Is America Running Out of Electrical Power? (theweek.com) 267
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Week Magazine: The advancement of new technologies appears to have given rise to a new problem across the United States: a crippling power shortage on the horizon. The advent of these technologies, such as eco-friendly factories and data centers, has renewed concerns that America could run out of electrical power. These worries also come at a time when the United States' aging power grid is in desperate need of repair. Heavily publicized incidents such as the 2021 Texas power outage, which was partially blamed on crypto-farming, exposed how vulnerable the nation's power supply is, especially during emergencies. There have also been warnings from tech moguls such as Elon Musk, who has stated that the United States is primed to run out of electricity and transformers for artificial intelligence in 2025. But the push to extend the life of the nation's power grid, while also maintaining eco-friendly sustainability, begs the question: Is the United States really at risk of going dark?
The emergence of new technologies means demand is soaring for power across the country; in Georgia, "demand for industrial power is surging to record highs, with the projection of electricity use for the next decade now 17 times what it was only recently," Evan Halper said for The Washington Post. Northern Virginia "needs the equivalent of several large nuclear power plants to serve all [its] new data centers," Halper said, while Texas faces a similar problem. This demand is resulting in a "scramble to try to squeeze more juice out of an aging power grid." At the same time, companies are "pushing commercial customers to go to extraordinary lengths to lock down energy sources, such as building their own power plants," Halper said. Much of this relates to the "rapid innovation in artificial intelligence, which is driving the construction of large warehouses of computing infrastructure," Halper said. This infrastructure requires significantly more power than traditional data centers, with the aforementioned crypto farms also sucking up massive amounts of power.
Climate change is also hurting sustainability efforts. A recent report from the North American Electric Reliability Corporation estimated that more than 300 million people in the U.S. and Canada could face power shortages in 2024. It also found that electricity demand is rising faster now than at any time in the past five years. This is partially because the "push for the electrification of heating and transportation systems -- including electric cars -- is also creating new winter peaks in electricity demand," Jeremy Hsu said for New Scientist. One of the main issues with these sustainability efforts is the push to move away from fossil fuels toward renewable power. Natural gas is often seen as a bridge between fossils and renewables, but this has also had unintended consequences for the power grid. The system delivering natural gas "doesn't have to meet the same reliability standards as the electric grid, and in many cases, there's no real way to guarantee that fuel is available for the gas plants in the winter," Thomas Rutigliano of the Natural Resources Defense Council said to New Scientist. As a result, the "North American electricity supply has become practically inseparable from the natural gas supply chain," John Moura of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation said to New Scientist. As such, a "reliable electricity supply that lowers the risk of power outages depends on implementing reliability standards for the natural gas industry moving forward," but this may be easier said than done.
The emergence of new technologies means demand is soaring for power across the country; in Georgia, "demand for industrial power is surging to record highs, with the projection of electricity use for the next decade now 17 times what it was only recently," Evan Halper said for The Washington Post. Northern Virginia "needs the equivalent of several large nuclear power plants to serve all [its] new data centers," Halper said, while Texas faces a similar problem. This demand is resulting in a "scramble to try to squeeze more juice out of an aging power grid." At the same time, companies are "pushing commercial customers to go to extraordinary lengths to lock down energy sources, such as building their own power plants," Halper said. Much of this relates to the "rapid innovation in artificial intelligence, which is driving the construction of large warehouses of computing infrastructure," Halper said. This infrastructure requires significantly more power than traditional data centers, with the aforementioned crypto farms also sucking up massive amounts of power.
Climate change is also hurting sustainability efforts. A recent report from the North American Electric Reliability Corporation estimated that more than 300 million people in the U.S. and Canada could face power shortages in 2024. It also found that electricity demand is rising faster now than at any time in the past five years. This is partially because the "push for the electrification of heating and transportation systems -- including electric cars -- is also creating new winter peaks in electricity demand," Jeremy Hsu said for New Scientist. One of the main issues with these sustainability efforts is the push to move away from fossil fuels toward renewable power. Natural gas is often seen as a bridge between fossils and renewables, but this has also had unintended consequences for the power grid. The system delivering natural gas "doesn't have to meet the same reliability standards as the electric grid, and in many cases, there's no real way to guarantee that fuel is available for the gas plants in the winter," Thomas Rutigliano of the Natural Resources Defense Council said to New Scientist. As a result, the "North American electricity supply has become practically inseparable from the natural gas supply chain," John Moura of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation said to New Scientist. As such, a "reliable electricity supply that lowers the risk of power outages depends on implementing reliability standards for the natural gas industry moving forward," but this may be easier said than done.
doubtful (Score:4, Interesting)
Solar is on the rise everywhere, and we've got massive new commercial wind generation in these parts too.
