Home | About | Donate

With US 'Drilling Towards Disaster,' Report Warns Anything Less Than Urgent Green New Deal Will Be 'Too Little, Too Late'

A 5 KW load running 24/7 would require 120 kwh daily. That is a LOT. That amount is about my current monthly usage. A usage of 5 KWH daily, OTOH, or 150 KWH/month is a little more than my current consumption.

Did you see the part where I said:

That sounds like a lot, but that includes transportation, manufacturing, as well as home electricity usage.

In other words this number includes ALL the energy you use in a day - food you eat, products you buy, moving around by car, bus, train, or plane, you name it - your electricity bill is small in comparison (as is everybody’s). It also includes all the other bullshit use of energy you and I don’t want but are stuck with (health insurance office buildings, too big a military, and many more - all divided out to a per capita number).

The article I linked to is very interesting if you get a chance - they actually book a reduction in use based on substituting electrical motors vs combustion motors and some investment on insulation (I assume they’ve booked projected population growth to 2050 too, I however didn’t book that so the kW/person number I came up with might be a bit too high, but it is on the right order). If you look for these types of articles you will see they typically use kW/person or total TW (and this is always averaged out to 24/7 unless the discussion is on peak power and grid storage) and not the easier to translate to an electric bill kWh/month (because it isn’t just your electric bill we are talking about).

Now, do I wish we’d all change our lifestyle too (and reduce the bullshit outside of individual consumption) and end up with a much smaller number? Sure. It’s hard to imagine more than a factor of 2 or 4 though. Recall the point of my post is to marvel in how much renewable energy there is available - it is not the case that we have to live with 1/20th the energy we use now.

Some 400 or so nuclear plants plus all those nuclear powered ships and submarines left unattended world wide… 400+ fukushimas…

My confusion tests with the 5KW/day vs 5KWH/day. 5KW means little. It’s just a number that without context means little, but I’ll take a look at your sources which will most likely make the issue more clear to me. A 5000 watt load operating continuously uses 5 KWH per hour if you will. That’s 120 kwh/day or 3600 kwh/month/person. I understand the concept of aggregate use – growing food, transportation, lighting of all types - homes, commercial use, manufacturing usage, construction, etc., average/person distributed across a population, but 3600 kwh/month/person seems high intuitively, but as I mentioned I’ll take a look at your sources. It’s probably correct (3600 kwh/month) and therefore quite daunting.

I know you understand now but it would be good to get past this hang-up on viewing average US power consumption per capita in kW. I’m an engineer that deals with much smaller power numbers (mW or W) but by my reading most scientists and engineers will use Watts and not very often kWh per some amount of time (which is still a valid power unit - you just can’t use the term kW/day - that has no meaning in power or energy).

When we talk energy we sometimes use Joules (J) for 1 watt over 1 sec but as that is a pretty small amount you will more often see Wh (with the various metric pefixes in front - e.g. a 40 kWh battery pack for particular EV).

Happy reading. If you find any other articles you are impressed with let me know. I’m still very slowly going through @PaulSwanee1 's list.

…That would be roughly a 20% down payment…Hint: there will never be a wall, way to much private property (ranches) along the Rio Grand to sequester the water source away from the US, not to mention the wildlife confusion (they do migrate for a reason)…

1 Like

Just by the way … Canada imports a lot of people. Half of their population right now are non-citizens.

Well, you’re right; but as I’ve found when I’ve even tried to gently broach these topics, no one can hear. Biology is powerful. Desire if powerful. The terror of death, which having children seems to assuage (in fantasy, at least), is powerful. When I have tried to even bring up the question of whether people want to consider the question of where we’re going and what kids might be facing - and this is with highly educated people, many teaching in universities - the result is vicious anger, bitterness, or outright denial. I just don’t think there’s anything we can say. But you are right. Global warming is just one of a cluster of environmental degradations, all of which are terminal. It is not time to have kids. There is no orderly transition for this.

The analogy I have in mind is Leningrad during the second world war. I imagine myself to be the guy who’s running around saying, “The Germans are coming! Damn it, people, listen! The Germans are coming!” “Don’t have kids, you’re crazy!” But the biology, the desire, the warm, glowing fantasy are all just too powerful. And then … the Germans are here. But even then, would could imagine two and a half years of siege?

