Map Of US States Compares Energy Use With Foreign Countries

CreepyUncleGoogle said:
No, not at all. I've seen it myself and it's utterly disgusting to watch. Yeah, there's some of that kinda mindset in other parts of the US and it's pretty awful to see how far and wide it's spread, but I think Texas is sort of a focal point for it because other states, like say Pennsylvania with a substantial number of people who speak with their own weird redneck patterns and live around fields covered in cow poop, have major cities with infrastructure, access to basic medicine (rather than fear of it as a source of government control like Texans do with immunizations) and educational institutions that teach the wealthy who then influence lower class society through their social improvement programs and by simply being good role models for the alcoholics, gun owners, and illegal drug users out there.
Click to expand...

Wow, you're thoroughly indoctrinated huh?

I love how leftist bigots can use racially specific slurs like "redneck" and direct hatred and contempt towards Americans that live in rural areas.

Hey CreepyUncle, since "Redneck" is an acceptable slur, what can we call those housing project dwelling 5th generation welfare mothers with 6 kids by 4 men who've never worked in their lives? You know, other than the Democrat base?
 
GlowingGhoul said:
Wow, you're thoroughly indoctrinated huh?

I love how leftist bigots can use racially specific slurs like "redneck" and direct hatred and contempt towards Americans that live in rural areas.

Hey CreepyUncle, since "Redneck" is an acceptable slur, what can we call those housing project dwelling 5th generation welfare mothers with 6 kids by 4 men who've never worked in their lives? You know, other than the Democrat base?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't do political parties. Those things just let sub-normal people argue and call each other silly names based on some kinda poorly conceived notion of the effectiveness of having a bi-polar pair of representative groups that assume that everything in the world is an this-or-that, either-or sort of thing without considering a range of possible solutions. Looking at the world through that lens just gives someone a distorted view with exceptionally limited options and a tendency to presume that everyone is part of the same mindless system.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
Sorry, I don't do political parties. Those things just let sub-normal people argue and call each other silly names based on some kinda poorly conceived notion of the effectiveness of having a bi-polar pair of representative groups that assume that everything in the world is an this-or-that, either-or sort of thing without considering a range of possible solutions. Looking at the world through that lens just gives someone a distorted view with exceptionally limited options and a tendency to presume that everyone is part of the same mindless system.
Click to expand...

How I now view CUG:
maxresdefault.jpg


I'M NOT PART OF YOUR SYSTEM!
 
mavrocket said:
The sheer amount of self-loathing in this thread is pathetic.

God forbid we live like kings because of the sacrifices of our fathers, their fathers and their father's fathers... and of course mothers too.

You guys/gals/its that live here in the greatest damn country on God's Green Earth are complaining about using so much energy need to realize just how good you've got it and stop complaining, or move out and come to regret it.
Click to expand...

It's self loathing to think that, as other nation's begin to become more wealthy and seek a similar lifestyle, that perhaps it isn't sustainable on a global level? That perhaps, for the benefit of future generations of humanity, we don't just pig out at the trough? But I guess that's self loathing.

Methadras said:
Why is this even a legitimate discussion? You cannot have a standard of living and the way of life we have in the US without this level of energy production and consumption. Do people not fucking get that through their thick fucking SJW skulls? Fuck.
Click to expand...

Not just self loathing, but you must be a SJW if you advocate for efficiency. Interestingly enough, not in electricity but water usage in California, for personal use, is now nearly the same as it was about 20 years ago, with millions more people, and living standards aren't changed.

GlowingGhoul said:
Wow, you're thoroughly indoctrinated huh?

I love how leftist bigots can use racially specific slurs like "redneck" and direct hatred and contempt towards Americans that live in rural areas.

Hey CreepyUncle, since "Redneck" is an acceptable slur, what can we call those housing project dwelling 5th generation welfare mothers with 6 kids by 4 men who've never worked in their lives? You know, other than the Democrat base?
Click to expand...

Wow, really can't resist any opportunity to hint that you're so oppressed since you can't say the n-word, you poor thing. Unless of course you're referring to a different redneck family than CUG.
 
