High Energy, your love is lifting me.....

Sun Aug 26 07:52:41 -0700 2007
manage
I'll pick the USA, partly because it is an easy place to find numbers for, partly because traditionally where the USA is today we will be in 2 or 3 years, partly because it is easy to relate to.

Total USA Primary Energy Consumption is of the order of 100 Quadrillion Btu per annum, and growing.

100 Quadrillion = 100,000,000,000,000,000 Btu per annum.

Given a population of 300,000,000 this works out at 333,333,333 or one third of a billion Btu per capita per annum.

The Btu, or British Thermal Unit, is the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of one pound of (fresh) water by one degree Fahrenheit.

The Fahrenheit scale has 180 degree from freezing to boiling, so, excluding latent heats of vapourisation and solidification that gives us 333,333,333 / 180 = 1,851,851.85 pounds of water raised from just above freezing to just below boiling, per capita, per annum.

1,851,852 lbs / 8.34 (lbs per gallon) = 220,044 gallons, or about 1/3rd of an Olympic sized swimming pool.

So to put it another way, total USA primary energy consumption is equivalent to heating from nearly freezing to nearly boiling, 100,000,000 Olympic sized swimming pools.

365 days in a year x 24 hour day = 8,760 hours in a year, x 60 = 525,600 minutes in a year, x 60 = 31,536,000 seconds in a year.

So total USA primary energy consumption is equivalent to heating three Olympic sized swimming pools from just above freezing to just below boiling EVERY SECOND.

Since energy = standard of living, and there are 6.6 billion human beings on the planet, the USA contains 1 in 22 humans, so for the whole world to enjoy a USA standard of living that is an energy equivalent of 66 Olympic sized swimming pools from just above freezing to just below boiling per second.

The average domestic kettle holds half a gallon, so if all 300 million USAians, men women and children, each fill a kettle with freezing water and simultaneously turn it on that is 150 million gallons, or about 231 Olympic swimming pools (648,000 gallons per Olympic pool), about 77 second worth of total primary energy consumption, except we all know that a kettle filled completely with ice cold water will take several minutes to come to the boil.

So let's go back and look at that 333,333,333 Btu per person per annum another way.

333,333,333 / 31,536,000 seconds in a year gives us about 10 Btu per person per second, that is a nice figure to juggle with in our heads, just remember this is a constant 24 hour a day, 365 day a year rate.

1 Btu = about 1,055 Joules, and 1 kWh = approx 3,600,000 Joules (per hour), or 1,000 Joules per second, so 1 Btu per second = about the same as 1 kWh, so our mean USAian 10 Btu per person per second also works out to about the equivalent of 10 kWh, eg ten 1 bar electric fires on 24/7.

Of course normally we buy energy in various forms, petroleum / gasoline or diesel by the gallon or litre, electricity by the kWh, natural gas by the cubic metre, bottle gas by weight, and so on, so it is harder to compare, but generally speaking if you do the comparisons, and exclude things like taxes and subsidies, all these different forms of energy cost about the same when you settle on a standard monetary unit and a standard energy unit.

Yes, there is some variation, but it is mainly based upon suitability for various applications, diesel makes a much better way of re-energising a vehicle than electricity, because of the relative storage methods available, conductor limits, etc etc.

So bottom line is all forms of energy cost approximately the same, when reduced to the same units of money and energy.

This is fairly obvious, if one form of energy was significantly cheaper than others, it would represent a wasted opportunity for profit...

So, if we take a ballpark figure of 20 US Cents per kWh, and a mean primary energy consumption rate of 10 kWh, we come up with a number of US$ 2.00 per person per hour, or a shade under 50 bucks per day, or 350 bucks US per week.

The great thing about global capitalism is that you can defer a great deal of that cost away from the US citizen, and place it on the shoulders of Johnny foreigner, doesn't matter who or were, as long as it ain't "Here".

This is known in business as "externalisation" (spell with a "zee" if you prefer) (look it up) and it is a FUNDAMENTAL principle of the business as an entity.

Do it right and you can externalise(ze) maybe 50% of the cost, so 10 cents per kWh, or about 25 US bucks per person per day.

