8 ms·

Looking at the trend since 1950, I’m struck by two details: 1. We reached peak coal in 2007. Coal generation has declined since. 2. We reached a consumption p

Looking at the trend since 1950, I’m struck by two details: 1. We reached peak coal in 2007. Coal generation has declined since. 2. We reached a consumption plateau also in 2007. Electricity use has been more or less level since. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us-generation-capacity-and-sales.php#generation-major-source https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-... The neighboring chart that tracks renewables since 1950 is also interesting. Growth in renewables really started around 2007 with growth in wind being the primary contributor. Growth in solar has made a smaller but significant contribution in the past decade or so. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us-generation-capacity-and-sales.php#generation-renewable-sources https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mmazing 3y ago
Those are interesting indeed. I would have thought cryptocurrency farming might have made a blip on there somehow but seems not. I wonder how those charts compare with the rest of the world?
- jsiepkes 3y ago
  I don't think you can draw those conclusions. For example without crypto you might have seen a decline due to more efficient products such as LED's.
  - dgellow 3y ago
    I think by “blip” they meant it would be visible on the graph, not that it doesn’t have any impact
- davedx 3y ago
  No idea why you were downvoted. Crypto has had a significant impact on electricity demand, I'd be interested to see if it was visible too.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - ChatGTP 3y ago
    Because it's totally unsubstantiated, there is no law in the universe that says we can't have a much, much more sustainable and environmentally friendly economy and have consumption too. Obviously what people consume, the frequency etc will have to some what change, but there is no reason through innovation, incentives, education that we can't do it. I think the idea that this is "impossible" and the only way to get there is to go back to the stone ages is actually the reason why we're not there yet. Rather than spend time just improving things, we like to have a bitch about it.
    - Aerbil313 3y ago
      > there is no law in the universe that says we can't have a much, much more sustainable and environmentally friendly economy and have consumption too. Unfortunately there is. See [1] and [2] for an introduction to the topic and [3] for the concept of ecological overshoot. It’s simply not possible to have infinite growth in a finite world. Humanity have first exceeded the annual carrying capacity of Earth in 1971, first year when Earth Overshoot Day happened. 1: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-xr9rIQxwj4 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-xr9rIQxwj4 2: https://www.collapsemusings.com/overshoot-why-its-already-too-late-to-save-civilization/ https://www.collapsemusings.com/overshoot-why-its-already-to... 3: https://overshoot.footprintnetwork.org/newsroom/media-backgrounder/ https://overshoot.footprintnetwork.org/newsroom/media-backgr...
      - ChatGTP 3y ago
        I personally never mentioned infinite growth. Infinite growth is a sily idea and I doubt the majority of people really think this is a worthwhile / desirable thing to shoot for anyway goal anyway. I don't see why we can't have tech, sustainable travel (more rail, even intercontinental high speed trains), renewable energy industries and innovation, and more driving a sustainable economy?
- mytailorisrich 3y ago
  Crypto mining in the US consumes 1-1.5% of electricity [1]. This is very small to show on graphs like these ones. If there is a downward trend on electricity consumption it probably just dampens it slightly. Now, with EVs on the other hand, consumption will probably pick up a lot. [1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2022/09/08/fact-sheet-climate-and-energy-implications-of-crypto-assets-in-the-united-states/#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20is%20estimated,mining%20is%20also%20highly%20mobile https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2022/09/08/fact....
mytailorisrich 3y ago
The story with coal is that it has been replaced mostly by natural gas. Probably a lot to do with the shale gas boom.
- rich_sasha 3y ago
  I wonder, does nat gas release less CO2 per MWh or sth? Because coal is mostly carbon, which can only get burnt to CO2, but eg methane is one carbon, four hydrogens per molecule. Still mostly carbon by weight I guess...
  - actionfromafar 3y ago
    It does. The gas often comes together with crude oil, which is getting burnt elsewhere anyways, so gas is not a saviour. It's more of a "subsidy" of oil.
  - mytailorisrich 3y ago
    Yes, apparently natural gas emits almost 50% less CO2 than coal. It is also cleaner. Emissions are pretty much pure CO2 whereas coal also emits other compounds, e.g. sulfur, and particulates. This even includes a level of radioactive elements. So it is very polluting.
    - actionfromafar 3y ago
      Methane is also a very potent greenhouse gas.
  - Alpha3031 3y ago
    According to 2019 EIA figures (https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48296 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48296), Natural gas plants in the US release about 43% the CO2 per unit energy of US coal plants. This is both because of higher energy per unit CO2 (would be about 56% per MJ or Btu or whatever) and better conversion efficiency. The highest thermal efficiency possible from a modern CCGT plant running at its ideal output is something like 60%, as there is a second steam cycle capturing the heat from the exhaust of the first turbine for more electricity. The numbers given for the efficiency of the fleet of gas plants in that article translate to about 44%, and 32% for coal.
adrianN 3y ago
Hopefully electricity use will soon start to climb as more sectors are electrified.
jsbisviewtiful 3y ago
> 2. We reached a consumption plateau also in 2007. Electricity use has been more or less level since. What’s even wilder about this is the population of earth just hit an estimated 8 billion total. The US population isn’t 100% indicative of the whole planet, but one of the largest superpowers balancing out despite further planetary growth is a great sign.
- divbzero 3y ago
  “The US population isn’t 100% indicative of the whole planet” is an excellent point to keep in mind. The US economy has trended towards exporting services and importing goods, and the electricity used to produce imported goods does not contribute to domestic usage.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

mmazing 3y ago

Those are interesting indeed. I would have thought cryptocurrency farming might have made a blip on there somehow but seems not. I wonder how those charts compare with the rest of the world?