Re:doubtful (Score:5, Funny)
Solar is on the rise everywhere, and we've got massive new commercial wind generation in these parts too.
But what happens when all the light from the Sun is used by solar panels? What happens when all the wind is gone because of wind turbines? What then?!!!!
Re:doubtful (Score:5, Funny)
But what happens when all the light from the Sun is used by solar panels?
At that point, there will be a little ceremony to commemorate the completion of our Dyson sphere.
Re:doubtful (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Solar is on the rise everywhere, and we've got massive new commercial wind generation in these parts too.
But what happens when all the light from the Sun is used by solar panels? What happens when all the wind is gone because of wind turbines? What then?!!!!
We can use flashlights and fans to power them -- the former can be used now to help out at night.
Re: (Score:2)
But what happens when all the light from the Sun is used by solar panels? What happens when all the wind is gone because of wind turbines? What then?!!!!
The global warming stops. Also, hurricanes and tornadoes are no more. Lol.
Science and engineering will dictate timing (Score:3)
Solar is on the rise everywhere, and we've got massive new commercial wind generation in these parts too.
Renewables are now suffering from the political delaying tactics that cause delays and increase costs that have hampered nuclear for so long. Lots of NIMBY going on for renewables now. We have wind projects delayed for decades, some big projects canceled recently due to the increased costs.
Plus, there is the simple reality that renewables will progress on the timescale that science and engineering dictate, not anyone's deepest desires and wishes.
Re: (Score:2)
NIMBY's simply need an incentive to allow such projects.
Free power while the project runs. Take away their bills and see what happens.
Re: (Score:3)
Here in "corn country" Iowa, the farmers are LOVING wind. It wasn't too long ago that farmers were getting propositioned with leasing their land for a cell tower. Now it's wind turbines, and those are A LOT more dense than cell towers. (plus they extend way back from say, highways, where the cell towers tend to congregate)
They lose a little land from the tower base itself, and the access roads to the towers, but it's not a big hit to their crop yield. The money they get for leasing the land more than mak
Re: (Score:2)
Cool, so that covers some demand for a few hours a day and when it's windy.
All during a time when everyone is being told to shed their loads onto off peak hours (which then become peak hours) during the night, so let hope it's BLOODY windy!
Re:doubtful (Score:5, Interesting)
You are probably going to get downvoted, but this is a legitimate issue, at least in some regions. Widespread use of solar has changed the dyamic. If we look at demand net of solar supply, the demand curve has changed in the following ways.
1) The lowest demand is lower. This has pushed baselod generation off grid
2) The rise in demand when the sun goes down is very steep. This creates challenges for the utility. They need to have a lot of generation (or batteries) available that can spool up fairly quickly.
As far as economics go, this means that the rapid spool up generators have to charge pretty high rates. They can't charge the low rates that baseload supply charges. Because many of the costs associated with generation do not depend on how much electricity you sell. There is infrastructure cost that is amortized over time, personnel cost, etc.
All of this has been anticipated for decades. So there was plenty of time to do something about it. But a lot of utilities spent all their effort trying to fight against it instead of figuring out how to make it work.
Re:doubtful (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides building out huge arrays of unobtanium batteries, what do you think they should have done to "make it work"?
Re: (Score:2)
The focus has now moved to residential battery storage - with the obvious target to reduce the huge demand curve that now occurs when the sun is setting, solar generation is waning, and most families
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
- Other forms of storage like pumped hydro.
- Demand shaping to shift demand to when excess energy is available.
- Long distance transmission lines to better match supply to demand.
