"I take it that George Bush and Al Gores houses will not be that far apart in total energy consumption."
Just to clarify, do you mean grid energy consumption? Unless I read incorrectly, George Bush's Crawford ranch house is twice as small as Al Gore's house. Does that not matter much in terms of total consumption?
I believe Bush owns a huge home in Dallas, and it seems obvious that the ranch was a PR vehicle, so I doubt his combined personal energy footprint is worth talking about, but based on the article above his Crawford ranch is impressive.
> No idea where you got that figure - you're off by a factor of four
From facts, yes. Forgot where I recently saw it, but it was in the amount of energy a datacentre in the South burns. Work backwards from the PR stats, and you get a moderately-large American house’s energy footprint.
> Although Carter’s used solar panels have been dispersed throughout the world, solar panels returned to the White House grounds under President George W. Bush.
> In 2003, Bush quietly installed a 9 kW solar system on the grounds maintenance building. He also installed two solar thermal systems to supply electricity to the White House, one to heat the spa and one to heat the pool.
(I assume "electricity" is a typo in the last sentence and they just help to heat the water, but not sure).
The poster here then praises him for doing similar on his own property because doing the sensible and cheapest thing is an act of political bravery apparently.
> so everyone lives in a house in an American suburb
How about we get started on those and see how we go? You can also put solar panels on the roofs of appartment blocks and the distributed cost and maintenance gets even mroe compelling even if you dont generate 100% of the usage.
> It’s easy to assume people want to use endless amounts of energy, but consider once your AC gets things to a comfortable temperature lowering below that isn’t a benefit.
We invent new ways to consume power every day: video games, bitcoin, air sanitizer, food delivery...
> Hauling mangos long distances isn’t an inherent advantage from the trip, it simply allows them to be grown in a more efficient location
That's a good example: before, you just didn't eat mango if it didn't grow next to you, unless you had a lot of money.
> It’s easy to see a trend like people buying larger homes and assume it can continue forever, but if you look at billionaires you find they eventually find ever larger homes impractical
I consume more than my father, and he consumes more than my grandfather. The later didn't have a fridge when young, me, I can use a plane several times a year.
There is a huge margin between me and a billionnaire, and everybody wants to live like one.
> Curious what makes you think that the overhead and inefficiencies inherent to a million small solar installs is somehow better than a single managed facility benefiting from economy of scale both for maintenance and design.
Location. Deserts are far from people. 80% of people in the US live on the east half of the country (and most of these on the eastern half of that). But even the midpoint is too far from deserts to use energy from it.
> Inefficiency is the ultimate downfall of any individual effort to address climate change.
This is a great summary of the problem with homesteaders and people who want to live off grid. Efficiencies of scale are very real.
I've personally been living off the electric grid for about 2.5 months in my bus with solar and batteries. I've only had to plug into shore power for a few hours once due to a few days of rain. I don't have enough power to run AC 24/7 though which isn't great in 100+ F TX weather.
That's pretty small relative to the extra energy consumption from having to commute farther, and the land that you might live on could be used for solar power regardless of whether you live there.
>...while energy consumption has been growing enormously over the last 10 years.
Unless I am grossly misreading this chart[0], it looks like US energy consumption has been flat since 2000 at ~100 quadrillion BTUs. Which would align with my expectations: more devices tout energy efficiency, switching to LEDs, and just how much entertainment is driven by portable electronics.
> His energy bill amount is not what is staggering, it's his energy usage amount.
I mean, he was overpaying versus standard energy costs by insisting on renewable sources, so the usage can't be staggering and the bill not be.
And your citation show that he's actively taking steps to reduce his energy usage year over year. $640 in 2005 versus $536 in 2006 means he had a >15% year over year reduction in his house's energy bill for a hundred year old house. He's obviously either cutting back actively on energy usage from simply using less, or making investments in his hundred year old house's energy efficiency or (probably) both. Just because he hadn't gotten to the pool yet isn't that big of a deal to me (particularly when he's going out of his way to power that pool usage out of renewable sources).
>When vision was available (Jimmy Carter and solar panels on the White House comes to mind) ...
The panels installed on the White House were not photovoltaic solar panels - they were solar water heater panels.
>...(Regan tearing them down...).
The panels had to be removed due to roof repairs that had to be made. Solar water heaters were probably never a good match for the needs of the west wing. I think the Bush administration added solar water heaters for a pool, which seems more reasonable.
>Also: I live in Texas and have 100% renewable energy
Are you living off the grid, or living on the grid but paying for a "100% renewable" provider? If it's the latter it's likely that you're only being 100% renewable on a net annual basis, and still using non-renewable sources during peak hours. https://energy.stanford.edu/news/100-renewables-doesn-t-equa...
> Building tight, all-electric, with solar will provide a comfortable, clean, long-lasting house, but it will be quite a bit more expensive. Possibly 30%+ more expensive than using standard contractor choices.
Maybe a 30% higher price, but likely a lower cost when you factor in externalities.
False. The US electricity consumption per person has fallen in the last decade. Yet, the grid has revived continuous investments from private companies. It’s the same trend as newspapers, revenue streams require continuous investments and that continues as long as those investments have a net positive result.
It’s easy to assume people want to use endless amounts of energy, but consider once your AC gets things to a comfortable temperature lowering below that isn’t a benefit. People don’t just drive endlessly when they buy cars that use less energy, they have specific places to go and that’s it.
Efficiency doesn’t drive consumption it changes the economic equation. Hauling mangos long distances isn’t an inherent advantage from the trip, it simply allows them to be grown in a more efficient location. But, again once you’re moving them from the perfect farming location there isn’t a reason to make a longer trip after that point.
It’s easy to see a trend like people buying larger homes and assume it can continue forever, but if you look at billionaires you find they eventually find ever larger homes impractical. Rather than simply consuming more resources endlessly wealthy people shift to artificial scarcity.
Just to clarify, do you mean grid energy consumption? Unless I read incorrectly, George Bush's Crawford ranch house is twice as small as Al Gore's house. Does that not matter much in terms of total consumption?
I believe Bush owns a huge home in Dallas, and it seems obvious that the ranch was a PR vehicle, so I doubt his combined personal energy footprint is worth talking about, but based on the article above his Crawford ranch is impressive.
reply