[They won’t let me respond more than 3 times, so I’ll add here …]

Math isn’t the issue. Everyone I’ve tried to talk to is highly educated - university professors, people at the UN. I even know one billionaire - educated in a B-school kind of way. Monbiot made the point some time ago that the greatest denial is among the professional classes. He said he couldn’t find even a taxi driver who was unable to at least make a stab at what was going on with global warming, but among professionals, people who identify with the system, it was very common, even typical, for them to be oblivious, clueless.

in all ways

They do (in % relative to population, a bit more than double the US: 0.7% vs 0.3% - I posted links to these stats at What About Open Borders?).

Where did you get that number?

The 2016 census in Canada (https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/dt-td/Rp-eng.cfm?LANG=E&APATH=3&DETAIL=0&DIM=0&FL=A&FREE=0&GC=0&GID=0&GK=0&GRP=1&PID=110527&PRID=10&PTYPE=109445&S=0&SHOWALL=0&SUB=0&Temporal=2017&THEME=120&VID=0&VNAMEE=&VNAMEF=) indicates:

34.46 million citizens of which 26.41 are citizens by birth and 2.42 million non-citizens (all of which will be foreign born). So % non citizens = 2.42/(34.46 + 2.42) = 6.5% and % foreign born = (2.42 + 34.46-26.41)/(34.46 + 2.42) = 28%. Perhaps % foreign born is the stat you are thinking of, but even there you are off by quite a bit.

I don’t have the same census numbers for the US, but I see a number of 13.7% of foreign born according to https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-data/u-s-foreign-born-population-swells-to-highest-in-over-a-century-idUSKCN1LT2HZ (I just don’t know what percentage of them are citizens vs permanent residents vs undocumented - the story points out that undocumented people are usually under counted)

What Jefferson meant was his right to enslave and sexually abuse people must be preserved by having slaves fight for those rights of his.
Quoting a degenerate like Jefferson is shameful and dehumanizing to black people, please don’t do it.

Half Canada’s population are non-citizens, just like half our population is full of wealthy children.

1 Like

I’m inclined to agree with you and the realization of how far from portrayal people actually are was quite disheartening as a kid seeing 1776 the musical and then finding out more details about all these guys later.

Who would you say escapes judgement In the racism question? Franklin? Hamilton? Not George Washington. Or later - Grant? (I believe he freed slaves his family had) Lincoln? (He said some less than stellar stuff early on but evolved to be much better). I don’t know if someone who was enlightened back then on black people was also going to be enlightened on native people.

Lincoln seems to come out clean, despite some views he expressed. It is also likely (very likely by some accounts) that Lincoln was homosexual, and this may have given him a more informed idea about the feelings of oppressed people.

1 Like

Something I read when I was applying for residency up there. Maybe it was wrong?

Maybe? Do you not agree I posted information from government sources and did a simple calculation? Do we have the same concept of facts?

Honestly, it’s not that important to me. Basically, the issue is that when the fertility rate goes down, as it is in all developing countries, the only real solution is to import people. Japan hasn’t made that choice, and is facing a serious problem. Canada appears to be.

That’s fine but if I were you, I’d work on your ability to admit you were wrong on a fact - you don’t use the word ‘maybe’ when you realize you are wrong on a fact (I don’t and this is one of those trends overall that seems to be getting worse across the political spectrum).

Opinions on whether even the best designed and fair economy can ride through a given reduction period of TFR = 1.6 (say reducing the population by a factor of 2 - which would be a good idea in many places - this means TFR has to ramp up to 2.05 before undershoot) - that’s a different matter. You and I disagree on that but neither of us is factually wrong. (But if it turns out to be so difficult to do as to be nearly impossible, humans are even more screwed because there are way too many of us and I don’t see that ever being fixed by technology - we are going to have to figure out how to run shrinking population economies eventually).

Look, Dara - I didn’t bother checking because, to repeat, it wasn’t that important to me. So, “maybe” is the correct response. You seem confident. Again, it was hardly my point, which had to do with the importation of population due to declining fertility. And I wasn’t even responding to any specific point you made. It was just a, “by the way …”

Let’s drop this now, huh?