As for batteries being "unobtainium", in fact grid scale batteries have been in deployment since the late 90s. Before lithium cells went into such massive production, other chemistries like sodium sulphur were used. Additionally, China has been installing large grid scale lithium batteries by ramping up production and recycling aut
Re: (Score:3)
Highly dependant on the terrain supporting that.
Finding suitable terrain isn't a big problem for hydro, because it doesn't have to be near where the energy is consumed. It's like saying that oil is highly dependent on the terrain, and if you don't live near it then you can't drive a petrol car.
most people are not going to go to the logistical nightmare of re-arranging family life to fit around when the sun manages to shine or the wind blows well enough
There is no need to, most of it is automatic. You plug your car in, it's charged in the morning and automatically took advantage of cheap electricity overnight when demand was low. Your thermostat gets a signal from the energy company that power is abundant and dro
Re: (Score:2)
Spain and Germany bet on gas peaker plants.
Re: (Score:2)
This would be an issue if other countries were not far ahead of the USA in both wind and solar penetration and aren't expecting problems with their grid. The reality is changes in demand from wind and solar is an engineering problem, one that the USA has not given adequate consideration to.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a solution to this. Build long distance distribution lines.
Being able to sell power over long distances smooths out the demand curve, and makes traditional generators that can't ramp up and down quickly more viable.
Solar can also be improved to reduce the changes in supply at sunrise and sunset, but placing some of the panels vertically, to catch light when the sun is low in the sky.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a limit to how long a distance you can go before line voltage and stability of the grid is too bad.
You need to build more power stations, nuclear ones. Fast, and quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
China is building HVDC lines that are transmitting megawatts of power thousands of miles. [power-technology.com]
Maybe you can't transmit power from New York to LA, but you can transmit it from North Dakota to the southern tip of Texas. That's a lot of demand smoothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Not directly linked. When demand for electricity rises because of Bitcoin mining and A/C, then you plain and simple need MORE electricity.
Yes, managing the grid is more difficult with variable sources, but far from impossible. (Demand from crypto mining e.g. could be matched to the variable production) It's a solved problem, so there is no reason when new power generation needs to be build, to not have that renewable.
Biggest problem with solar or wind is not having them.
Texas is a freak situation (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Texas is a freak situation (Score:5, Interesting)
where they have intentionally decided to not invest in upgrades or plan for extreme events to keep their power bills among the lowest in the country. So stop comparing things to texas.
It’s a myth [eia.gov] that Texas is the cheapest on average or even on the low end for cost to consumers because they are deregulated. They rank in the middle by state for the cost of power, deregulation means gouging customers for massive fees due to willful incompetence is likely legal and as such will continue [bloomberglaw.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, it's almost like T. Boone Pickens looked at the insane push for wind and solar power going on in the late 90's and early 2000s and helped it along as much as he could all so he could corner the market on the natgas turbines needed to make up for the deficiencies inherent in wind and solar power generation.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that sarcasm or willful ignorance? It wasn't wind or solar that failed a couple years ago during a deadly winter in Texas, but your natgas plants that had lines freeze. A problem that could have easily been prevented, but that would have taken a few pennies out of quarterly dividends, so it wasn't done and people died.
Low taxes and FreeDumb have high costs and consquenses.
It’s worse than that, due to demand going up they used surge pricing to make a years profit in a day. When one plant goes down the local grid redistributes the load among as many customers as possible, getting more money as they do so. When loads peak during events like the above, prices go astronomical. So it’s save on willful negligence of system reliability, then when it breaks make massive profits not possible with sensibly run systems.
Re: (Score:2)
where they have intentionally decided to not invest in upgrades or plan for extreme events to keep their power bills among the lowest in the country. So stop comparing things to texas.
It’s a myth [eia.gov] that Texas is the cheapest on average or even on the low end for cost to consumers because they are deregulated. They rank in the middle by state for the cost of power, deregulation means gouging customers for massive fees due to willful incompetence is likely legal and as such will continue [bloomberglaw.com].
Or reliable, despite the "R" in ERCOT [wikipedia.org]. :-)
(So much so that one winter Ted Cruz had to fly all the way to Cancun to find Texas some electricity during a winter disaster [texastribune.org] when the power was out state-wide.)
Re: (Score:2)
Electricity prices in Spain are down to a bit over â2/MWh due to the massive amount of renewable energy they have. In neighbouring France, where they are mostly nuclear, it is around â67/MWh.
