2 ms·

> People and businesses used less electricity overall, with demand dropping by 3.4% compared to 2022. The EU isn't even managing to tread water with this trans

by roenxi 3y ago

> People and businesses used less electricity overall, with demand dropping by 3.4% compared to 2022. The EU isn't even managing to tread water with this transition. Over the last 20 years they've shed ~15% [0] of their energy per capita and more than that in places like Germany or France. This policy might look sensible if we hit peak oil sometimes soon, but realistically this is an indictment of the anti-nuclear movement who caused a lot of unnecessary harm. We didn't have to do this by squeezing people's living standards. That energy is needed to promote high living standards. Frankly I'm surprised that the body politic are taking it (although I'll cough a few times and mention Brexit, AfD and apparently the French are unhappy). [0] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-energy-use?tab=chart&country=~OWID_EU27 https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-energy-use?tab...

andyferris 3y ago
Energy efficiency had improved - especially lighting. Wouldn’t this explain the numbers more than a decreased standard of living?
- dangus 3y ago
  It sure does. One bulb used to suck down up to 100 watts. Now you get the same light out of less than 20 watts.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Technically that was co-generation, you got 80 watts of heat to go with it which was lost during the summer (or caused your AC to have to work even harder!) and in the winter you now you have to generate that 80 watts using some other method. But if you drive a heatpump with it you can come out ahead net+.
piva00 3y ago
> We didn't have to do this by squeezing people's living standards. That energy is needed to promote high living standards. What exactly has been the impact in living standards?
ViewTrick1002 3y ago
We haven't squeezed living standards? Take two examples: LED lights and heat pumps. Replacing incandescent bulbs and direct heating hasn't made us poorer. Just more efficient. Many countries have decoupled economic growth from energy use.[1] My personal theory is that we were stuck based on the marginal cost of fossil fuels. Given the fossil price of energy we had already exploited nearly all avenues. Renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels and massively scalable. Thus we will once again be in the state with more energy available than what we can use, and we will reliably find new ways of utilizing this. Nuclear is the antithesis to this. It is more expensive than fossil fuels which means relying on it will entail degrowth compared to our fossil equilibrium. [1]: https://ourworldindata.org/energy-gdp-decoupling https://ourworldindata.org/energy-gdp-decoupling
- roenxi 3y ago
  How much of that 15% drop can you explain with light bulbs and heat pumps? There is no way it is that material. And we know that efficiencies don't cause the amount of energy used to drop, they cause an overall rise, because energy goes further so it is worth collecting more (ie, Jevons' Paradox). The only thing that causes energy use to drop is if the supply isn't there. > Many countries have decoupled economic growth from energy use. Yeah, but the obvious conclusion isn't what you expect it is - GDP is becoming obsolete. The reason it has been useful historically is that it is a good proxy for energy availability. You've got a number there that goes up, but is decoupling from any real metric. If GDP correlates with energy availability and GDP drops; that is an urgent problem because that means it is getting harder to get food, shelter and essentials. If it doesn't correlate with energy availability then there is a bit of a question about why we're supposed to care.

by roenxi 3y ago

andyferris 3y ago

Energy efficiency had improved - especially lighting. Wouldn’t this explain the numbers more than a decreased standard of living?

dangus 3y ago
It sure does. One bulb used to suck down up to 100 watts. Now you get the same light out of less than 20 watts.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Technically that was co-generation, you got 80 watts of heat to go with it which was lost during the summer (or caused your AC to have to work even harder!) and in the winter you now you have to generate that 80 watts using some other method. But if you drive a heatpump with it you can come out ahead net+.

piva00 3y ago

> We didn't have to do this by squeezing people's living standards. That energy is needed to promote high living standards. What exactly has been the impact in living standards?

ViewTrick1002 3y ago

We haven't squeezed living standards? Take two examples: LED lights and heat pumps. Replacing incandescent bulbs and direct heating hasn't made us poorer. Just more efficient. Many countries have decoupled economic growth from energy use.[1] My personal theory is that we were stuck based on the marginal cost of fossil fuels. Given the fossil price of energy we had already exploited nearly all avenues. Renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels and massively scalable. Thus we will once again be in the state with more energy available than what we can use, and we will reliably find new ways of utilizing this. Nuclear is the antithesis to this. It is more expensive than fossil fuels which means relying on it will entail degrowth compared to our fossil equilibrium. [1]: https://ourworldindata.org/energy-gdp-decoupling https://ourworldindata.org/energy-gdp-decoupling

roenxi 3y ago
How much of that 15% drop can you explain with light bulbs and heat pumps? There is no way it is that material. And we know that efficiencies don't cause the amount of energy used to drop, they cause an overall rise, because energy goes further so it is worth collecting more (ie, Jevons' Paradox). The only thing that causes energy use to drop is if the supply isn't there. > Many countries have decoupled economic growth from energy use. Yeah, but the obvious conclusion isn't what you expect it is - GDP is becoming obsolete. The reason it has been useful historically is that it is a good proxy for energy availability. You've got a number there that goes up, but is decoupling from any real metric. If GDP correlates with energy availability and GDP drops; that is an urgent problem because that means it is getting harder to get food, shelter and essentials. If it doesn't correlate with energy availability then there is a bit of a question about why we're supposed to care.