4 ms·

Here is a graph, unfortunately not cumulative, which would it make easier to read: http://ncusar.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/US_energy_consumption.png h

by tiatia 12y ago

Here is a graph, unfortunately not cumulative, which would it make easier to read: http://ncusar.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/US_energy_consumption.png http://ncusar.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/US_energy_... Solid economic growth in the 70ies, then a big dip around 1980, a smaller around 1988, then solid growth in the 90ies until around 2004. Then decline. I would trust this model much more than any government announced GDP growth. Reminds a little bit to Sow jet Russia. They had a tractor manufacturing plant with state given output increases they had to match. They were not able to fulfill the quota but since output (like many other things) were measured in "tons of tractors produced" the solution to the problem was easy. While they did not produce more tractors, the tractors became heavier and heavier every year...

maxerickson 12y ago
There are strong confounding factors. Gasoline is something like half of U.S. petroleum consumption: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_sum_snd_d_nus_mbbl_a_cur.htm http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_sum_snd_d_nus_mbbl_a_cur.htm The vehicle fleet has been significantly improved in the period you are talking about: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/13/cars-in-the-u-s-are-more-fuel-efficient-than-ever-heres-how-it-happened/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/13/c... So even though petroleum consumption has been flat or whatever, miles driven have expanded by ~2x: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/M12MTVUSM227NFWA http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/M12MTVUSM227NFWA I doubt it's as noticeable, but housing and appliances have also improved over that period (the average energy efficiency of newer buildings is probably the biggest effect, but better appliances and lighting probably manage to show up).
rgbrenner 12y ago
If that graph was cumulative, it would appear much flatter. Here are the actual numbers: http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec1_3.pdf http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec1_3.pdf Decline after 2004? sure.. it went from 100 quadrillion Btu to 97 in 2013.
- tiatia 12y ago
  Yes. While the population was growing 1% per year. Both numbers combined speak a very different language. ;-)

by tiatia 12y ago

maxerickson 12y ago

There are strong confounding factors. Gasoline is something like half of U.S. petroleum consumption: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_sum_snd_d_nus_mbbl_a_cur.htm http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_sum_snd_d_nus_mbbl_a_cur.htm The vehicle fleet has been significantly improved in the period you are talking about: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/13/cars-in-the-u-s-are-more-fuel-efficient-than-ever-heres-how-it-happened/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/13/c... So even though petroleum consumption has been flat or whatever, miles driven have expanded by ~2x: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/M12MTVUSM227NFWA http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/M12MTVUSM227NFWA I doubt it's as noticeable, but housing and appliances have also improved over that period (the average energy efficiency of newer buildings is probably the biggest effect, but better appliances and lighting probably manage to show up).

rgbrenner 12y ago

If that graph was cumulative, it would appear much flatter. Here are the actual numbers: http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec1_3.pdf http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec1_3.pdf Decline after 2004? sure.. it went from 100 quadrillion Btu to 97 in 2013.

tiatia 12y ago
Yes. While the population was growing 1% per year. Both numbers combined speak a very different language. ;-)