6 ms·

History of energy consumption in the United States, 1775–2009 (2011)

86 points by adamnemecek 5y ago

burntoutfire 5y ago
The chart is missing food as energy source (converted to work by animals and people who ate it and used the energy it gave them to do manual labor). It's probably insignificant now, but should dominate the XVIII century part of the chart.
- adamnemecek 5y ago
  It's also missing the amount of sunlight Earth gets from the Sun that's not used as solar energy. Also the energy that plants receive as nutrients from soil and air. It's also missing the energy that a mother transfers to her child in the form of love.
  - Manuel_D 5y ago
    Food as an energy source is actually an important aspect. Things like domesticated animals represent significant sources of energy, on the order of thousands of calories per day. More nutritious crops also confer a significant boost to available energy. This had significant impact on the disparate levels of development between Eurasia and the Americas before the early modern period. "The Measure of Civilization" by Ian Morris is a book I'd recommend on this topic.
    - agumonkey 5y ago
      And there was a paper about how improved energy access was key in nomadic to sedentary evolution. People didn't get better, they found ways to get more energy by farming.
  - burntoutfire 5y ago
    I assume the chart is only counting energy important for human economy (and not whatever it is that you're bringing up). Food as energy source was crucial part of the energy mix before fossil fuels - food-powered animals were tilling fields, hauling goods, powering machinery etc. (not to mention less savory aspects of it like slavery - slaves were essentially food-powered machines for picking cotton, harvesting sugar cane etc.). Nowadays majority of that work is done by machines powered by fossil fuels, and food is used mostly for us to sustain ourselves (i.e. prevent starvation) and not as an economically-productive resource. I suspect food was the biggest energy source in the economy, above wood and renewables (i.e. watermills and windmills powering various machineries and pumps).
  - shoo 5y ago
    > also missing the energy that a mother transfers to her child in the form of love probably simpler analysis to define a boundary around human population and only estimate energy flows that cross that boundary, ignoring internal flows
- tobyjsullivan 5y ago
  I was curious so I estimated. If we take daily intake at 8000 BTUs (~2000 calories), then we get 0.015Q BTUs in 1800 (US population: 5M[0]), 0.22Q BTUs in 1900 (US population: 76M), and 0.82Q BTUs in 2000 (US population: 223M). That's only humans. Factoring in all working animals, maybe we assume some multiple of that. 2x? 10x? 100x seems too much. In the end, I'm not convinced it would be significant enough to warrant inclusion - even if only because US population was so relatively small. This does lead me to wonder what the graph looks like for energy consumption per capita. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_the_Uni...
  - burntoutfire 5y ago
    Wood at the beginning of the period covered by chart is at 0.2 Q BTUs, so, using the 10x factor, food would be on the same order of magnitude.
aquova 5y ago
I was rather confused by this until I saw the 2011 date. Things have changed quite a bit, it doesn't appear at all on this chart, but the US now consumes 3.0 quadrillion Btu from wind energy in 2021, more than any other renewable.[0] [0]: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48396 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48396
- vlovich123 5y ago
  Where does plastics manufacturing fall under here? Is it industrial + electrical? Also, according to that chart, 0% of the US energy comes from nuclear but [1] has it at 20%. What's going on? [1] https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
  - OldManAndTheCpp 5y ago
    Are you asking about the feedstock input to plastic, or the energy input? I doubt that the Energy Information Administration tracks feedstock inputs, as they are not consumed as energy.
    - thedudeabides5 5y ago
      Yes that's my understanding as well. Only the parts that are consumed in energy production (aka not physical elements in other products). Then the EIA kind of makes judgement calls where it's messy. The difference is one is measuring ELECTRICITY (where 20% nuclear would make sense), and the other is TOTAL ENERGY (which is electricity + transportation + energy used in heating physical processes etc) In terms of nuclear this link says 8 Quad BTU (out of who knows how many units in TOTAL ENERGY) https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=10 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=10 and the other says 20% of electricity https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
  - nostrademons 5y ago
    GP's link is renewables only. Nuclear isn't considered a renewable energy source. Neither are plastics or the petroleum products they're made from. GP's chart should be considered a blow-up of the 20% of U.S. energy that your link shows from renewable sources. Within that context the numbers match up pretty well, except that biomass is much more heavily represented in [0] than in [1].
lqet 5y ago
I was expecting something as impressive as this: https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co8418916/three-dimensional-model-of-electricity-consumption-in-manchester-chart-graphic-document https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co84189...
z8rHZM8Svhu8hE2 5y ago
In this context, the old lecture on the exponential function of energy consumption comes to mind. Arithmetic, Population and Energy - a talk by Al Bartlett: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O133ppiVnWY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O133ppiVnWY
- titzer 5y ago
  You'll have to duck out quick before the posse arrives. HN abhors any references to exponential growth being unsustainable.
  - fallingfrog 5y ago
    But I was told that the singularity was coming, whereupon I could upload my consciousness to the cloud and experience an eternal orgasm of exponentially increasing bliss, thereby nullifying all laws of physical constraints. Did that get cancelled?
    - titzer 5y ago
      Just delayed. It's just right around the corner!
rob_c 5y ago
it's asif one generation got used to the good times about 50 years ago in data...
VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
A friend of mine told me that she owns shares in several oil wells in Kansas and Oklahoma. They were originally bought by her father back in the 1950s. She told me that her father was a Korean War veteran and they were presented some opportunities to purchase these shares in lieu of some other kind of money the government was going to give them. I don't know what it was, she didn't say. But she did say that for basically her entire life (after her father passed away) she's been receiving checks from the oil companies. Usually very small like $40 a month. But sometimes, when USA gets into an oil war and they start pumping their own domestic oil, she gets monthly checks for ~$1,500. I would be curious to know how much crude USA buys from Canada instead of pumping it domestically. I guess all the domestic oil is part of the strategic oil reserves though.
- snacktaster 5y ago
  The US imports most of its crude oil from Canada and Mexico [0], but mostly from Canada. There's been a persistent, but false, narrative that the US needs oil from the Middle East. The US' concern with the oil in the Middle East is mostly to _protect_ the supply to Europe, and _control_ the supply to China. The US has never needed oil from Saudi Arabia. [0] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/imports-and-exports.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-produc...
  - clairity 5y ago
    the US also cares because oil is fungible, and as a result, pricing happens at the global margins, not just between north american countries.
alex_young 5y ago
Here's 1950 - 2020: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50622 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50622
- Manuel_D 5y ago
  This is not the same type category of data. OP is a graph on energy consumption, your link is a graph on electricity generation. These are substantially different. Most energy consumption is not for electricity generation, only ~1/3rd is. And obviously, nearly all of the energy consumption prior to the 20th century was not for electricity.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
aimor 5y ago
For recent data, I enjoy the energy flow charts LLNL puts out each year. https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/commodities/energy https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/commodities/energy Also a fun data point: from 2019 to 2020 the US energy consumption dropped from 100.2 to 92.9 quads. Mostly from petroleum transportation.
aldebran 5y ago
Interesting data. I wonder how this correlates to population and industrial activity. On a side note, they could have chosen better colors. I can’t differentiate between a couple of them.
lettergram 5y ago
More & cheaper energy == better quality of life, more things, more progress, better society Obviously, we need to be efficient. But energy directly correlates with prosperity. I personally want us to build nuclear everywhere, deregulate and build more coal plants. We could change the world for the better!

