3 ms·

I keep an eye on OurWorldInData's Energy [0] and GDP [1] per capita graphs. They suggest that the UK is moving roughly in step with the other western-Europe pow

by roenxi 2y ago

I keep an eye on OurWorldInData's Energy [0] and GDP [1] per capita graphs. They suggest that the UK is moving roughly in step with the other western-Europe powers and have been in a state of crisis since around 2005. It matches up well with the growing political instability that seems to be coming to a head all through Europe, there are a surprising number of people who refuse to accept that >33% drop in energy use (& trending) is a problem. I'd speculate that Brexit was actually a response to an energy crisis slowly eroding living standards and people are getting more antsy when it turns out that it didn't lead to saner energy policy than the EU mainland. I remain glad that I'm closer to China who, for all her faults, at least has the whole energy-and-prosperity link under control. I wish my civilisation would re-learn that one. [0] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-energy-use?tab=chart&country=GBR~DEU~FRA https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-energy-use?tab... [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-worldbank?tab=line&country=DEU~GBR~FRA https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-worldbank?...

hnhg 2y ago
You make good points, thanks for sharing. May I also add onto your speculation by saying that Brexit was a symptom of bad governance in general, and the energy crisis is a symptom too.
Havoc 2y ago
I'd be a bit wary of using energy use that directly as indicator. Yes, it is a broad measure of industrialization, however: Suppose a country goes on a broad national campaign to insulate drafty houses. That drops energy use, but has no corresponding drop in living standard. i.e. there is some sort of measure/factor for efficient application of energy needed for it to really be meaningful
- roenxi 2y ago
  Run me through your numbers. Where did the 33% drop in per-capita energy use come from? What order of magnitude do you think is draft reductions? Because if that were true I'd expect the UK would be a world-leading paradise with vast energy surpluses and everyone having a high old time in great comfort. That isn't the vibe they're giving off. They look like a nation with a slow-rolling energy crisis and a social contract that is coming under quite a bit of pressure because of it. Happy people don't vote for Nigel Farage.
  - quink 2y ago
    Got it. LED bulbs are destroying the social contract. One would call you a luminary but it seems you’d prefer being called predominantly a producer of hot air, like the old incandescents, instead. Also, the US is down 30% as well since peak MWh/person. If you had invested $1 in the S&P 500 at that peak, in about 1970, you’d have about $300 now. Seems like energy use mightn’t be all that coupled to economic success, but if you want to call the US since 1970 a failed society I’m not going to stop you.
    - roenxi 2y ago
      > Also, the US is... The US just elected Trump, where he won the popular vote. And are experiencing a sort of general crisis across financial, military and political domains. I don't think the US is particularly stable either, they just cope a bit better than the Europeans and are more flexible in calling for change when things aren't working out. Although I doubt it'll help them in the short term.
      - quink 2y ago
        A) OK, so on the one hand we could blame $2 trillion going to billionaires in 2024 alone, near enough $6000 for every person in the country, with evidence of any trickle down effect being a thing still outstanding, but evidence of their political effect as clear as an outstretched arm over DC. B) Or we could blame people not keeping five terrible refrigerators with no insulation at full blast instead of one good modern one. I mean it’s probably not option A entirely, there’s sure to be options C through to Z too, but I’m probably not gonna consider B overly relevant.
  - Havoc 2y ago
    >Where did the 33% drop in per-capita energy use come from? That's kinda my point - we don't know the answer. The 33% could be a bad thing (deindustrialization), or a good thing (energy efficiency) or the most like - a mix. It's largely a meaningless datapoint on its own.
    - 2y ago
quink 2y ago
So let me get this right, solar panels on the roof, heat pumps, better fridges, and better insulation among other things are a crisis that will lead, in comparison, to the downfall of Western civilisation? Jeez, I better randomly turn on a resistive space heater in the middle of summer when I’m not home so we can all live better lives somehow. Do you think I should randomly flail my arms about in the hope it’ll somehow make more dividends for my bank of choice? Just want to double-check.
- roenxi 2y ago
  > So let me get this right, solar panels on the roof, heat pumps, better fridges, and better insulation among other things are a crisis that will lead, in comparison, to the downfall of Western civilisation? Well the data does seem to incline in that direction. Particularly the UK, as far as I can tell it is impossible to be both intellectually honest and believe that a 33% (!) reduction in per capita energy is good for people's living standards. Someone'd have to be wilfully ignorant of Jevons' paradox, the only way to get that drop off is some sort of squeeze in their ability to access energy which isn't fun to live through. I feel for the poor who are being forced to live with that and be told that they're better off and shouldn't believe their lying eyes. It also neatly explains a lot of the political trends the UK has undergone in the last decade like the high debt level and general dissatisfaction with the leadership.
  - quink 2y ago
    Ah yes, the activity of “accessing energy”, the very relatable and not at all abstract real activity that we fellow humans perform multiple times a day. And here I thought we did “normal” things like “switch on the light” and notice that an LED still works just as well as an incandescent. Or some decide to turn on the dishwasher instead of doing the dishes by hand, which does it far more efficiently. Just wondering, since you seem to know, how do I make the money directly come out of the wall? Do I need to turn the crappy old five space heaters all to setting three to get all the money? Or should I just use the reverse cycle AC at a comfortable temperature like a normal person? Also, you’re calling the US’ economic success since 1970 a failure, since that also saw a drop in per capital use of 33%, so I’ll happily trade you all the money you made since 1970 for a pile of wooden logs, seems like that’d be a great deal for you, eh?
ksec 2y ago
I just double check on GDP [1] as well rather than GDP per capita. It is clear post 2007, UK and France and perhaps Germany as well had 15 years of stagnation. Using Bank of England 's calculator [2] £10.00 in 2008 would equal to £16.00 today. [1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?locations=GB-DE-FR https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?location... [2] https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation/inflation-calculator https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation/in...
pelagicAustral 2y ago
I have a feeling that somehow your point is going to be proven (or disproven) rather soonish, considering Trump's total turn on renewables and energy output ("Drill, baby, drill"). We might actually find out if the old school American way can indeed make a significant difference on the average guy...
ZeroGravitas 2y ago
In the US the amount of energy used to create an inflation adjusted dollar of GDP has been declining since 1949. https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/browser/index.php?tbl=T01.07#/?f=A&start=1949&end=2023&charted=3 https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/browser/index.php?tbl=T... China appears to have a similar progress. Which makes sense as energy is a costly input and so using less to get the same result is a good thing. In other documents the EIA list people moving to Southern states as one of several factors driving this trend. Just moving from coal and gas plants of 40% efficiency to 60% combined cycle gas plants would make everything consuming the generated electricity use 1/3rd less primary energy with no changes on their end.
- roenxi 2y ago
  > In the US the amount of energy used to create an inflation adjusted dollar of GDP has been declining since 1949. That does more to cast doubt on the GDP than anything else; a lot of the commonly used metrics are flawed. One of the interesting things about the Trump campaign(s) is his message is typically that the economy is bad and it seems a lot of people have on-the-ground experiences that match that. Since GDP dissociated from energy use in the 70s, I tend to side with the people who think the metrics are flawed. If GDP isn't a proxy for energy it isn't obvious what it is measuring or why anyone should care about that - for all that people do for reasons that are hard to unravel. There is a such a thing as intangible wealth but on aggregate it still pales compared to the tangible sort that requires energy. > Just moving from coal and gas plants ... One of the reasons I link the OurWorldInData series is they include fudge factors to try and account for that. If you look at the graph you can see it uses something they call the substitution method. I get the vague feeling this has been pointed out to you before but maybe not.
  - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
    The statistical review of World Energy that they source the data from does do the substitution method. And it knows that plant efficiency is increasing over time so it updates the compensation factor it uses. That means that over time a nuclear plant producing the exact same amount of electricity every year will look like a declining primary energy usage. The effect is slightly muted by their use of a global average efficiency conversion factor. An actual country deploying globe leading efficiency fossil fuel plants would see a greater effect in the direct, un-substituted numbers as less fossil fuels will be needed to generate the same amount of electricity.