Electricity so cheap that it is almost free is there for the taking. Texas has great solar and wind resources.
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/sp... [bnnbloomberg.ca]
Re:Texas is a freak situation (Score:5, Interesting)
Electricity prices in Spain are down to a bit over â2/MWh due to the massive amount of renewable energy they have. In neighbouring France, where they are mostly nuclear, it is around â67/MWh.
Electricity so cheap that it is almost free is there for the taking. Texas has great solar and wind resources.
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/sp... [bnnbloomberg.ca]
I live in Minnesota and we pay the same as Texas, except one time in my local area we have not had the power go out during an extended period for decades. Surge pricing is illegal here. We have massive ice storms, deal with -20F temperatures, wildfires, have tornados, and high winds delivering power to substantially rural spread out populations yet somehow have a far more reliable grid at the same price. Deregulation does not mean cheaper, it means a lack of customer protections.
Re: (Score:3)
Spain has seven nuclear reactors generating about a fifth of its electricity, so they are using plenty of nuclear in their green strategy. What's kept their prices so low is the Iberian Exception Gas Cap. It looks like they are exporting electricity to France (whose problem is not "too much nuclear", it's "too little electricity") and thus funding their grid at home. So Spain sells off gas destined for power generation cheaply (so France gets to generate more power), and uses that gas money to help subsidiz
Re:Texas is a freak situation (Score:5, Interesting)
Texas power problems are a purely Texas problem. They could follow the rules of the rest of the country and b part of the national grid. But they chose to cut corners and keep things cheap and privatize the profits with absurd surge pricing of electricity. Then complain that solar and wind power don't work in the cold (when they work find in much worse conditions in Canada and Antarctica). But they get what they pay/vote for.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they are. But they also lead the nation in wind and solar investments [kxan.com].
Re: (Score:2)
I'd suggest turning the datacentres off.
If demand is rising higher and higher because we are all addicted to social media and streaming and bitcoin mining, well turn it off and use lower power lifestyles.
I did just find in the 80's and 90's with storage heaters, newspapers, landline phones, no room full of rechargable gadgetry etc. Perfectly happy everyone was. But we got more and more gadgets, and addicted to more and more instant comms over faster and faster internet. We developed more and more power e
We wouldn't be if (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo. I've been saying this for going on 50 years now.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What about permitting worship of greed and the 'free market' to allow minimal service and upgrades resulting in a sub-standard grid so that power company shareholders could get richer than if the jobs were done properly?
The lefties and the righties (American definition, they're both righties to most other places) in the US combined to put it at a national infrastructure disadvantage.
Grid (Score:2)
The US could have the most awesome grid in the world and it wouldn't matter if the power dries up.
Here's a preview.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/1... [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with fission power is largely one of unfavorable economics. I'm sure if it was more profitable to do so, the utility companies would've put a reactor* in every city in America. Take our highway system for example, that kills roughly 43,000 people annually, but we just sort of accept that because the economic benefits of having a highway system are presumably worth it. So no, the problem isn't the negative perception of atomic power. If that were true, we'd be screaming for the shutdown of al
Re: (Score:2)
you antinuclear fucktards hadn't blocked nuclear energy for 50 fucking years. We also would have prevented climate change. All those future climate change deaths are on the antinuclear movement. There is blood on your hands.
Exactly. 400 reactors and 8000 coal plants in the world, That is their legacy and history will judge them accordingly.
Now they should crawl back under their rock and stop doing us any more favors, the world can't afford any more "friends" like that.
Re: (Score:2)
And, before you trot out the usual arguments, yes yes I know that coal produces way more radiation than nuclear, plus all the other nasty crap that burning coal s
Re: (Score:2)
you antinuclear fucktards hadn't blocked nuclear energy for 50 fucking years. We also would have prevented climate change. All those future climate change deaths are on the antinuclear movement. There is blood on your hands.
Not prevented, slowed climate change. To prevent it you will need the whole world to agree and make changes together. I don't see poor countries getting easy / cheap access to nuclear or even solar / wind power. They are mostly dependant on coal and other aging infrastructure for power gen which they can't afford to change easily. Not to mention polluting industries which they can't afford to modernise and clean up.
For that to happen, the richer countries will also have to step in and donate the infrastruct
Re:Insanity of nuclear power killed nuclear power (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
But also
France â67/MWh
Spain â2/MWh
Source: https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/sp... [bnnbloomberg.ca]
Electricity in France is heavily subsidised because it is expensive to produce. That's one of the many reasons why nuclear can't solve climate change - it's unaffordable for billions of people.
Re: (Score:2)
Where are you getting your numbers from?
https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]
that one says Spanish electricity is currently around EUR74 per MWh. There's a factor of nearly 100 discrepancy going on here.
I don't have an account and the figures for France are paywalled. One day I'll register:
https://xkcd.com/2894/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
From the link I provided where it shows that due to the abundance of renewable energy, the wholesale price of electricity was around 2 Euro in Spain in February.
I don't know where Statista gets its data from, but Bloomberg reported the 2 Euro figure.
Re: (Score:2)
Norway is 18g per kWh, 99% renewables and zero nuclear. They have dropped from 39g in 2018 when they were 97% renewables. Power is possible without nucl
No (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
But there is more money in selling these things abroad than in using them for domestic power generation. Why do you hate the free market?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing at all, if China is offering a better deal than those peasants that want to heat their homes... hey, if it's good enough for Russia, it's good enough for Texas.
Re: (Score:2)
But there is more money in selling these things abroad than in using them for domestic power generation. Why do you hate the free market?
Also, as not all crude oil is the same, the details of where oil (currently) needs to be refined for efficiency (and profitability): Why importing and exporting oil makes sense [washingtonpost.com] (Source: ConocoPhillips , also seen in other articles):
First, there is economics. Decisions to import or export are typically based on supply and demand for a product at that location, as well as transportation costs. Products are often both exported and imported when it makes economic sense.
Second, not all crude oil is the same. It ranges from light to heavy, high to low sulfur and sour to sweet. The bulk of the oil currently produced in the United States is light oil. And not all refineries are the same. Many Gulf Coast and Midwest refineries were designed to process heavy oil from Canada, Venezuela and Mexico. To use more light crude domestically, refineries would need to pay less for their oil feedstock and would run in a suboptimal fashion, or require a significant investment in new infrastructure.
Third, the United States has an abundance of light oil resources. Light crude production already exceeds refiners’ ability to process it at certain times of the year and that is expected to get worse as more oil is produced. Experts agree the United States should export to refineries set up to process light oil in other countries and import heavy oil to refine at home.
Re: (Score:2)
It's even simpler than that. Ever noticed how working (you know, that what nobody wants to do anymore) is taxed higher than capital gains in most countries? In mine, working can actually be taxed up to 50% if you dare to earn more than 80,000 Euros a year while capital gains are a flat 25%, no matter if you get less than what your bank fleeces you for for taking your money walkies or whether you earn more than the GDP of some national states by capital gains.
That's not the case everywhere. Switzerland for e
Re: (Score:2)
The USA happens to be sitting on some of the largest reserves of oil, natural gas, and coal on the planet. Theoretically speaking, it will likely be many hundreds of years before those all run out.
Yes, theoretically. Realistically, far shorter timeframes.
Proven oil deposits in the U.S., at current extraction rates, will only last a few decades, no matter what [usatoday.com] you may read [usatoday.com]. The numbers [eia.gov] don't lie.
For coal, yes, theoretically we have over 400 years worth available. However, most of it has not yet been tapp
Re:No (Score:4, Insightful)
Proven oil deposits in the U.S., at current extraction rates, will only last a few decades
That's the thing about reserves, they don't explore infinitely far into the future. 50 years ago we had about 50 years of reserves. Today we still have about 50 years of reserves. If things work properly in 50 years we will still have 50 years of reserves.
The numbers [eia.gov] don't lie.
Yeah, about that...
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/h... [eia.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
The USA happens to be sitting on some of the largest reserves of oil, natural gas, and coal on the planet. Theoretically speaking, it will likely be many hundreds of years before those all run out.
Noting that The United States is producing more oil than any country in history [cnn.com] (Dec 2023):
The United States is set to produce a global record of 13.3 million barrels per day of crude and condensate during the fourth quarter of this year, according to a report published Tuesday by S&P Global Commodity Insights.