jsiepkes 3y ago
I don't think you can draw those conclusions. For example without crypto you might have seen a decline due to more efficient products such as LED's.
- dgellow 3y ago
  I think by “blip” they meant it would be visible on the graph, not that it doesn’t have any impact
davedx 3y ago
No idea why you were downvoted. Crypto has had a significant impact on electricity demand, I'd be interested to see if it was visible too.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- ChatGTP 3y ago
  Because it's totally unsubstantiated, there is no law in the universe that says we can't have a much, much more sustainable and environmentally friendly economy and have consumption too. Obviously what people consume, the frequency etc will have to some what change, but there is no reason through innovation, incentives, education that we can't do it. I think the idea that this is "impossible" and the only way to get there is to go back to the stone ages is actually the reason why we're not there yet. Rather than spend time just improving things, we like to have a bitch about it.
  - Aerbil313 3y ago
    > there is no law in the universe that says we can't have a much, much more sustainable and environmentally friendly economy and have consumption too. Unfortunately there is. See [1] and [2] for an introduction to the topic and [3] for the concept of ecological overshoot. It’s simply not possible to have infinite growth in a finite world. Humanity have first exceeded the annual carrying capacity of Earth in 1971, first year when Earth Overshoot Day happened. 1: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-xr9rIQxwj4 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-xr9rIQxwj4 2: https://www.collapsemusings.com/overshoot-why-its-already-too-late-to-save-civilization/ https://www.collapsemusings.com/overshoot-why-its-already-to... 3: https://overshoot.footprintnetwork.org/newsroom/media-backgrounder/ https://overshoot.footprintnetwork.org/newsroom/media-backgr...
    - ChatGTP 3y ago
      I personally never mentioned infinite growth. Infinite growth is a sily idea and I doubt the majority of people really think this is a worthwhile / desirable thing to shoot for anyway goal anyway. I don't see why we can't have tech, sustainable travel (more rail, even intercontinental high speed trains), renewable energy industries and innovation, and more driving a sustainable economy?
mytailorisrich 3y ago
Crypto mining in the US consumes 1-1.5% of electricity [1]. This is very small to show on graphs like these ones. If there is a downward trend on electricity consumption it probably just dampens it slightly. Now, with EVs on the other hand, consumption will probably pick up a lot. [1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2022/09/08/fact-sheet-climate-and-energy-implications-of-crypto-assets-in-the-united-states/#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20is%20estimated,mining%20is%20also%20highly%20mobile https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2022/09/08/fact....

mytailorisrich 3y ago

The story with coal is that it has been replaced mostly by natural gas. Probably a lot to do with the shale gas boom.

rich_sasha 3y ago
I wonder, does nat gas release less CO2 per MWh or sth? Because coal is mostly carbon, which can only get burnt to CO2, but eg methane is one carbon, four hydrogens per molecule. Still mostly carbon by weight I guess...
- actionfromafar 3y ago
  It does. The gas often comes together with crude oil, which is getting burnt elsewhere anyways, so gas is not a saviour. It's more of a "subsidy" of oil.
- mytailorisrich 3y ago
  Yes, apparently natural gas emits almost 50% less CO2 than coal. It is also cleaner. Emissions are pretty much pure CO2 whereas coal also emits other compounds, e.g. sulfur, and particulates. This even includes a level of radioactive elements. So it is very polluting.
  - actionfromafar 3y ago
    Methane is also a very potent greenhouse gas.
- Alpha3031 3y ago
  According to 2019 EIA figures (https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48296 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48296), Natural gas plants in the US release about 43% the CO2 per unit energy of US coal plants. This is both because of higher energy per unit CO2 (would be about 56% per MJ or Btu or whatever) and better conversion efficiency. The highest thermal efficiency possible from a modern CCGT plant running at its ideal output is something like 60%, as there is a second steam cycle capturing the heat from the exhaust of the first turbine for more electricity. The numbers given for the efficiency of the fleet of gas plants in that article translate to about 44%, and 32% for coal.

adrianN 3y ago

Hopefully electricity use will soon start to climb as more sectors are electrified.

jsbisviewtiful 3y ago

> 2. We reached a consumption plateau also in 2007. Electricity use has been more or less level since. What’s even wilder about this is the population of earth just hit an estimated 8 billion total. The US population isn’t 100% indicative of the whole planet, but one of the largest superpowers balancing out despite further planetary growth is a great sign.

divbzero 3y ago
“The US population isn’t 100% indicative of the whole planet” is an excellent point to keep in mind. The US economy has trended towards exporting services and importing goods, and the electricity used to produce imported goods does not contribute to domestic usage.