TwistedAegis said:
It's self loathing to think that, as other nation's begin to become more wealthy and seek a similar lifestyle, that perhaps it isn't sustainable on a global level? That perhaps, for the benefit of future generations of humanity, we don't just pig out at the trough? But I guess that's self loathing.
Click to expand...

What's not sustainable about our energy lifestyle?

1: The current primary means of generation.

With nuclear power, we basically have plenty of energy for EVERYONE.

What REALLY needs to happen is an upgrade and unification of various power grids to take advantage of various power sources and more efficiently move power from place to place.


But hey, if you wanna go back to shivering in a cave, feel free to volunteer.


Wow, really can't resist any opportunity to hint that you're so oppressed since you can't say the n-word, you poor thing. Unless of course you're referring to a different redneck family than CUG.
Click to expand...

Hey, it's not as if the person was the one who started in on the stupid, insulting stereotypes.

But hey, continue flapping your yap Mr. Internet Toughguy.
 
Chas said:
What's not sustainable about our energy lifestyle?

1: The current primary means of generation.

With nuclear power, we basically have plenty of energy for EVERYONE.

What REALLY needs to happen is an upgrade and unification of various power grids to take advantage of various power sources and more efficiently move power from place to place.


But hey, if you wanna go back to shivering in a cave, feel free to volunteer.

Hey, it's not as if the person was the one who started in on the stupid, insulting stereotypes.

But hey, continue flapping your yap Mr. Internet Toughguy.
Click to expand...

Bold points response
1.) It comes from carbon-based sources. And is, in many cases, pretty darn wasteful (i.e. we can enjoy the same/more comforts at lower energy costs). Fortunately, we're moving in the right direction. Hopefully that will continue. (Unfortunately building size/capita still keeps going up). Making energy improvements is generally short-term expensive, which means not many will take it up unless forced to do so (then we get into all the anti-government verbiage).
2.) Nuclear is not cheap, even if plentiful. Especially when all the exernalities are included (mining/waste). Then again, if we costed carbon-based sources on their externalities, they wouldn't be cheap either. Agreed that we'd do well to move towards *more* nuclear.
3.) Sure, yes, this would help a lot. Still not a panacea.

We would all do well to turn up and down our AC and furnaces respective set points, migrate into smaller buildings and generally live closer to our places of work. These points apply to both home and work.

Yes, I expect Texas to have higher energy consumption/capita than milder parts of the country/world, but also because of the energy/petrochemical industry there. That's not to say it cannot be done better.
 
Derfnofred said:
2.) Nuclear is not cheap, even if plentiful. Especially when all the exernalities are included (mining/waste). Then again, if we costed carbon-based sources on their externalities, they wouldn't be cheap either. Agreed that we'd do well to move towards *more* nuclear.
Click to expand...

Actually, the price of nuclear is more due to the insane regulatory and insurance hurdles forced on the industry at this point. Mostly by people/organizations ignorant of the actual science and engineering involved.

Additionally, the artificially low prices of oil/coal/etc have someone skewed the notion of "cheap".

Moreover, the price of nuclear is skewed by the fact that there's almost no economy of scale involved whatsoever.

Building a singular reactor site is like building a car by hand. The setup and tooling is generally all absorbed by the site being built.

Mass production/implementation would introduce cost savings. Because the setup and tooling could be spread among multiple sites. Additionally, further scale savings can be realized down-stream.
 
Oh one thing I forgot to mention.

You're worried about the mining costs and the environmental impacts thereof.

That's one of the beauties of Thorium reactors. US Rare Earths mining is essentially moribund right now. Why? Because where you find rare earths, you generally also find large quantities of Thorium, uranium, etc. For some reason, if left in the ground, it is "okay". But if you mine it up, it suddenly becomes "toxic waste".

As such, most rare earths mining has moved to China, as they don't give a shit about the environment.

Moving off to a Thorium reactor system would help jump-start US rare earth mining, and the tailings from even a moderately sized mine could provide ENORMOUS amounts of fuel for the power industry.

The economic benefits could easily offset, or at least reduce the costs of fuel extraction, as it's actually a byproduct of other mining interests.
 