Last month, weekly US oil production hit 13.2 million barrels per day, according to the US Energy Information Administration. That’s just above the Donald Trump-era record of 13.1 million set in early 2020 just before the Covid-19 crisis sent output and prices crashing.
Re: (Score:2)
So what happens when they run out is someone else's problem so don't care.
Running out, you say? (Score:5, Funny)
We'd better establish a strategic electron reserve while there's still time!
If u don't restrict supply, u can't raise prices (Score:2)
Put the data centers on interruptible power (Score:2, Interesting)
Other industries have to shut down if the grid can't supply demand, and given not freezing to death is more important than YouTube or Augmented Idiocy, which to turn off is an easy call.
As for renewables, during the January cold snap the local grid demand was 11,400 MW. At that moment of time (mid morning) the wind turbines were running at 26% of nameplate and solar was at 4.6%. Anything in battery storage would have been wiped out the night before. Fortunately we have hydroelectric, but the Greens want the
Re: (Score:3)
Anything in battery storage would have been wiped out the night before. Fortunately we have hydroelectric, but the Greens want the dams gone. No nukes, no dams, no wood burning, no fossil fuels, no geothermal
Also, transmission lines interrupt animal habitats. Tidal power is bad for cetaceans. And lithium, copper, coltan, silica, etc mines are the epitome of evil in their little minds. Fortunately most of us don't hate civilization, so they will fail in the end.
Re: (Score:3)
https://uk.whales.org/2023/02/... [whales.org]
Or, closer to home here in Canada;
https://www.timescolonist.com/... [timescolonist.com]
Is America Running Out of Electrical Power? (Score:2)
No it’s not.
End of line
Am alternative? (Score:2)
I've been reading a lot of discussion here about how to solve the problem of not enough electrical capacity. I haven't read much about a different approach I've grown to value; it's called "using less".
Realistically speaking, once we set aside medical advances, what do we need that we didn't already have 30 years ago? We consume huge amounts of power to run data centres which serve up social media and on-demand entertainment, give the parasites in the financial markets more of an edge, push advertising into
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't read much about a different approach I've grown to value; it's called "using less". Realistically speaking, once we set aside medical advances, what do we need that we didn't already have 30 years ago?
You need to replace your gas car with an EV, and your gas heat with a heat pump - transportation and space heating are the largest consumer users of energy. That is before we talk about electrifying trucking, shipping, rail and air travel. And smelting/refining. And organic growth with population. And hey yeah AI and crypto too!
In short, there will not be any using less, apart from token efforts by keeners.
The answer is... (Score:2)
Yes.
Too bad our idiot politicians can't think beyond a 4-year term.
More effort in the graphic art (Score:2)
Lack of Resiliance (Score:3)
Well gladly you guys ... (Score:2)
... have ginormous deserts, some of which actually have the raw materials for solar panels and batteries right in the ground. Elon Musk himself made a pretty compelling case on how solar can fix just about all of you're energy problems. May I from across the pond suggest that you get to it?
You dont say... (Score:2)
> It also found that electricity demand is rising faster now than at any time in the past five years. This is partially because the "push for the electrification of heating and transportation systems -- including electric cars -- is also creating new winter peaks in electricity demand,"
OMG, who would have thunk?
Not a problem (Score:2)
Real story here: U.S. electricity usage FLAT... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a narrative I hear over and over. The U.S. is headed for some kind of armaggedon as librals/Elon Musk force us to drive electric cars, and use astonishingly economical [technologyreview.com] heat pumps, etc.
But, when you look at the actual data, a very VERY different picture emerges:
https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]
Since I can't include the graph, I will describe it. From 1975 through 2005, U.S. electrical usage moved steadily upward, year by year. It looks like the average increase was about 3% annually, and it is steady.
Then in about 2005, something completely different happened. Usage leveled out.
And it has remained almost absolutely flat and level since then.
Like it when down from 4003 terrawatt-hours in 2018 to 3856 TW-H in 2020 (hmm, wonder why). Then since 2020 it has increased back to almost exactly the 2018 level, 4048 TW-H.
