(I've been meaning to reply to this one for a while. I don't have time for
serious research, probably a mistake when responding to Dan, but mayhaps I can
get away with a few comments on a conversational level?)
Dan Minette wrote:
> In the face of a crisis the people of California cut back 11% on electricity
>consumption in a very short period of time.
>
> Well, I'd like to see the basis of that. It sounds too good to be true if
> based just on conservation. Was this in the face of the threat of a rolling
> blackout? Was this an apples to apples comparison over a several weeks span
> (i.e. was the temperature the same). Or was it a variation with temperature
> or a seasonal variation?
>
I read the article over 3 weeks ago now and the only thing I could find on the
net was that we beat a use prediction for the month of May made by the
California Energy Commission by 11%. And May was unusually warm this year.
But yes there has been the threat of rolling blackouts every time the
temperature creeps up into the 90s.
But why does it surprise you that we could save that much? It wouldn't
surprise me at all if, with a concerted effort over a year or two, we saved
twice as much as that on a regular basis. I'll take your word for it that our
society is more energy intensive than that of Europe, but twice as intensive?
I think it's that we are much more wasteful, and the evidence is everywhere
you look from the lights blazing in every room of some houses, to the stores
and homes chilled to a comfortable 70� F when the temp outside is nearly half
again that, to the computers and TVs left on constantly, to the empty SUVs
crowding our freeways. And it isn't just energy. We're wastefull with
everything. A few little examples epitomize our attitude towards economy:
Have you ever noticed someone getting napkins in a fast food restaurant? Do
they grab the one or two that is probably all they need? I'll bet that three
of four grab at least five napkins - more than twice what they'll use, the
rest being deposited directly into the trash. And going through the drive
through is worse! They are liable to give me 6-10 napkins for a single
order! Trivial you say? Insignificant? Do the math. If 10 million people a
day eat fast food and take an average of 2 extra napkins each that's over 7
billion napkins clogging up our landfills each year. That's like a stack of
napkins over 2000 km tall (using a thickness of .3 mm.) And it's only the
very tiny tip of a massive iceberg. How about bags? We are obsessed with
them. We buy a pencil, we need a bag to put it in and carry it home.
Wouldn't want it to get dusty. Hell if we buy a bag, we consider it a God
given right to be supplied with another bag to tote it around in. 8^) Have you
seen that add for motor oil where they guy ends up making seven trips to the
store because he keeps forgetting things? That isn't that much of an
exaggeration from my experience. Now I expect that the U.S. Americans on this
list are more conscientious than most, but I wouldn't brand ourselves as
typical. In general we are very wastefull and for us to cut back a bit
wouldn't hurt us a bit.
> Well, the rest of the country cannot obtain the same fraction of its energy
> from the geothermal gradient. So, that's a unique ability of California.
> As for the 10 year goal: forgive me for sounding cynical but setting a goal
> doesn't do anything except help one win an election.
>
That _is_ a cynical attitude, and I don't agree with it in the least. Many of
the people on this list have argued that we are a "great" country. In 1961
our national leader set a (~) ten year goal that was absolutely out of this
world. We beat it by a year. If someone were to tell us that all the oil
would be gone by 2010, do you think that the lights would go out that year? I
don't.
Doug