GlowingGhoul said:
Yeah, energy consumption in Germany vs the US is "way, WAAAY lower". Of course, that's simply not true but it suits the "truth" you "feel" so I suppose I shouldn't challenge your America bashing.

The US uses less energy per person than Luxembourg, Iceland, or Canada, for instance. When you factor in the FAR greater distances that are necessarily traveled in a much larger and less densely populated country and the need to provide cooling in regions far hotter than anything in Germany and the difference in per capita usage evaporates.

Again though, please don't let any of this interfere with your strident ignorance, I wouldn't want you to be unhappy by forcing you to face the facts in context, and not some cherry picked statistics for the sake of dramatic effect.
Click to expand...

So where are you getting your facts from then? Nothing I have read shows Germany having a higher energy usage per capita than the US...

Also I was not bashing the US in the slightest, but I WAS bashing the statement that it is not possible to reduce energy consumption and maintain the standard of living. The US has actually been on a very impressive downward trend in terms of energy usage. When I say that there is a cultural and attitude difference between the two countries, that's not US-bashing, it's just a statement of my own observations.

Regarding your statement regarding cooling etc... things also tend to balance out quite nicely in many ways because in Germany as opposed to, say, Texas, they need to heat a lot in winter... additionally in Germany it just isn't such an A/C culture, even if the summers can get very hot to the point where most in the US wouldn't consider getting by without A/C. They just don't like it very much for health reasons.

Iceland is a terrible example by the way because despite the very low population they have a lot of very high energy consumption industry (most of the Nordic countries actually are similar in this way), such as aluminium smelting. However all of this energy usage in Iceland typically comes from geothermal/hydro sources also, so is clean.

I have no idea what the hell is going on in Luxembourg... :D
 
cybrsage said:
Europe is a continent, not a country. Europe contains a LOT of countries in it, some of which have smaller populations than some US cities have.
Click to expand...

this post was already as 7 pages when I read that comment. I'm surprised it took until page 2 for someone to point that out :confused:

Anyway, look at the population density, industry and commercial activity in these numbers too. states like Texas have data centers, military complex, high population and weather extremes so yeah, they use a lot of energy.
 
We have the largest GDP.

We consume more energy because we do more. Residential consumption of power (our "extravagant" lifestyle) is a minority portion of the total anyway we use far more energy in our workplaces than home.

Caryl1.gif
 
Chas said:
What's not sustainable about our energy lifestyle?

1: The current primary means of generation.

With nuclear power, we basically have plenty of energy for EVERYONE.

What REALLY needs to happen is an upgrade and unification of various power grids to take advantage of various power sources and more efficiently move power from place to place.


But hey, if you wanna go back to shivering in a cave, feel free to volunteer.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with expanding nuclear power. But the hyperbole of, "OMG, cutting back our power usage by 1% = going back to shivering in a cave, I'm not giving up muh freedoms!" doesn't help any of these arguments.

Further, the energy usage is only one part of the unsustainable lifestyle. Currently, developed countries consume 60% of the world's industrial raw materials while composing 22% of the world's population - how does that scale?

And Americans, as a nation, generate more waste than any other nation in the world with 4.5 pounds of municipal solid waste per person, per day. Again, how does that scale?

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/06/daily-chart-3

Chas said:
Hey, it's not as if the person was the one who started in on the stupid, insulting stereotypes.

But hey, continue flapping your yap Mr. Internet Toughguy.
Click to expand...

Yes, those horrible insulting stereotypes invoking years and years of legal, government backed repression of the redneck people, I can imagine the mental trauma that word invokes.

I think you're projecting.
 
Chas said:
Oh one thing I forgot to mention.

That's one of the beauties of Thorium reactors. US Rare Earths mining is essentially moribund right now. Why? Because where you find rare earths, you generally also find large quantities of Thorium, uranium, etc. For some reason, if left in the ground, it is "okay". But if you mine it up, it suddenly becomes "toxic waste".
Click to expand...

So we are all sitting on toxic waste death traps? What we need is to mine the hell out this thorium like a cancerous lump and get it into a nice safe giant egg dome of concrete?
 
