Comments on: 2,000 watt society

By: C. Lavoie

C. Lavoie — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 20:31:08 +0000

To conclude: energy consumption per capita per day ? Years ?

By: John G

John G — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 20:50:21 +0000

Maybe this is a bit naive, but I think that there needs to be a subtle shift in the Swiss focus. For a country that has to import 85% of it’s energy (yikes) shouldn’t they be focusing on increasing production? The concept of zero energy usage is wonderful, but that same building could be outfitted with wind and/or solar power production and actually produce more than it uses and of course, cleanly. I would rather see the “2000 Watt Society” actually mean that each person PRODUCES “2000 watts” than to decrease their consumption to “2000 watts”. This decreases the centralized production of energy and the need for massive sites of pollution production and redistributes into renewable sources under the control of individuals.

By: AllPunsIntended

AllPunsIntended — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 20:02:20 +0000

Natalino brings up a good point, Watt is an instant rate, not an amount of energy.

In any case, this whole idea of equating every action to a wattage is a very distracting construct. Watt should really be reserved to electrical and mechanical applications in a discussion like this. The notion that by buying a tomato from the store, you’re spending the associated “embodied transport” energy, water-pumping energy, fertilizing energy, and all the other energies used to _continuously_ grow and transport the tomato is misleading to say the least, stupid to say the most.

A better way to limit energy use (in our homes at least) already exists. You can track the amount of watt-hours you consume per day in your home, liters of water, cubics of gas, without any ambiguity. No need for frivolous attempts to convert everything to Watts, just because “2000 Watt Society” has a nice ring to it.

Why invent these useless constructs?

By: Brendan Barrett

Brendan Barrett — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 05:58:09 +0000

Thanks for your comment. Here is the direct qoute from the article referenced:

“the average Swiss today uses energy as follows: fifteen hundred watts per day for living and office space (this includes heat and hot water), eleven hundred watts for food and consumer items (the energy that it takes to produce and transport goods is referred to as “embodied” or “gray” energy), six hundred watts for electricity, five hundred watts for automobile travel, two hundred and fifty watts for air travel, and a hundred and fifty watts for public transportation.”

By: Natalino

Natalino — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 05:49:02 +0000

Interesting post. I had never heard of this concept before.

I would just like to point out that when we say “2000 watt per capita”, we don’t need to add “annually” because “2000 watt” is instant consumption. Per year, a “2000 watt” consumption actually means 17,520,000 watt hour, or 17.5 MWh.

Also, I tried to check the source of the second graph but I did not find those values in the referenced article. Where did you get them?

By: Carol Smith

Carol Smith — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 04:26:04 +0000

Thanks MG. In fact, as the final editor on this piece, I (not Kalle) take full responsibility for letting the original design’s funky shapes distract me from the accuracy! In total honesty, I must admit that I am pretty much a functional numerical illiterate (and have been since flunking math in high school)!

By: MG Bartlett

MG Bartlett — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 02:34:42 +0000

Very responsive (and responsible) of you. Kudos!

By: Brendan Barrett

Brendan Barrett — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 08:49:21 +0000

Thanks for this comment. It was not intentional (but graphic design) and we appreciate the points you make. We have redone the graphics. Thanks again.

By: MG Bartlett

MG Bartlett — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 08:33:17 +0000

The figures in this piece are deceptive (whether this is intentional or not I cannot say). The figures seem to be scaled by length rather than area which leads to a grossly deceptive impression of energy consumption. For example, by the numbers, the US energy consumption is 5x that of Mexico. However, the areas of the two circles presented in the figure would lead one to believe that US energy consumption per capita is nearly 25x that of Mexico. Likewise, the figure for the Swiss breakdown of consumption presents the figures in terms of area, though it seems all lengths in the figure are scaled, rather than areas. This leads to the impression that living space accounts for vastly (as in nearly 100x) more energy use than transportation, rather than the 10x difference reflected in the numeric data.

The author may not be responsible for the creation of the figures (both have attributions to other sources) but he should take more care to make sure that he is not propagating the numerical illiteracy of others.