One of the reason for the oil and energy shortages. The average home uses
4x the power of 20 years ago. Those nice Plasma TV's on their own consume
4x the energy of a CRT TV.

Uh no, generally it's about 2x. But also consider you're not getting a 50"
CRT so you're not making a direct comparision. This has little to do with
added energy consumption, at least not for oil. That's more attributable to
automobile use, not residential energy consumption. So don't spout junk
science.

Yesterday I heard some congressman suggest that we implant some sort of
"chip" into peolpe who enter the country under the proposed "guest
worker" program or on student visas.

Cool, as long as we can get one implanted in that same congressman to find
out which lobbyist he's taking money from, or which corporately subsidized
private jet he's using. If it's such a great idea then let's be sure THEY
submit to it first.

"Bill Kearney" wrote in message
...
One of the reason for the oil and energy shortages. The average home
uses
4x the power of 20 years ago. Those nice Plasma TV's on their own
consume
4x the energy of a CRT TV.

Uh no, generally it's about 2x. But also consider you're not getting a
50"
CRT so you're not making a direct comparision. This has little to do with
added energy consumption, at least not for oil. That's more attributable
to
automobile use, not residential energy consumption. So don't spout junk
science.


Not junk science. Our cars are more efficient over 10 years ago, but look
at the increase in number of cars, amount of plastic packaging, amount of
computers, etc.

Not junk science. Our cars are more efficient over 10 years ago, but look
at the increase in number of cars, amount of plastic packaging, amount of
computers, etc.

So cite numbers that back it up. The little bit I've seen over the years
clearly shows vehicle consupmtion as the leading consumer of hydrocarbons.
By quantity totals as well as percentages of increase. This isn't to say
that electronic devices aren't more prevalent or that they can, in some
circumstances, consume greater wattage. Just that they're nowhere near the
same load as vehicular consumption. That cars are less inefficient that 10
years ago (in and of itself an additionally questionable statement) doesn't
begin to put a dent in the MUCH larger conumption they're require.

On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 09:04:24 -0400, "Bill Kearney"
wrote:

So cite numbers that back it up. The little bit I've seen over the years
clearly shows vehicle consupmtion as the leading consumer of hydrocarbons.

It's not that hard to do a quick "back of the napkin" analysis:

Let's assume the average household owns two cars and drives them
12,000 miles a year each. Further assuming 18 mpg average
consumption, that's about 1300 gallons per year for transportation.

Let's also assume that the average household uses about 400 kwh per
month in electricity for a total of 4800 kwh per year. It takes about
1 gallon of hydrocarbon fuel to generate 16 kwh at the power plant.
Since the transmission system is only about 25% efficient however
because of line and transformer losses, it really takes about 1 gallon
per 4 kwh, for a total of about 1200 gallons per year.

Those estimates tend to support the assertion that vehicle consumption
uses more fuel, at least at the household level. It will vary widely
from family to family however, and the numbers are fairly close to a
50/50 split.

I have no idea what typical numbers are at the industrial and
commercial level.

Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 09:04:24 -0400, "Bill Kearney"
wrote:


So cite numbers that back it up. The little bit I've seen over the years
clearly shows vehicle consupmtion as the leading consumer of hydrocarbons.


It's not that hard to do a quick "back of the napkin" analysis:

Let's assume the average household owns two cars and drives them
12,000 miles a year each. Further assuming 18 mpg average
consumption, that's about 1300 gallons per year for transportation.

Let's also assume that the average household uses about 400 kwh per
month in electricity for a total of 4800 kwh per year. It takes about
1 gallon of hydrocarbon fuel to generate 16 kwh at the power plant.
Since the transmission system is only about 25% efficient however
because of line and transformer losses, it really takes about 1 gallon
per 4 kwh, for a total of about 1200 gallons per year.

Those estimates tend to support the assertion that vehicle consumption
uses more fuel, at least at the household level. It will vary widely
from family to family however, and the numbers are fairly close to a
50/50 split.

I have no idea what typical numbers are at the industrial and
commercial level.

The transmission system is only 25% efficient? I might believe 25%
loss, although even that seems high.

--
Del Cecchi
"This post is my own and doesn’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions,
strategies or opinions.”

"Del Cecchi" wrote in message
...
Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 09:04:24 -0400, "Bill Kearney"
wrote:


So cite numbers that back it up. The little bit I've seen over the years
clearly shows vehicle consupmtion as the leading consumer of
hydrocarbons.


It's not that hard to do a quick "back of the napkin" analysis: Let's
assume the average household owns two cars and drives them
12,000 miles a year each. Further assuming 18 mpg average
consumption, that's about 1300 gallons per year for transportation.

Let's also assume that the average household uses about 400 kwh per
month in electricity for a total of 4800 kwh per year. It takes about
1 gallon of hydrocarbon fuel to generate 16 kwh at the power plant.
Since the transmission system is only about 25% efficient however
because of line and transformer losses, it really takes about 1 gallon
per 4 kwh, for a total of about 1200 gallons per year.

Those estimates tend to support the assertion that vehicle consumption
uses more fuel, at least at the household level. It will vary widely
from family to family however, and the numbers are fairly close to a
50/50 split.

I have no idea what typical numbers are at the industrial and
commercial level.

The transmission system is only 25% efficient? I might believe 25% loss,
although even that seems high.

--
Del Cecchi
"This post is my own and doesn’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions,
strategies or opinions.”

Maaybe the overall efficiency is 75%, but I have heard there is an about 3%
transmission loss.