[ennui2]

Thesis: you can't cut energy use without cutting jobs. Fat in the system = jobs.

How does this kill jobs?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/ener ... picks=true

Sure, less FF used, less of a need for FF workers, but other than that? Is this really a net loss to the economy? I think not.

[peripato]

Thesis: you can't cut energy use without cutting jobs. Fat in the system = jobs.

How does this kill jobs?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/ener ... picks=true

Sure, less FF used, less of a need for FF workers, but other than that? Is this really a net loss to the economy? I think not.

One man's garbage is another man's job.

[onlooker]

Fat is precisely what employs so many people. Competitiveness and Efficiency are euphemisms for cost cutting by laying off people , downsizing or merging. Having said that I do concede that we could employ people more in unconventional type jobs that would use less energy but then those jobs may really not be important and thus just a net energy expense really. Anyway you look at it humans need energy in their world and to attend to their needs and wants. The more humans, the more energy needed.

[EdwinSm]

Since being PO aware I have been trying to cut the 'energy fat', with an eye to being able to survive (comfortably) when my income was expected to drop at pension time.

Some of the projects, such as a ground-heat exchange system, is currently saving a lot of money. Using money as a proxy for energy there are great savings there. However, some other projects [to cope with extended power cuts rather than a collapse situation, although they will help with that] such as a hand pump on the well, or new windows, or the wood burning stove in the kitchen, have not been cost effective so far.

All in all the savings from cutting the fat (using less oil etc) have been plowed into other areas which has left me better able to cope with a transition time to lower energy. In my case work has been transferred from the oil industry (ie tanker drivers delivering heating oil to my house) to other industries. Some of these other industries are ones that I think could help in a transition to a lower fossil fuel energy world.

So I probably have not cut any fat, only redistributed it - that was until my job was outsourced just before I turned 60 and so I have had to cut a lot of fat to last until I get my pension.

[GHung]

Since all of our schemes to reduce energy consumption in the US (more efficient vehicles, more efficient appliances and lighting, etc) have done little to reduce our primary energy consumption, the only way to significantly reduce overall energy consumption is to reduce overall consumption. Energy underwrites everything. Reducing consumption will absolutely reduce GDP.
http://www.eia.gov/beta/MER/?tbl=T01.01#/?f=M

I've seen no data that GDP and economic output have, or can be, decoupled. I've seen no evidence for any mechanism by which this can be accomplished at any scale that matters. Indeed, the only periods where our energy consumption, and consumption of other stuff, has declined, is during periods of economic downturn and loss of jobs. Of course, this generally drives the cost of energy and goods down via demand destruction, at which point new opportunities arise to use the surpluses for other schemes. Jevons rules in this respect.

Then there's the debt situation.......

[ennui2]

I've seen no data that GDP and economic output have, or can be, decoupled.

It IS decoupled. This is what's known as the "carbon intensity" of GDP.

Look at the big improvement in Eurasia in this chart.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_intensity

"From 1990 to 2000, the carbon intensity of the U.S. economy declined by 17%, yet total emissions increased by 14%."

[Paulo1]

edwinsim

Good plans and progress. It is the smart route for sure. Quick few questions. What kind of hand well pump did you get? Can you send me a link via a reply? I have been underwhelmed at selections out there, and overwhelmed at costs for a decent one. My water level is 10' down, year round....casing 70' down. It would have to be freeze protected.

Thanks in advance

[GHung]

EdwinSM said; "...such as a hand pump on the well, or new windows, or the wood burning stove in the kitchen, have not been cost effective so far."

That's the nature of paying things forward when you can. Besides, how does one define 'cost effective'? How much is the 'bird-in-the-hand' factor worth? A sense of security? Depends on one's world view I guess.

[GHung]

Paulo; yeah, those suckers are pricey, especially good ones. Not sure about the freeze factor, but a good submersible DC well pump can generally be had for less, including the PV panel, and submerged pumps don't freeze in most places. Some of the good hand pumps run $900 or more, where as the DC pump for our home is now about $700 (super quality "SunPump"; all stainless). Gosh, the Chinse pumps I use for the garden, etc., not same quality but same specs, are $110 with shipping, and a 100 watt panel to run it can be had for under $150. Four complete systems for about the cost of a good hand pump. No sun? Lots of ways to make DC power. These little pumps work better at 24 volts, but will still pump at 12 volts.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/191234721646?_t ... EBIDX%3AIT

[Paulo1]

Thanks Ghung.
We lost power yesterday in a hellish southeaster that was supposed to only blow 40kts. It hit +50kts for quite awhile with very heavy rain. Our passive solar house allowed me to read quite comfortably for a few hours until we got it back. The woodstove was toasty. I do have an interim 12 LED system which works okay, but we are beefing it up this summer. Even on cloudy wet days we don't need any interior lights on, although with incandescent scrapped the savings are minimal. But, it all helps.

