Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Powering Down America ^ | January 29, 2014 | Terry Jeffrey

Posted on 01/29/2014 10:02:40 AM PST by Kaslin

Americans may look back in a few decades and see that 2007 was the year that production of electricity peaked in the United States and our nation began powering down.

This may make many on the environmentalist left -- including President Barack Obama's top science and technology adviser -- very happy.

But it will not make life better for you, your children or your grandchildren.

According to data published by the Energy Information Administration, the United States generated a total of approximately 4,157 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity in 2007. We had never produced that much before. We have never produced that much since.

In 2012, the last full year for which there is data, the United States produced 4,048 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity -- down 2.6 percent from 2007.

In the first nine months of 2013, the United States produced 3,078 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity -- down from the 3,096 the United States produced in first nine months of 2012.

The shift in the long-term trend in U.S. electricity production becomes more obvious when viewed on a per capita basis.

I took the EIA's numbers for annual total net electricity generation in the United States, which go back to 1949, and divided them by the Census Bureau's estimates for the U.S. population in July of each year.

In 1950, the U.S. produced approximately 334,088 million kilowatt-hours of electricity for a population of 152,271,417. That works out to 0.00219 million kilowatt-hours of electricity per person.

In 1959, the U.S. produced approximately 713,379 million kilowatt-hours of electricity for a population of 177,829,628. That was 0.00401 million kilowatt-hours of electricity per person.

In the ten years from 1950 through 1959, U.S. per capita electricity production increased by 0.00182 -- or 83.1 percent.

America in the 1950s was powering up.

From 1960 to 1969, per capita electricity production increased 69.8 percent. America was still powering up -- but not as aggressively as in the 1950s.

From 1970 to 1979, per capita electricity production grew by 11.2 percent. But from 2000 to 2009, it declined by about 4.5 percent.

Per capita electricity production in this country peaked in 2007, the same year electricity production itself peaked. That year, the United States generated 4,156,745 million kilowatt-hours for a population of 301,231,207 -- a per capita production of about 0.01379 million kilowatt hours.

In 2012, the United States produced 4,047,765 million kilowatt-hours of electricity for 313,914,040 people -- or 0.01289 million kilowatt-hours per capita. Per capita electricity production has declined 6.5 percent from its peak of 2007.

In December 2013, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the seasonally adjusted electricity price index hit a record high of 203.186.

In the seventeen years from January 1952 to January 1969, when America was ramping up per capita electricity production, the electricity price index rose from 27.5 to 30.2 -- an increase of only 9.8 percent.

In the seventeen years from December 1996 to December 2013, the energy price index rose from 132.2 to 203.186 -- an increase of about 53.7 percent.

Americans in 1950 were looking forward to producing more people and more electricity and becoming a much wealthier nation.

What do the environmentalists who occupy our White House in 2013 envision?

John P. Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, joined in 1995 with Paul Ehrlich, the author of "The Population Bomb," and Gretchen Daily of Stanford's Center for Conservation Biology, to co-author a chapter in a book published by the World Bank. The chapter was entitled, "The Meaning of Sustainability: Biogeophysical Aspects."

"We know for certain, for example, that: No form of material growth (including population growth) other than asymptotic growth, is sustainable," Obama's future science adviser pronounced with this co-authors.

"Many of the practices inadequately supporting today's population of 5.5 billion people are unsustainable; and [a]t the sustainability limit, there will be a tradeoff between population and energy-matter throughput per person, hence, ultimately, between economic activity per person and well-being per person," said Holdren and his co-authors.

"This," they concluded, "is enough to say quite a lot about what needs to be faced up to eventually (a world of zero net physical growth), what should be done now (change unsustainable practices, reduce excessive material consumption, slow down population growth), and what the penalty will be for postponing attention to population limitation (lower well-being per person)."

As President Obama moves forward with his plans for America's future energy production and economic well-being, Americans should remember that Obama's science and technology adviser declared 19 years ago that "a world of zero net physical growth" was something that "needs to be faced up to eventually."

TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: electricity; energy

1 posted on 01/29/2014 10:02:40 AM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
The exact numbers (and reasons) kind'a get jumbled up in my head, but in a nutshell it seems we're producing less electricity because we're using less.

In my plebian mind, I'd say that would be because there are less belching factories ... less factories period ... belching or otherwise.

The manufacturing that IS going on is more energy efficient which also contributes to less demand.

I'm not saying I know what I'm talking about ... just trying to analyze this article.

2 posted on 01/29/2014 10:08:26 AM PST by knarf (I say things that are true .. I have no proof .. but they're true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knarf

You are right, it’s “both Using less power because we are producing less wpuld be bad, but compare the increased use of highly “refined” power of a laser vs a steam engine, and what can be done with it. Conserving resources through higher efficiency is good, and a “conservative” value, after all.

3 posted on 01/29/2014 10:20:35 AM PST by bigbob (The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly. Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: knarf

Here in Washington state, we have vast capacity to produce electricity because of our many rivers. But the green lobby somehow got hydroelectric power excluded as being green even though the rivers and dams are very clean producers.

The enviros are constantly attacking the dams, wanting them torn down. Instead we have a lot of windmills which produce expensive power and chop up birds.

With the polar vortex and all the cold weather throughout the country, it would seem that we would need as much cheap electricity as we can possibly produce.

4 posted on 01/29/2014 10:24:10 AM PST by angry elephant (Endangered species in Seattle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: knarf

Anecdotally, in 2007 I owned an all electric home.

Today I own a home with gas heat and a gas stove. I also have a lot more CFLs in my home (for convienience: I hate changing bulbs and my own personal experience tells me that CFLs do last longer. I know that others’ experience on this varies), and have recently replaced my old washer and dryer with newer energy efficient ones. I imagine therefore that my personal use of electricty has dropped significantly, with some corresponding and offsetting increases in consumption elsewhere (natural gas)

5 posted on 01/29/2014 10:34:16 AM PST by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bigbob; knarf
yep. Mom and Dad always said "Turn off the #$@@@$@#$@ lights!! We don't own stock in the power company!" :-)

I'm in the process of moving over to LEDs. Mostly because I'm not sure for how much longer I'll be able to get the incandescents that I like. But... also because LEDs are supposed to last forever (jury is still out on that one) and run more cost-effectively (that's certainly the case). Nothing eco-whatever in my decision process. Just a desire not to goof around on a stepladder any more than necessary, and save a few bucks while I'm at it....

But I think that Knarf was on to something with the "we're using less, so we're producing less". There's an awful lot of buildings sitting empty in my neck of the woods. Lots more manufacturing and retail-related empty property, as well.

6 posted on 01/29/2014 10:35:16 AM PST by wbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: knarf

Some significant part of this is better efficiencies.

In industrial facilities, I am seeing more LED lighting. More efficient use of motor power from VFD’s instead of choking a pump flow with a valves.

Most of the decrease is in the industrial sector’s consumption.

7 posted on 01/29/2014 10:49:25 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Anyone who makes the claim that capitalism requires that there be an ever-expanding population base in order to succeed is stating that capitalism is a Ponzi scheme.

Capitalism is not a Ponzi scheme. It does not require an ever-expanding population.

8 posted on 01/29/2014 10:53:26 AM PST by who_would_fardels_bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
“a world of zero net physical growth” was something that “needs to be faced up to eventually.”

That's like a chilling line from a Science Fiction novel where technology is disappearing and a New World Order comes along to form a dibble stick, hunter gatherer, soylent green dystopia with a Holnist guy like the movie The Postman running things.

9 posted on 01/29/2014 10:56:20 AM PST by PATRIOT1876
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wbill

Our church relamped with LED’s. The energy saving has been quite dramatic (I’m told close to 80%!)

In a related item, a wind turbine factory about an hour from here is closing up shop.

10 posted on 01/29/2014 11:20:52 AM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog
Yeah, LEDs are expensive on the front end. However, I calculated that I'll recoup the expense in under 2 years.

And, I'll not need to diddle around on a ladder as much. "Lack of Hassle" is worth a fair bit, too. :-)

11 posted on 01/30/2014 6:40:15 AM PST by wbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson