Convert from watt-hours to kilowatts, take the difference over the last decade (400M KWH), divide per capita, and you'll find a net increase of roughly 14%.

Not too bad actually when you consider the increase in population coupled with always-on computers, air conditioners, appliances, cell phone chargers, and game machines.

Pick the right slop for a chart, and anything can look bad. Change the V-axis so it increases by hundreds with the same spacing, and it looks like a cliff.

Switch to 500's, and it flattens out considerably.

>> "We have our gadget- and monster appliance-obsessed culture to blame for this."

The implication of this post seems to be that this trend is bad, whys is that? As we become better-off we upped our production and consumption of food, travel, education, medicine, etc. I see it as good news.

No big surpise... actually surprised it isn't bigger :-( Hell my cable TV box in sleep mode probably pulls more power than any device someone had in their home in 1950.

It doesn't have to be like that.

Since 1974, California has held its per capita energy consumption essentially constant, while energy use per person for the United States overall has jumped 50 percent.

Washington Post article on the subject:

http://tinyurl.com/2g7cob

Thank you Arthur H. Rosenfeld.

Speedmaster wrote:

">> "We have our gadget- and monster appliance-obsessed culture to blame for this."

The implication of this post seems to be that this trend is bad, whys is that? As we become better-off we upped our production and consumption of food, travel, education, medicine, etc. I see it as good news."

I'm not sure if you're just fishing for a flame war or what. But I think your post promoting consumerist culture is pretty ridiculous considering this is a site primarily concerned with our impact on the environment, and related topics of over consumption. (Read consumption that is above and beyond what is necessary even to live comfortably)

If you really don't get why this is bad, consider for starters that all of the material for these "luxury items" (read unnecessary or frivolous) adds to an ever expanding carbon foot print for the population of the "developed" world. And we haven't even discussed the transportation implication of said goods.

I still think you're just fishing to stir things up (especially when one considers the site you link to from your sig.)

But if you do have an open mind have a look at this:
http://www.storyofstuff.com

Also you should watch a documentary entitled "The Century of the Self"

I have to agree with the first two comments:

First, the only useful curve is the watts per capita, and it really should have been kilowatt-hours per capita, since that is the actual energy used.

Second, the curve doesn't tell us if this energy is wasted or not. We are getting more work done over time with refrigeration, TVs, dishwashers, computers, PVRs, etc. The implication is that we should have stuck with a 1920s lifestyle. Wait until we get plug-in hybrid electric vehicles: that curve will go through the roof. Is that bad?

A much better chart would have compared the US with other developed nations.

Big ups to Michael Long and Speedmaster for their great comments. I agree with both.

In addition, we at treehugger should be excited about increased electricity usage. As demand for electricity goes up and the supply of conventional, non-renewable sources is squeezed, both ends of the chain will become more efficient to better use the limited resources.

That orange line can rocket through the top of the chart for all I care, glut energy users will have to pay out the nose and those who adopt efficient lifestyles will save dramatically. The wasters are punished and those who conserve rewarded. Where is the problem?

Just as a side note: our gadget filled culture, the one you portray as so evil, is the one that allows this site to exist. The entire cycle, from production to consumption of this site, requires computers, not just one or two, but hundreds, just to exist.

This is an example of how you can fool people with charts. You can't tell by looking at the chart if the increase in watts per capita (the only significant curve) is justified or excessive. We are making electricity do more interesting things for us, so it is expected that this figure should go up: refrigeration, air conditioning, computers, PVRs, larger TVs, dish washers... The energy isn't wasted if it is doing something useful, otherwise we might as well go back to living a 1920s lifestyle. A more interesting chart would have included other developed countries such as in Europe.

Leaving the faucet run all day doesn't mean we're drinking more water.
You are inferring that the increased consumption is resulting in a higher standard of living when no data exists.

Even a 14% increase in energy consumption is major when you consider that the energy resources are running out.

I would question whether this takes into account total household energy usage or just electrical usage...

For example, as the US population has moved more south, electrical usage (for air conditioning) is likely to of increase, while heating fuels (heating oil and natural gas) is likely to of decreased.

If I walk around my house and imagine what would not have been here in 1950, it amounts to almost everything that's plugged into the wall. The lights were here, and the fridge, and that's about it. We've added computers, air conditioning, TVs (not widespread in 1950), DVD players, cell phones, cordless phones, various chargers, small kitchen appliances, etc. So what would you give up from that list? If you're reading this, we already know the computer isn't going.

I agree with Wuz and Superbad.

