4 ms·
I hope you're right. Is this true also if we were to replace all current nuclear and fossil energy? There is also the effect (the name of which I currently can
by tcmb 5y ago
I hope you're right. Is this true also if we were to replace all current nuclear and fossil energy?
There is also the effect (the name of which I currently can't remember) that consumption increases when people think it does no harm. Like when LED lights were introduced, energy usage allegedly actually increased. Because people were using LED lights for all kinds of things that were NOT using incandescent lights before, as the energy used was thought to be negligible.
- dahart 5y ago> Like when LED lights were introduced, energy usage allegedly actually increased. This is not true. More lights might be on, but the total energy usage for lights is currently falling with increased LED production. You can find lots of stated fears and speculation on the internet that it could happen - FUD - but not evidence. There is some indirect evidence not specific to LEDs that people sometimes do use more energy when the cost goes down. But LEDs are an order of magnitude more efficient than incandescents, and there has been no such 10x increase in lighting use. Per-capita electricity use in the US is currently falling slowly.
- mepiethree 5y agoThe effect is called Jevons Paradox. That is not a relevant consideration in this particular case, but it is a major concern for things like air conditioning efficiency. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox