could triple the number of lights in their house, leave those lights on 24/7/365 (as opposed to for 8 hours a day), and still be using less energy than with incandescents. That's the rebound effect. If they quadruple the number of lights and triple the time those lights are on, they would use more energy than they did before the switch to LEDs. That's Jevon's paradox.

spodek 9y ago

> Jevon's paradox occurs when an increase in efficiency results in so much additional use that per capita energy consumption increases. They also describe that we are lighting things we didn't use to light, keeping the lights on longer ( not just households but decorative building lights, decorative bridge lights, etc), and other per capita increases. The quote above states per capita increases clearly: > "It's not just a question of turning on a light to read a book or to see something on your kitchen counter, you can do lots of stuff with LEDs that you really couldn't do very well with other kinds of artificial light sources," said Theis, a co-author of the study. "They are being incorporated into wearable lighting now, there is just no end to it." The Sandia article also states clearly about per-capita increases, "No empirical evidence is found for a saturation in per-capita consumption of light" > We have collected and self-consistently analyzed data for per-capita consumption of artificial light, per-capita gross domestic product, and ownership cost of light. The data span a wide range (three centuries, six continents, five lighting technologies, and five orders of magnitude), and are consistent with a linear variation of per-capita consumption of light with the ratio between per-capita gross domestic product and ownership cost of light. No empirical evidence is found for a saturation in per-capita consumption of light, even in contemporary developed nations.

omgwtfbyobbq 9y ago
Per-capita light use does increase. In order for Jevon's paradox to apply, per capita energy use would have to increase more than the decrease from improved efficiency. So if LEDs are ten times more efficient, per capita light use would have to increase by 10+ times for Jevon's to apply. Putting it another way, Jevon's is just an example of the rebound effect where more energy is used after the efficiency improvement than before. It can happen, but it's not very common. If people were to switch to LEDs and their energy consumption dropped to a tenth of what it was, they could triple the number of lights in their house, leave those lights on 24/7/365 (as opposed to for 8 hours a day), and still be using less energy than with incandescents. That's the rebound effect. If they quadruple the number of lights and triple the time those lights are on, they would use more energy than they did before the switch to LEDs. That's Jevon's paradox.