That is, literally, the biggest move on the chart - we have now returned to our 2018 usage level. Which is only very slightly higher than our 2005 and 2010 usage levels.
Whoo-hoo, how will we be able to manage it.
Also, overal since 2005, electricity usage has gone up a whopping (checks calculator) 6.2%.
Wow, 6% in 17 years. That amounts to almost 0.4% average annual increase. WILL the mighty capitalist system be able to adjust to this massive sweeping year over year change!!??!!?!! Keep watching the headlines to find out!!!!1!!!!!!21!!!
Kidding aside, the big story here is that large-scale adoption of energy-saving and more economical devices and practices has allowed the economy to grow massively, and electricity use to expand significantly in areas where it was previously little used or not used at all, at the very same time the overall national electricity usage has barely budged.
I realize that isn't a "let's panic now" story of the type that generates clicks and pageviews. But that is the actual story here. And it's a pretty damn good one.
Also, I don't doubt there are particular problems and issues here and there that need to be addressed. The grid is old and creaky in certain ways. Flip side, recent advances make the grid of the future look quite different than the grid we might have built out 5 or 10 or (certainly) 15 years ago. So the grid upgrade we will end up making are almost certainly going to be a lot more efficient and productive than it would have been - and WAY cheaper. So in a ways we are probably going to be happy we didn't spend a trillion dollars (or whatever it would have been - a LOT) to rebuild the entire grid according to our now-outdated conception of what a grid should be.
Don't like my data above, here is another link that confirms the basic picture, from the U.S. Energy Information Administration: https://www.eia.gov/electricit... [eia.gov]
Here is another look at the same basic picture - but looking at all energy, not just electricity: https://www.aceee.org/blog-pos... [aceee.org] Upshot is that per-capita energy use in the U.S. has been almost completely flat for the last decade.
Re: the free market (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: the free market (Score:4)
I am pretty sure that the person you are reply to was asking a Socratic question, in order to guide people into questioning whether unregulated free markets are the ideal in all cases.
It won't work. The level of debate you actually get is more along the lines of free markets have electrolytes which is what plants crave.
Re: the free market (Score:3)
It certainly would have been worse in the past. With solar it might be workable now for everyone to power their own grids. But our economy wouldn't have experienced the post WWII boom on independent solar.
Re: (Score:3)
Most electrical systems in the US (generation and distribution) are private corporations who only think of profit.
Re:the free market (Score:5, Interesting)
The free market inherently produces surpluses or shortages in the short term as the market forces push production to react to demand. That's fine if you have some consumer product that gets sold out before Christmas or tickets for a concert that get pushed to crazy prices, but that's not so good if it's something like food or electricity. With food, the government has all sorts of farm subsidies that are like pushing the demand line up so that the production swings shift high to generally have a surplus. And for something that is a natural monopoly like electricity distribution, you at a minimum need strict regulation to keep the companies from price gouging, which ensuring that there is sufficient investment in long-term maintenance and infrastructure planning despite publicly traded companies being hyper-focused on the next quarterly results.
Re:the free market (Score:5, Insightful)
With farms the problem was all these farmers are up to their eyeballs in debt. And banks quickly realized that taking the farm back without anyone to work on it made it far less valuable than having someone that pays their mortgage. So the compromise was to ensure that farmers didn't go out of business so easily, and keep bankers in the black.
Re:the free market (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. exactly like that. You grasped the point perfectly.
Re: (Score:2)
welcome to the current bank system, how can i take your money today!
Re: (Score:2)
Annnnnd it's gone. Next please!
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, economies of scale. But scaling what? With ADM they scaled on how to lie, cheat, and steal [reuters.com]. These guys are dirt bags and they aren't competent at running farms, because they have to cheat and they also got caught.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that the electricity business is not a free market. It is very heavily regulated by the government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The electricity business literally can't exist without the government stepping in. If they had to negotiate a right of way with each individual land owner the electric grid would be impractical.
Re: the free market (Score:2)
The issue is even in areas with open markets the actual production of electricity is so capital intensive and so uncertain in its outlook that the risk premium doesn't make sense for multiple players, and as such it gravitated towards natural monopoly and exertion of undue market influence anyway. The attempts at wholesale markets have largely been a failure to date, with issues in the markets more than offsetting any gains (which is why you hear market advocates crow about cheaper wholesale power while you
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently not regulated enough in Texas, given they can't even keep the lights on.