86 points by adamnemecek 5y ago

The chart is missing food as energy source (converted to work by animals and people who ate it and used the energy it gave them to do manual labor). It's probably insignificant now, but should dominate the XVIII century part of the chart.

adamnemecek 5y ago
It's also missing the amount of sunlight Earth gets from the Sun that's not used as solar energy. Also the energy that plants receive as nutrients from soil and air. It's also missing the energy that a mother transfers to her child in the form of love.
- Manuel_D 5y ago
  Food as an energy source is actually an important aspect. Things like domesticated animals represent significant sources of energy, on the order of thousands of calories per day. More nutritious crops also confer a significant boost to available energy. This had significant impact on the disparate levels of development between Eurasia and the Americas before the early modern period. "The Measure of Civilization" by Ian Morris is a book I'd recommend on this topic.
  - agumonkey 5y ago
    And there was a paper about how improved energy access was key in nomadic to sedentary evolution. People didn't get better, they found ways to get more energy by farming.
- burntoutfire 5y ago
  I assume the chart is only counting energy important for human economy (and not whatever it is that you're bringing up). Food as energy source was crucial part of the energy mix before fossil fuels - food-powered animals were tilling fields, hauling goods, powering machinery etc. (not to mention less savory aspects of it like slavery - slaves were essentially food-powered machines for picking cotton, harvesting sugar cane etc.). Nowadays majority of that work is done by machines powered by fossil fuels, and food is used mostly for us to sustain ourselves (i.e. prevent starvation) and not as an economically-productive resource. I suspect food was the biggest energy source in the economy, above wood and renewables (i.e. watermills and windmills powering various machineries and pumps).
- shoo 5y ago
  > also missing the energy that a mother transfers to her child in the form of love probably simpler analysis to define a boundary around human population and only estimate energy flows that cross that boundary, ignoring internal flows
tobyjsullivan 5y ago
I was curious so I estimated. If we take daily intake at 8000 BTUs (~2000 calories), then we get 0.015Q BTUs in 1800 (US population: 5M[0]), 0.22Q BTUs in 1900 (US population: 76M), and 0.82Q BTUs in 2000 (US population: 223M). That's only humans. Factoring in all working animals, maybe we assume some multiple of that. 2x? 10x? 100x seems too much. In the end, I'm not convinced it would be significant enough to warrant inclusion - even if only because US population was so relatively small. This does lead me to wonder what the graph looks like for energy consumption per capita. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_the_Uni...
- burntoutfire 5y ago
  Wood at the beginning of the period covered by chart is at 0.2 Q BTUs, so, using the 10x factor, food would be on the same order of magnitude.