by roenxi 2y ago

hnhg 2y ago

You make good points, thanks for sharing. May I also add onto your speculation by saying that Brexit was a symptom of bad governance in general, and the energy crisis is a symptom too.

Havoc 2y ago

I'd be a bit wary of using energy use that directly as indicator. Yes, it is a broad measure of industrialization, however: Suppose a country goes on a broad national campaign to insulate drafty houses. That drops energy use, but has no corresponding drop in living standard. i.e. there is some sort of measure/factor for efficient application of energy needed for it to really be meaningful

roenxi 2y ago
Run me through your numbers. Where did the 33% drop in per-capita energy use come from? What order of magnitude do you think is draft reductions? Because if that were true I'd expect the UK would be a world-leading paradise with vast energy surpluses and everyone having a high old time in great comfort. That isn't the vibe they're giving off. They look like a nation with a slow-rolling energy crisis and a social contract that is coming under quite a bit of pressure because of it. Happy people don't vote for Nigel Farage.
- quink 2y ago
  Got it. LED bulbs are destroying the social contract. One would call you a luminary but it seems you’d prefer being called predominantly a producer of hot air, like the old incandescents, instead. Also, the US is down 30% as well since peak MWh/person. If you had invested $1 in the S&P 500 at that peak, in about 1970, you’d have about $300 now. Seems like energy use mightn’t be all that coupled to economic success, but if you want to call the US since 1970 a failed society I’m not going to stop you.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    > Also, the US is... The US just elected Trump, where he won the popular vote. And are experiencing a sort of general crisis across financial, military and political domains. I don't think the US is particularly stable either, they just cope a bit better than the Europeans and are more flexible in calling for change when things aren't working out. Although I doubt it'll help them in the short term.
    - quink 2y ago
      A) OK, so on the one hand we could blame $2 trillion going to billionaires in 2024 alone, near enough $6000 for every person in the country, with evidence of any trickle down effect being a thing still outstanding, but evidence of their political effect as clear as an outstretched arm over DC. B) Or we could blame people not keeping five terrible refrigerators with no insulation at full blast instead of one good modern one. I mean it’s probably not option A entirely, there’s sure to be options C through to Z too, but I’m probably not gonna consider B overly relevant.
- Havoc 2y ago
  >Where did the 33% drop in per-capita energy use come from? That's kinda my point - we don't know the answer. The 33% could be a bad thing (deindustrialization), or a good thing (energy efficiency) or the most like - a mix. It's largely a meaningless datapoint on its own.
  - 2y ago