It's just not profitable enough to provide 99.999997% reliability (the figure from the UK where the last power cut I experienced was something like 20 years ago), or for that matter universal service.
Re: (Score:2)
If only Thames Water were held to that standard. They seem to have confused 5 9's reliability with 9 5's. There's pretty much a new bloody leak every week in my very local area (i.e. where I walk on a regular basis as part of day to day life).
Plus side, having Thames Water digging up the road does cut the amount of traffic so it's not entirely negative. Frankly they can do what LTNs only dream of.
Re: (Score:2)
We have regular raw sewage dumps around here too.
Re: (Score:3)
the problem is that you have to wait for the demand to be high, generate problems, pushing for a prices increase and wait a long time to build/upgrade what is missing... during all that time you will have all sort of problems... while paying a high price (that will not fall after the problem is fixed, of course, as the investment have to be payed). Also, it will fix the problem where you ave many people, remote locations will be slowly neglected (see how good is internet connection in rural areas)
in places
Re:the free market (Score:5, Insightful)
But if there is demand for something, won't the free market supply it? We're not communists, we don't need to centrally plan our infrastructure.
No. A perfect market supplies it. A free market exists to maximise profit, not to optimise demand.
A free market only optimises demand when there's no barrier to entry, or barrier to changing production. Regulations on utilities along with market uncertainty from governments, and a very high cost of capital make for a very big barrier to entry which leads to a free market allowing the supply and demand curve to creep away from its ideal point.
Re:the free market (Score:4, Informative)
It's a government Of the People, By the People, For the People. And we can, if we choose, impose onerous requirements on fictional persons like corporations without recompense.
Re:the free market (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a fan of the idea that if the government imposes a regulatory hurdle like say... environmental impact studies, the government must fund it's compliance as well as maintenance expenses for any delays.
The primary reason for government regulation is because some organisations refuse to do the morally/ethically right thing in search of more profit.
They have no problem discharging toxic waste into drinking water, deforestation of old growth forests, and substituting cheaper products in food, to name just a few activities with "regulatory hurdles".
So I guess the question is - do you prefer the prevention of issues before they occur, or waiting for an issue to wend its way through courts to force rectification?
The US sees hundreds of class-action lawsuits every year. Here's a few recent ones:
* Camp Lejune - toxic water - 150,000 cases / cancers
* Johnson & Johnson - talcum powder - 50,000 cases / cancers
* CR Bard - Hernia Mesh - 20,000 cases.
* Paraquat - toxic chemical exposure - 5,000 cases / Parkinsons
* AFFF - toxic chemical exposure - 6,400 cases / cancers
Re:the free market (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a strange idea. If a government requires that factories be fire proof, that food be fresh and not poisonous or that vehicles have functioning brakes, then the government should pay for these things.
Or is it just some regulations that you get worried about?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a fan of the idea that if the government imposes a regulatory hurdle like say... environmental impact studies, the government must fund it's compliance as well as maintenance expenses for any delays.
You realize that when you say that "the government" must fund something, in the end that means the taxpayer?
No thank you. I, a taxpayer, don't want to pay a corporation to make they aren't going to be dumping toxic chemicals into my drinking water or poisoning the air that I breathe. That's their responsibility and the costs should come out of their bottom line.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I used to tilt at that windmill. But that ship has sailed. It's water under the bridge now. The dogs bark as the caravan rolls on. "Begging the question" doesn't mean what it used to anymore.
Yep, for all intensive purposes it means raising the question. And you know what? I could care less.
Re: (Score:2)
No more coal I can agree with. But that means more nuclear and as a bridge to achieving that, replacing existing coal with natural gas. And leaving existing gas as is instead of leaping headlong into switching loads to electricity.
We also need to keep our hydroelectric capacity intact to the greatest degree possible. Yeah, it hurts the salmon. But we knew that back in the 1930s when we built the dams and we built fish hatcheries.
Re: (Score:2)
Coal and nuclear powerplants are immune to EMP? Electricity in the grid is effected differently by EMP based on what pumped the electrons into the wire?
Re: (Score:2)
Thats not socialism