aquova 5y ago

I was rather confused by this until I saw the 2011 date. Things have changed quite a bit, it doesn't appear at all on this chart, but the US now consumes 3.0 quadrillion Btu from wind energy in 2021, more than any other renewable.[0] [0]: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48396 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48396

vlovich123 5y ago
Where does plastics manufacturing fall under here? Is it industrial + electrical? Also, according to that chart, 0% of the US energy comes from nuclear but [1] has it at 20%. What's going on? [1] https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
- OldManAndTheCpp 5y ago
  Are you asking about the feedstock input to plastic, or the energy input? I doubt that the Energy Information Administration tracks feedstock inputs, as they are not consumed as energy.
  - thedudeabides5 5y ago
    Yes that's my understanding as well. Only the parts that are consumed in energy production (aka not physical elements in other products). Then the EIA kind of makes judgement calls where it's messy. The difference is one is measuring ELECTRICITY (where 20% nuclear would make sense), and the other is TOTAL ENERGY (which is electricity + transportation + energy used in heating physical processes etc) In terms of nuclear this link says 8 Quad BTU (out of who knows how many units in TOTAL ENERGY) https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=10 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=10 and the other says 20% of electricity https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
- nostrademons 5y ago
  GP's link is renewables only. Nuclear isn't considered a renewable energy source. Neither are plastics or the petroleum products they're made from. GP's chart should be considered a blow-up of the 20% of U.S. energy that your link shows from renewable sources. Within that context the numbers match up pretty well, except that biomass is much more heavily represented in [0] than in [1].

lqet 5y ago

I was expecting something as impressive as this: https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co8418916/three-dimensional-model-of-electricity-consumption-in-manchester-chart-graphic-document https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co84189...

z8rHZM8Svhu8hE2 5y ago

In this context, the old lecture on the exponential function of energy consumption comes to mind. Arithmetic, Population and Energy - a talk by Al Bartlett: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O133ppiVnWY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O133ppiVnWY

titzer 5y ago
You'll have to duck out quick before the posse arrives. HN abhors any references to exponential growth being unsustainable.
- fallingfrog 5y ago
  But I was told that the singularity was coming, whereupon I could upload my consciousness to the cloud and experience an eternal orgasm of exponentially increasing bliss, thereby nullifying all laws of physical constraints. Did that get cancelled?
  - titzer 5y ago
    Just delayed. It's just right around the corner!

rob_c 5y ago

it's asif one generation got used to the good times about 50 years ago in data...

VWWHFSfQ 5y ago

A friend of mine told me that she owns shares in several oil wells in Kansas and Oklahoma. They were originally bought by her father back in the 1950s. She told me that her father was a Korean War veteran and they were presented some opportunities to purchase these shares in lieu of some other kind of money the government was going to give them. I don't know what it was, she didn't say. But she did say that for basically her entire life (after her father passed away) she's been receiving checks from the oil companies. Usually very small like $40 a month. But sometimes, when USA gets into an oil war and they start pumping their own domestic oil, she gets monthly checks for ~$1,500. I would be curious to know how much crude USA buys from Canada instead of pumping it domestically. I guess all the domestic oil is part of the strategic oil reserves though.

snacktaster 5y ago
The US imports most of its crude oil from Canada and Mexico [0], but mostly from Canada. There's been a persistent, but false, narrative that the US needs oil from the Middle East. The US' concern with the oil in the Middle East is mostly to _protect_ the supply to Europe, and _control_ the supply to China. The US has never needed oil from Saudi Arabia. [0] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/imports-and-exports.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-produc...
- clairity 5y ago
  the US also cares because oil is fungible, and as a result, pricing happens at the global margins, not just between north american countries.

alex_young 5y ago

Here's 1950 - 2020: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50622 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50622

Manuel_D 5y ago
This is not the same type category of data. OP is a graph on energy consumption, your link is a graph on electricity generation. These are substantially different. Most energy consumption is not for electricity generation, only ~1/3rd is. And obviously, nearly all of the energy consumption prior to the 20th century was not for electricity.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

aimor 5y ago

For recent data, I enjoy the energy flow charts LLNL puts out each year. https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/commodities/energy https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/commodities/energy Also a fun data point: from 2019 to 2020 the US energy consumption dropped from 100.2 to 92.9 quads. Mostly from petroleum transportation.

aldebran 5y ago

Interesting data. I wonder how this correlates to population and industrial activity. On a side note, they could have chosen better colors. I can’t differentiate between a couple of them.

lettergram 5y ago

More & cheaper energy == better quality of life, more things, more progress, better society Obviously, we need to be efficient. But energy directly correlates with prosperity. I personally want us to build nuclear everywhere, deregulate and build more coal plants. We could change the world for the better!