TwistedAegis said:
I don't disagree with expanding nuclear power. But the hyperbole of, "OMG, cutting back our power usage by 1% = going back to shivering in a cave, I'm not giving up muh freedoms!" doesn't help any of these arguments.
Click to expand...

No more than suggesting cutting back without first actually understanding exactly where the power being used goes.

Yes, those horrible insulting stereotypes invoking years and years of legal, government backed repression of the redneck people, I can imagine the mental trauma that word invokes.

I think you're projecting.
Click to expand...

And you're trolling.

Is it fun? Hmm? Are you enjoying it?
 
sliverjazz said:
So we are all sitting on toxic waste death traps? What we need is to mine the hell out this thorium like a cancerous lump and get it into a nice safe giant egg dome of concrete?
Click to expand...

3q5hx4.jpg


So where do you suggest we dome over for this?

Africa (not the country with "south" in the title, the CONTINENT)?

There's something in the neighborhood of sixteen MILLION tons of the stuff. And that's just the pure Thorium.
 
TwistedAegis said:
Per Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, we're only at about 40% efficiency in our energy usage.
Click to expand...
The wasted energy comes from thermodynamics; burning fossil fuel and nuclear heating can generate X amount of heat; but only part of that heat can be converted into useful work or electricity.
 
Right, it isn't necessarily the same type of efficiency stated above; that being said, efficiency gains continue to be found there, such as solar efficiency, MPG increases, etc.
 
Chas said:
Actually, the price of nuclear is more due to the insane regulatory and insurance hurdles forced on the industry at this point. Mostly by people/organizations ignorant of the actual science and engineering involved.

Additionally, the artificially low prices of oil/coal/etc have someone skewed the notion of "cheap".

Moreover, the price of nuclear is skewed by the fact that there's almost no economy of scale involved whatsoever.

Building a singular reactor site is like building a car by hand. The setup and tooling is generally all absorbed by the site being built.

Mass production/implementation would introduce cost savings. Because the setup and tooling could be spread among multiple sites. Additionally, further scale savings can be realized down-stream.
Click to expand...

- Nearly half my aunts/uncles work or have retired from working at nuclear sites (one of which does consulting on a thorium reactor project--cool stuff from what he's been able to describe!) and I have a little more engineering background than the average schmuck (having worked at one of the places recently linked to). :) Whether we like it or not, the regulatory landscape around nuclear power is very restrictive and the populous are scared-to-death of the whole field.

- And, yes, as I said, hydrocarbon-based sources *should* be much more expensive, but are held in an artificial market. (And their environmental externalities are not appropriately assessed to them, either)

I really do want nuclear to become a much bigger portion of our energy landscape, but these two things do make it tough to move forward in a realistic fashion before any sorts of economy of scale can be realized. You may be "blue skying" but it's probably best to temper that with a bit of reality. In any case, energy should be much more expensive, which would make non-hydrocarbon-based technologies (nuclear, among others) much, much more viable. That's a conversation we have been otherwise unwilling to have on a global, much less national stage.
 
SLee said:
The wasted energy comes from thermodynamics; burning fossil fuel and nuclear heating can generate X amount of heat; but only part of that heat can be converted into useful work or electricity.
Click to expand...

Shhh....stop trying to tell people that Carnot Engines are not actually possible...
 
Derfnofred said:
In any case, energy should be much more expensive, which would make non-hydrocarbon-based technologies (nuclear, among others) much, much more viable. That's a conversation we have been otherwise unwilling to have on a global, much less national stage.
Click to expand...

It is this crazy thinking that causes economic collapse. An increase in the price of gasoline, for example, causes an increase in the price of EVERYTHING, which includes food. Raising the price of electricity, as you suggest, would also increase the price of EVRYTHING.

The poor have a hard enough time as it is without people like you trying to make it even harder on them.
 
Twisted Kidney said:
The issue is not the energy we consume but how we produce it.

All the money we spend trying to make scientists shut up and go away could be used to fund energy research.
Click to expand...

Just like all the money used trying to pursecute energy companies could better be used ..... by the people it was taken from, like parents and their children's via their education loans.
 
Derfnofred said:
Yep let's just kick the can down the road. Let someone else deal with our problems.
Click to expand...