Adding on to the point Superbad is making, not only do we have more appliances we often feel the need to have multiples of stuff. For example televisions, many homes have 3 or more, and so with multiple computers, etc.. etc.. So when is it enough? Will having one less tv really deteriorate our "standard of living"?

By stating that the increase in consumption is modest and really isn't that bad, it only makes it easier to buy more stuff at the store. "Well one more tv won't hurt there's lot of power", maybe one won't but if the next guy does it and the next etc... then we have increases. It's much like saying "Well one more car on the road can't hurt. I mean it's just one car."

To be fair we have to quantify what's a luxury item, (and I realize this is different for each person) but I wouldn't quantify the PCs that run the internet as luxury. Just like I wouldn't quantify a phone line or switchboard a luxury, it's a critical communication system available to all. I would however quantify a private citizen's 4th PC as luxury since it could be argued that one would be adequate.

I see the biggest room for improvement in bachelors. Dear God, the crap they own...
My roommates have bought their third big screen TV in as many months. Each bigger than the last. We're talking juice-sucking old TVs that you can buy used for a dime a dozen now. They use it for games, but it hurts their gameplay. Having to scan such a big screen with their eyes takes more time and gets them killed more often. Whenever I point this out they shrug. WTF?
Anyways, my tips for saving energy would be a reasonably sized screen and headphones. You'll hear what you're supposed to hear and you'll see what you're supposed to see.

It would matter less that we own backups and extras of things if we just turned them off- actually off- when we weren't using them. Wouldn't be perfect, but an improvement.
In fact, I'd venture a second computer could be a very green investment. I use my laptop- energy consumption around 25 watts- for internet surfing etc. I use my desktop- much higher maximum wattage- for gaming and more computationally-intensive tasks.
Most people leave these devices on unnecessarily all the time. That means energy isn't valued highly enough. The price of energy ought to go up, enough that people will actually feel compelled to consider it. Imagine how much less the extra gas money would hurt if you found out you could save $100 a month by flipping a few switches or unplugging a few appliances when they weren't in use? Or even just instructing them to do it themselves after they sit idle too long.

In regard to Anthony's comment about expensive energy, I hate this point. It's like saying we should start the draft over again so people will be aware of the wars we start.

Sure, it's a solution, but a horrible one. What about all of the people that DO save energy and still can't afford it? You propose to put them out on their asses just to raise awareness to the more affluent masses? That's a very poorly thought out solution.

The real solution lies in education. People need to be educated about this. We need our politicians and leaders to stress its importance. We need the media on the side of the public instead of the corporations. Only then will awareness be raised and people find the need to educate themselves on these issues. When more people know, the ones that don't will feel like they need to get up to speed. That's how we change things... not through some poorly thought out incentive scheme that enriches the utilities for no good reason.

It's all really a vicious circle. Getting the politicians and media interested involves getting the people to get them interested. But if the goal is getting the people interested, then how could you start with that? So, this is why we are where we are. It's the snake eating his tail.

Guys, the problem is that electricity contributes to environmental degradation. It doesn't matter if those numbers are indicative of a higher standard of living or not if that lifestyle is not sustainable. More that 50% of our energy in the US comes from coal. The refining process releases carbon into the atmoshphere. It also requires immense environental degradation to extract the coal...i.e. mountaintop removal mining in west virginia. This increase in demand is forcing mining companies to revert to extreme measures to supply. Take a look!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziuFW-7h1LM

Let;s get with it guys!

Electricity consumption per capita is only going to go up, and probably dramatically in the next 10 years or so. When reasonably priced and equipped plug-in cars arrive in the next few years demand for electricity will skyrocket. It will be interesting to see if the price per KWh skyrockets as well.

Discussions of how much energy our gadgets and communications devices are using is not *quite* complete without the discussion of how much energy they are also saving us.

ACEEE paper E081 by Skip Laitner and Karen Ehrhardt-Martinez says it very well.

"For every extra kilowatt-hour of electricity that has been demanded by ICT, the U.S. economy increased its overall energy savings by a factor of about 10. These productivity gains have resulted in significant net savings in both energy and economic costs. The extraordinary implication of this finding is that ICT provide a net savings of energy across our economy."

http://www.aceee.org/pubs/e081.htm

I wish you people would stop looking at your own navel.

Our country is not as big as we think and let alone as powerful as we think.

And if we are that mighty, we should set the example for the rest and show them that we "still" are the leaders.

There are huge problems outside boys and girls, we need efficiency and less population growth.

Best regards