4 ms·

Not so much cost of energy, but the price of energy charged to consumers. As ever, the cost + margin sets the minimum for the price, but the price maxes out at

Not so much cost of energy, but the price of energy charged to consumers. As ever, the cost + margin sets the minimum for the price, but the price maxes out at what the consumer is willing to bear. Though to be fair, in the last 5 or so years, the cost of energy has risen due to the need for a dynamic network, entailing more and bigger transmission lines, but that doesn't explain the reductions entirely. Anyone who remembers how pervasive CRTs (later rear projection, and plasma TVs) and incandescent bulbs were, can sense that things are far more efficient around the home. Better standards for HVAC (using heat pumps vs heating elements) are a big deal. A big driver of this has been large buildings where the cost reductions from efficiency can mean millions saved. Business errs towards efficiency. Another driver is that the more efficient stuff also seems to just be better too (like OLED screens) We also have chips that run on about the same energy (or even less) and provide far more compute than 2 decades ago. Looking further back the ENIAC used 174kw of power for 0.005 MIPS (5000 additions). By comparison an M1 has 2.6 TFLOPS (2.6 trilling floating point operations) for 40-100 watts. My cores are mostly idling. In fact most of my computer usage happens on my phone which runs on far less energy still. Then consider energy for transport. In the last 5 years, telecommuting has become so normal that fewer people are commuting to work, particularly cities.

kragen 2y ago
note that most energy sold isn't electric. jevons made his observation when none was not all consumer energy prices are rising, and the situation you describe where the producer captures the whole consumer surplus only happens in the absence of competition jevons says people will compensate for more efficient tvs by buying more and bigger tvs, and for more efficient hvac by building bigger houses, living in hotter areas, and installing air conditioning in more spaces. this has been a major trend of the last 25 years you're talking about, in fact similarly, it's true that the amount of energy per flop is going down, though not nearly as much as you might think; on the cpu it was about 2000 picojoules 30 years ago, and closer to 500 picojoules today. (the numbers you give for the m1 would work out to 16 picojoules, but the real numbers are even better. 2.6 teraflops is the graphics card, which uses 11.5 watts, which is 4 picojoules per flop. most computers lag far, far behind that in efficiency.) but the amount of energy spent on computers keeps going up and up
- h0l0cube 2y ago
  > producer captures the whole consumer surplus only happens in the absence of competition Collusion is the norm. Especially with electricity suppliers where they jack up the rates because most people won't be bothered to check for better deals and switch. > jevons says people will compensate for more efficient tvs by buying more and bigger tvs Doesn't matter if the efficiency gains outcompete the consumption increase (which is my whole point): > As shown in the graph below, between 2006 and 2012 the average energy consumption of televisions dropped by 57%, while at the same time average screen size increased by 30% and average price decreased by almost two-thirds. https://appliance-standards.org/blog/why-recent-progress-television-efficiency-should-make-you-feel-better-about-binge-watching https://appliance-standards.org/blog/why-recent-progress-tel... > for more efficient hvac by building bigger houses, living in hotter areas, and installing air conditioning in more spaces. this has been a major trend of the last 25 years you're talking about, in fact McMansions became a thing leading up to the 2008 financial crisis, and was a feature of cheap finance, not energy cost. Most people want a house that's affordable, close to amenities and doesn't take an army of servants to clean – so a house in the suburbs and within distance of the city. The factors here are land price and construction costs. > but the amount of energy spent on computers keeps going up and up Might be true, but it would be nice to see some data to back that claim.
  - kragen 2y ago
    collusion fortunately doesn't allow exxon to bar the importation of chinese solar panels (except in the usa) or their sale to consumers, and in most of the world, electric utility regulators force utilities to pass on some of the savings from utility-scale solar to customers. even where they don't, heavy industry can negotiate contracts, because electric utilities in paris don't collude adequately with those in bavaria, kansai, and virginia a 130% increase in tvs per person would cancel out the 57% reduction you cite in power per tv, and presumably if you measure over any other period of time, the energy consumption drop won't be that large, because that was the crt–lcd transition, but screens had been steadily getting bigger for decades and have continued to do so. if you include computer monitors with tvs, it seems likely that the increase over the last 25 years is a lot more than 130%. certainly it is in public places (dentists' offices, intercity buses, airports, restaurants) people have been building continuously bigger houses for centuries; it's not a phenomenon limited to zero interest rate mcmansions. suburban sprawl is one well-known manifestation of it as for computers, unfortunately i don't have the data here at the moment. you see handwringing about it from time to time. i'd like to see it too

kragen 2y ago

note that most energy sold isn't electric. jevons made his observation when none was not all consumer energy prices are rising, and the situation you describe where the producer captures the whole consumer surplus only happens in the absence of competition jevons says people will compensate for more efficient tvs by buying more and bigger tvs, and for more efficient hvac by building bigger houses, living in hotter areas, and installing air conditioning in more spaces. this has been a major trend of the last 25 years you're talking about, in fact similarly, it's true that the amount of energy per flop is going down, though not nearly as much as you might think; on the cpu it was about 2000 picojoules 30 years ago, and closer to 500 picojoules today. (the numbers you give for the m1 would work out to 16 picojoules, but the real numbers are even better. 2.6 teraflops is the graphics card, which uses 11.5 watts, which is 4 picojoules per flop. most computers lag far, far behind that in efficiency.) but the amount of energy spent on computers keeps going up and up

h0l0cube 2y ago
> producer captures the whole consumer surplus only happens in the absence of competition Collusion is the norm. Especially with electricity suppliers where they jack up the rates because most people won't be bothered to check for better deals and switch. > jevons says people will compensate for more efficient tvs by buying more and bigger tvs Doesn't matter if the efficiency gains outcompete the consumption increase (which is my whole point): > As shown in the graph below, between 2006 and 2012 the average energy consumption of televisions dropped by 57%, while at the same time average screen size increased by 30% and average price decreased by almost two-thirds. https://appliance-standards.org/blog/why-recent-progress-television-efficiency-should-make-you-feel-better-about-binge-watching https://appliance-standards.org/blog/why-recent-progress-tel... > for more efficient hvac by building bigger houses, living in hotter areas, and installing air conditioning in more spaces. this has been a major trend of the last 25 years you're talking about, in fact McMansions became a thing leading up to the 2008 financial crisis, and was a feature of cheap finance, not energy cost. Most people want a house that's affordable, close to amenities and doesn't take an army of servants to clean – so a house in the suburbs and within distance of the city. The factors here are land price and construction costs. > but the amount of energy spent on computers keeps going up and up Might be true, but it would be nice to see some data to back that claim.
- kragen 2y ago
  collusion fortunately doesn't allow exxon to bar the importation of chinese solar panels (except in the usa) or their sale to consumers, and in most of the world, electric utility regulators force utilities to pass on some of the savings from utility-scale solar to customers. even where they don't, heavy industry can negotiate contracts, because electric utilities in paris don't collude adequately with those in bavaria, kansai, and virginia a 130% increase in tvs per person would cancel out the 57% reduction you cite in power per tv, and presumably if you measure over any other period of time, the energy consumption drop won't be that large, because that was the crt–lcd transition, but screens had been steadily getting bigger for decades and have continued to do so. if you include computer monitors with tvs, it seems likely that the increase over the last 25 years is a lot more than 130%. certainly it is in public places (dentists' offices, intercity buses, airports, restaurants) people have been building continuously bigger houses for centuries; it's not a phenomenon limited to zero interest rate mcmansions. suburban sprawl is one well-known manifestation of it as for computers, unfortunately i don't have the data here at the moment. you see handwringing about it from time to time. i'd like to see it too