Ah, the old "I am going to throw a temper tantrum when someone does not agree with my idiotic statement" reply. Nicely done, you should keep doing it, play to your strengths!

Seriously, your plan is to harm the poor and decimate an economy to fix the wrong part of a problem and then wonder why people think it is idiotic? The problem is NOT the amount of energy used, but the use of energy sources that harm the environment and are not renewable.

I realize you think that doing something which does not harm the poor means nothing is being done, but thankfully you are in the small minority of people who believe this. Yes, I know, it is in vogue to want to destroy the economy of the US, but that is also a rather stupid idea. Even the nations who are our enemies do not want our economy destroyed, they know it will crush the world economy at the same time. About the only groups who want the US economy destroyed are terrorists and idiots...which group do you fall into?

The solution is to reduce the administrative burden of creating alternative power sources, such as nuclear. As earlier stated Thorium reactors are amazing beasts. They are very clean very safe, and very cheap (if you remove the ocean of red tape currently dumped onto any company wanting to build a nuclear power plant). Carbon footprint goes down, greenhouse gasses are reduced, Al Gore can keep his 5 houses and private jet, and hippies will be able to pick flowers and sing drug induced songs of happiness and love.

Raising the cost of electricity significantly means there will still be tons of carbon dumped into the environment, greenhouse gasses are not reduced, Al Gore has to sell some of his 5 houses, and hippies will have to choose between heating their house and buying their drugs - so no more songs of happiness and love. Why will the carbon and the greenhouse gasses not be reduced? Simple, residential usage of electricity is very small compared to business use - and businesses will not reduce their use, they will simply increase their prices. You accomplish nothing but do succeed in causing harm to everyone who is not rich enough to weather your storm.

Please, since you do not care at all about the poor, think of the hippies and Al Gore and stop recommending stupid things like you did.
 
temujin987 said:
i have no idea what they teach in US schools...
Click to expand...

In many conservative states, laws were passed to push creationism and that the Earth is 6,000 years old, not real, hard science. Thank you GOP and the hicks that voted them in for sending our youth's viewpoints back to the dark ages.

I used to think America was great as a kid. Now I facepalm every time I read the news about something here.
 
Derfnofred said:
Yep let's just kick the can down the road. Let someone else deal with our problems.
Click to expand...

That attitude will make our home uninhabitable and render our race extinct. No BS. Let's find an alternate home before we completely trash this one first, mmkay?
 
cybrsage said:
It is this crazy thinking that causes economic collapse. An increase in the price of gasoline, for example, causes an increase in the price of EVERYTHING, which includes food. Raising the price of electricity, as you suggest, would also increase the price of EVERYTHING.

The poor have a hard enough time as it is without people like you trying to make it even harder on them.
Click to expand...

Some people can not grasp that concept.
The cost of energy, labor, insurance and healthcare keeps going up and up.
More jobs will go away and the poor and the middle class will be hurt.
We need cheaper electric and it can be done right now. The U.S.A has a couple hunfred years of natural gas right here under our feet. Use it to power the power plants and run our auto fleet. Let the 18 wheelers run of LNG or propane, create jobs running new gas lines. Bring more NG to the North East to help lower the use of fuel oil.
Nat gas burns very clean and we have a shipload of it.
Let the government extract it from federal and sell it on the market and fair market value.
We can then use that money to help pay down the debt and lower taxes and pay for healthcare.
 
cybrsage, I think you took my point *too* literally--thus building up a strawman argument and a proper pyre for him. My point is far more moderate (which I think I made clear in my other posts?). There's a happy medium between assuming *all* pain *all* NOW and doing nothing because (insert deity of choice here) forbid, we might rock the boat. The boat needs rocking.

Quality of life, across the board, has never in the history of this planet been higher. Seriously. Indulge me this video if you can, and you might appreciate far, far more clearly where I'm coming from.

http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_and_the_magic_washing_machine?language=en

* The court of public opinion with all things nuclear, *especially* after Fukushima, is a much, much, much bigger hurdle than administrative burden. Nor is nuclear an out-and-out solution, but should be a valuable cog in a greater energy machine. This stuff is hard, let's just acknowledge that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top