US$ 175.00 per person per week, or US$ 9,100 per person per annum, is the minimum cost of living that you get left with, this is the "bottom line", the poverty line. (don't confuse food as being separate to this, food is energy, takes energy to produce and ship, and is inherently in the equation somewhere)

This is a frighteningly accurate way of analysing a society, a civilisation, an economy, it says that under the current externalising socio/political/ecomonic regime the wheels fall off at US$ 175 per person per week.

Tweak the equation by bringing home some of those externalised costs or god forbid, an actual global shortage of available energy, and the point at which the wheels fall off when measured in US$ per person per week increases, maybe to 250, or 350, or more.

When the wheels fall off it is a "tipping point", the classic example is the bucket with a hole in it, the complex explanation is that as it leaks when carried from point A to point B, there comes a distance along that line where it is no longer possible to sustain the losses, the simple explanation is the bucket being filled from a tap, once the leak exceeds that taps ability to replenish the losses, the level drops, period, end of story, game over.

Anything you want to know about foreign policy, fiscal policy, or any other policy can be explained thus.

It is all about the equations and costs of energy, per person, per second, and how much of that cost you can externalise, and how long for.

Syntropy

Sun Aug 26 09:34:50 -0700 2007
manage
Since energy is conserved, shouldn't you be talking about entropy or syntropy (negentropy).
High Energy, your love is lifting me.....
Sun Aug 26 09:48:47 -0700 2007
manage
I won't refute what you say here.

I will say that it seems strange/annoying/sad that China is determined to repeat the last 150 years of Western civilization, mistakes and all, except for Democracy, in the next 20 years.  One would have hoped that they would have learned at least a little from our mistakes and take a better path, since they don't have the baggage and infrastructure to un-learn and remove.  Perhaps they think "Democracy" was our biggest mistake.  Their bad.

There's all of this mythos about "Chinese Wisdom" and such.  That doesn't quite square with the corruption, adulterated products, and paranoid grip on power that we see.
High Energy, your love is lifting me.....
Mon Aug 27 11:59:39 -0700 2007
manage
There's all of this mythos about "Chinese Wisdom" and such.  That doesn't quite square with the corruption, adulterated products, and paranoid grip on power that we see.

Ancient wisdom vs. modern stupidity is mostly a selection bias for any society. Over the years we tend to remember the few wise thoughs and wise people and forget the stupidity that they were surrounded by. Kinda like we remember the U.S. being the first to put men on the moon and forget that the politicians only supported the effort as part of a pissing contest with the USSR.
High Energy, your love is lifting me.....
Mon Aug 27 15:00:53 -0700 2007
manage
the mythos was about an era over a thousand years ago.     As far as power and wealth building, what China is doing is working (and yeah, their government and system sucks)
High Energy, your love is lifting me.....
Tue Aug 28 03:49:59 -0700 2007
manage
But if we're going to sit here and say that our system is unsustainable in the long run without significant change, then what China is doing is unsustainable too, and given 5X the people, the long run starts looking like 1/5 the time.

Part of my point was that enough of us know of some of our wrong turns that, starting from scratch, we'd never have built everything the way we've done it.  China is replicating our mistakes, and hasn't picked up our learning.
High Energy, your love is lifting me.....
Sun Aug 26 09:52:09 -0700 2007
manage
1 Btu = about 1,055 Joules, and 1 kWh = approx 3,600,000 Joules (per hour), or 1,000 Joules per second, so 1 Btu per second = about the same as 1 kWh, so our mean USAian 10 Btu per person per second also works out to about the equivalent of 10 kWh, eg ten 1 bar electric fires on 24/7.

No, 1 kWh = approx 3,600,000 Joules. There is no "per hour". 1 kW = 1,000 Joules per second. Btu per second cannot be compared to kWh, the units don't match. 1 Btu per second will be about the same as 1 kW.

So, if we take a ballpark figure of 20 US Cents per kWh, and a mean primary energy consumption rate of 10 kWh, we come up with a number of US$ 2.00 per person per hour

That should be "energy consumption rate of 10 kW".

High Energy, your love is lifting me.....
Sun Aug 26 11:11:56 -0700 2007
manage
$0.20 per kilowatt for primary energy? Are you nuts. Primary - not electrical? You are off by an order of magnitude...