quink 2y ago

So let me get this right, solar panels on the roof, heat pumps, better fridges, and better insulation among other things are a crisis that will lead, in comparison, to the downfall of Western civilisation? Jeez, I better randomly turn on a resistive space heater in the middle of summer when I’m not home so we can all live better lives somehow. Do you think I should randomly flail my arms about in the hope it’ll somehow make more dividends for my bank of choice? Just want to double-check.

roenxi 2y ago
> So let me get this right, solar panels on the roof, heat pumps, better fridges, and better insulation among other things are a crisis that will lead, in comparison, to the downfall of Western civilisation? Well the data does seem to incline in that direction. Particularly the UK, as far as I can tell it is impossible to be both intellectually honest and believe that a 33% (!) reduction in per capita energy is good for people's living standards. Someone'd have to be wilfully ignorant of Jevons' paradox, the only way to get that drop off is some sort of squeeze in their ability to access energy which isn't fun to live through. I feel for the poor who are being forced to live with that and be told that they're better off and shouldn't believe their lying eyes. It also neatly explains a lot of the political trends the UK has undergone in the last decade like the high debt level and general dissatisfaction with the leadership.
- quink 2y ago
  Ah yes, the activity of “accessing energy”, the very relatable and not at all abstract real activity that we fellow humans perform multiple times a day. And here I thought we did “normal” things like “switch on the light” and notice that an LED still works just as well as an incandescent. Or some decide to turn on the dishwasher instead of doing the dishes by hand, which does it far more efficiently. Just wondering, since you seem to know, how do I make the money directly come out of the wall? Do I need to turn the crappy old five space heaters all to setting three to get all the money? Or should I just use the reverse cycle AC at a comfortable temperature like a normal person? Also, you’re calling the US’ economic success since 1970 a failure, since that also saw a drop in per capital use of 33%, so I’ll happily trade you all the money you made since 1970 for a pile of wooden logs, seems like that’d be a great deal for you, eh?

ksec 2y ago

I just double check on GDP [1] as well rather than GDP per capita. It is clear post 2007, UK and France and perhaps Germany as well had 15 years of stagnation. Using Bank of England 's calculator [2] £10.00 in 2008 would equal to £16.00 today. [1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?locations=GB-DE-FR https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?location... [2] https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation/inflation-calculator https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation/in...

pelagicAustral 2y ago

I have a feeling that somehow your point is going to be proven (or disproven) rather soonish, considering Trump's total turn on renewables and energy output ("Drill, baby, drill"). We might actually find out if the old school American way can indeed make a significant difference on the average guy...

ZeroGravitas 2y ago

In the US the amount of energy used to create an inflation adjusted dollar of GDP has been declining since 1949. https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/browser/index.php?tbl=T01.07#/?f=A&start=1949&end=2023&charted=3 https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/browser/index.php?tbl=T... China appears to have a similar progress. Which makes sense as energy is a costly input and so using less to get the same result is a good thing. In other documents the EIA list people moving to Southern states as one of several factors driving this trend. Just moving from coal and gas plants of 40% efficiency to 60% combined cycle gas plants would make everything consuming the generated electricity use 1/3rd less primary energy with no changes on their end.

roenxi 2y ago
> In the US the amount of energy used to create an inflation adjusted dollar of GDP has been declining since 1949. That does more to cast doubt on the GDP than anything else; a lot of the commonly used metrics are flawed. One of the interesting things about the Trump campaign(s) is his message is typically that the economy is bad and it seems a lot of people have on-the-ground experiences that match that. Since GDP dissociated from energy use in the 70s, I tend to side with the people who think the metrics are flawed. If GDP isn't a proxy for energy it isn't obvious what it is measuring or why anyone should care about that - for all that people do for reasons that are hard to unravel. There is a such a thing as intangible wealth but on aggregate it still pales compared to the tangible sort that requires energy. > Just moving from coal and gas plants ... One of the reasons I link the OurWorldInData series is they include fudge factors to try and account for that. If you look at the graph you can see it uses something they call the substitution method. I get the vague feeling this has been pointed out to you before but maybe not.
- ZeroGravitas 2y ago
  The statistical review of World Energy that they source the data from does do the substitution method. And it knows that plant efficiency is increasing over time so it updates the compensation factor it uses. That means that over time a nuclear plant producing the exact same amount of electricity every year will look like a declining primary energy usage. The effect is slightly muted by their use of a global average efficiency conversion factor. An actual country deploying globe leading efficiency fossil fuel plants would see a greater effect in the direct, un-substituted numbers as less fossil fuels will be needed to generate the same amount of electricity.