[onlooker]

"From 1990 to 2000, the carbon intensity of the U.S. economy declined by 17%, yet total emissions increased by 14%."

[/quote]
Besides overall consumption going up to account for this discrepancy this also hints at a more subtle and devious problem which is Jevons Paradox which I am sure Ennui you are familiar with. This paradox for any new readers refers to "In economics, the Jevons paradox or sometimes Jevons effect) occurs when technological progress increases the efficiency with which a resource is used (reducing the amount necessary for any one use), but the rate of consumption of that resource rises because of increasing demand." Or another way of expressing this is any savings achieved in energy use or energy output of a given product or mode of production is offset by increased use of something else. So, the point being that as long as we have the consumerism mindset and especially as long as we have the amount of humans we have, we are inevitably going to extract energy and have economic activity at a certain minimum level which will rise inevitably with more people alive.

[MonteQuest]

Thesis: you can't cut energy use without cutting jobs. Fat in the system = jobs.

How does this kill jobs?

Because all the fat in the system is bought and paid for and contributes to GDP. When does cutting sales ever not cost jobs? When sales drop, so does energy consumption.

And some fat contributes in a big way. The auto industry supports 1 out of every 6 jobs, so what specific fat is targeted to be cut can have a big impact.

Look at it another way; you are advocating cutting jobs to reduce energy consumption. You are advocating restricting sales to cut energy use.

[MonteQuest]

It IS decoupled. This is what's known as the "carbon intensity" of GDP."From 1990 to 2000, the carbon intensity of the U.S. economy declined by 17%, yet total emissions increased by 14%."

No, it is largely outsourced.

Trade agreements in the early 1990’s allowed U.S. companies to outsource many carbon intense industries to China and other regions of cheap labor and lax environmental standards. High emission coal energy reigns supreme in these areas. I have read that as much as one-third of China's carbon load on the atmosphere can be traced to exports of cheap clothes, electronics, machinery and other goods consumed by Americans and Europeans.

The other factor was increasing GDP due to financial speculation via the tech bubble that required little energy to make money.

Vehicle miles continued to grow.

[MonteQuest]

We lost power yesterday in a hellish southeaster that was supposed to only blow 40kts. It hit +50kts for quite awhile with very heavy rain. Our passive solar house allowed me to read quite comfortably for a few hours until we got it back.

I have a battery back-up system for my computer and monitor in case of power failure. It's called Tripp Lite. I can also plug in a light or my cell phone. We lost power the other day for 6 hours and my super-insulated earth sheltered home didn't drop below 66 degrees. Outside was just below freezing.

[ennui2]

The auto industry supports 1 out of every 6 jobs, so what specific fat is targeted to be cut can have a big impact.

Explain how this particular case of switching back to combined heat and power is a net loss to GDP.

[ennui2]

the tech bubble that required little energy to make money.

The tech bubble meaning dot com 1.0? We're in a tech bubble right now and unicorns have high valuations in large part due to digital assets or software-as-a-service that has very little of an energy footprint.

[MonteQuest]

The auto industry supports 1 out of every 6 jobs, so what specific fat is targeted to be cut can have a big impact.

Explain how this particular case of switching back to combined heat and power is a net loss to GDP.

What particular case? Combined heat and power? What are you referring to?

[MonteQuest]

the tech bubble that required little energy to make money.

The tech bubble meaning dot com 1.0? We're in a tech bubble right now and unicorns have high valuations in large part due to digital assets or software-as-a-service that has very little of an energy footprint.

Thanks for backing up my point.

[ennui2]

The auto industry supports 1 out of every 6 jobs, so what specific fat is targeted to be cut can have a big impact.

Explain how this particular case of switching back to combined heat and power is a net loss to GDP.

What particular case? Combined heat and power? What are you referring to?

Did you even read the link in the thread starter or did you just hit the REPLY button out of a reflex?

[ennui2]

the tech bubble that required little energy to make money.

The tech bubble meaning dot com 1.0? We're in a tech bubble right now and unicorns have high valuations in large part due to digital assets or software-as-a-service that has very little of an energy footprint.

Thanks for backing up my point.

Nope. It backs up mine, which indicates that it's possible to make money on things that have very low energy footprint. Someone who buys a song or a mobile app on iTunes are generating money just the same as buying a Big Mac. The carbon intensity of the song or app is far lower for the amount of money generated. This is part and parcel of the information economy. This is not to invalidate your point about off-shoring manufacturing, but we still have GDP by virtue of our IP or digital assets.