Maybe Some Major Externalization Coming (now there's some PHB talk)

Sun Aug 26 14:08:30 -0700 2007
manage
Couple the desire of Bush admin to classify Iran's Republican Guard as terrorist organization, and the recent arrival of U.S. aircraft carrier to Persian Gulf, and perhaps one could infer some "Major Externalization of Cost" is in the works (translation:  kill and steal some other guy's shit)

Now in a perfect world, I'd be all for vaporizing the current government of Iran and setting up a system where the wealth of that country benefits and invests in the people.....but that's not how we've been doing business and that's not what's going to happen
High Energy, your love is lifting me.....
Mon Aug 27 09:32:44 -0700 2007
manage

I don't think we're externalizing the costs.  You'd say that $4.37/hr/person is a good living wage by your numbers- but I see it as needing to be close to twice that, about $10/hr +-$7/hr depending on how urban you are.  I think your 50% externalization of costs is not accurate.

In other words, I can believe $350/person/week being the minimum cost of the United State's standard of living.  I can't believe $175/person/week  based on my experience as an adult in the United States.  There may be some very small towns in the midwest that are so, but then again standard of living cost ranges in the United States quite a bit.

High Energy, your love is lifting me.....
Mon Aug 27 13:51:03 -0700 2007
manage
how many in your family, he's saying for every man, woman, baby, child
High Energy, your love is lifting me.....
Tue Aug 28 07:37:31 -0700 2007
manage
3 at the moment.  That would be $1050/week, about $4200/month- which is what I'm making and we're just barely positive enough to dig ourselves slowly out of debt, not positive enough to actually repair the house or have a savings account.

That's why I say $175/person/week is too low.

But I'm well aware that standard of living is drastically different- my salary would barely pay rent in Manhattan, and that $175/week would be relative comfort in say, Condon, OR.
High Energy, your love is lifting me.....
Mon Aug 27 15:21:42 -0700 2007
manage
In other words, I can believe $350/person/week being the minimum cost of the United State's standard of living.

He's also talking about sustenance level, not being able to live up to a high standard of living.

$175/person is pretty low but you could live decent on that, wouldn't have to get your dinners out of dumpsters or anything. Its all skewed by government subsidized housing and stuff like that so the real income level is probably closer to your $350 figure for people on the poverty line.

I don't think we're externalizing the costs.

Isn't that the running debate, we are exporting the true costs of our lifestyle to other countries? Whatever standard you use -- co2, energy, environmental destruction -- its all getting pushed out of the 1st world countries into the less developed ones. Europe is probably more guilty of it than the US because of their extremely high energy costs, they need it a lot more than we do. Not to mention the taxes...
High Energy, your love is lifting me.....
Tue Aug 28 15:17:37 -0700 2007
manage

He's also talking about sustenance level, not being able to live up to a high standard of living.

True- and I'm also thinking of a state where a studio apartment's rent is around 3x the wages at $175/week.


$175/person is pretty low but you could live decent on that, wouldn't have to get your dinners out of dumpsters or anything. Its all skewed by government subsidized housing and stuff like that so the real income level is probably closer to your $350 figure for people on the poverty line.

In Portland, HUD Studio Apartments go for $600/month.  But then again, I'm quite aware that there are lower standards of living elsewhere in the country- there may well be a place where $175/person will allow you to live decently.

 

High Energy, and why it should not matter

Tue Aug 28 04:37:55 -0700 2007
manage

Just read a book on current energy (in dutch so I won't bother linking), and the author had the nice observation that countries used to (and still do) measure their wealth in their energy consumption. However, it is not the amount of energy that is consumed, but the way that it is used, it is efficiency that determines wealth. One of his examples was the aboriginal way of hunting, namely setting a plain on fire and catching the fleeing animals, which is a VERY energy-intensive method with only little result, they used as much energy per capita in that way as the average European does nowadays.

Therefore, if China would increase its wealth standard to normal American levels in a more efficient way, they will be the long-term winners. Increasing efficiency in the US would maintain the status quo for the US citizen while decreasing his use of energy, resulting in postponing or even avoiding the dreaded "Tipping point". However, he also noted that usually more efficient means only result in a greater use of energy, because the result-per-energy is greater, so the energy is cheaper, and more applications for energy become economically available/viable. If it is done during a simultaneous rise in energy costs, that should/would not happen. Probably.