[BabyPeanut]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')url=http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/sep2005/tc20050920_9141_tc_217.htm]Does Your Home Burn Money for Fuel? (link)[/url]
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
BUSINESS WEEK SPECIAL REPORT: A LOW-COST ENERGY FUTURE

Despite conservation gains since the 1970s, most dwellings still waste half of the energy they consume. It doesn't have to be that way

In the push for energy conservation and alternative fuels, the gas-guzzling SUV has become an emblem of conspicuous consumption -- with good reason. But the fact is that buildings, including homes and commercial businesses, consume more annually than the vast market for personal transportation, according to U.S. Energy Dept. Under Secretary David K. Garman.

The news from the home front isn't that encouraging, however. There's no question that dwellings today, both new and retrofitted, are better insulated than they were before the 1970s. The systems used to heat and cool homes are much more efficient, too.

But houses and apartments are bigger than ever, and they're loaded with more energy-consuming devices. (Think computers, espresso machines, and panini makers.) As a result, "our net energy use per household has stayed relatively constant," says Bruce Harley, technology director at nonprofit Conservation Services Group in Westborough, Mass.

POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS. With soaring oil and natural gas costs, people will be under mounting pressure to make buildings more energy-efficient, especially as the weather turns colder and higher home heating bills arrive.

[insurgent]

my computer makes a damn good heater

[deconstructionist]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut the fact is that buildings, including homes and commercial businesses, consume more annually than the vast market for personal transportation, according to U.S. Energy Dept. Under Secretary David K. Garman.

[aahala]

deconstructionist

Thanks for posting that chart. It was informative to me.

I don't think the quote is a contradiction to your chart. The quote seems to
be about energy, the chart only about oil.

While nearly all transportation is oil related, building usage is mostly about
NG for home heating and electricity, very little of which is produced in
the US from oil.

I don't know IF the statement is true, only that it could be consistent
with the additional info you provided.

[Caoimhan]

And this is illustrative of the fact that PO is mostly about transportation, not about the total energy picture, though there is some crossover.

Oil-based liquid fuels are simply the best form of mobile energy. They carry more energy per unit of volume and mass than just about anything else.

There are 4 general ways to deal with the problem:

1. Demand destruction. Through efficiency, alternative transportation (high-speed electric trains, for example), and better urban planning, to name a few ways.
2. Replace petroleum-based liquid fuels with non-petroleum based liquid or gasseous fuels. Ethanol, biodiesel, straight vegetable oil, and renewable-energy generated hydrogen are a few ways this can occur.
3. Wherever possible, completely replace liquid-fuel motors with battery-electric, rechargable from the electric grid.
4. "Create" more fossil oil via coal-liquefaction, oil shale recovery, oil-sands recovery, etc...

I believe we should be taking all 4 tacks, because all of these methods of reducing petroleum consumption have their limitations. In combination, we may see a rapid-enough change in consumption to stave off PO problems.

#2 and #3 may be considered sub-sets of #1, but are significant enough to mention alone.

[ubercrap]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s a result, "our net energy use per household has stayed relatively constant," says Bruce Harley