Indirect economical benefit of EVs

[GRA]

As the link states, _unless_ you also raise the price of the energy, energy efficiency will result in more of it being used (in the medium and long-term).

You and I have both given real-world examples that refute the above, haven't we? :lol:

Sure have, but as I also wrote,

My lifestyle choices, and the lifestyle choices of many here are hardly representative of the typical american, yet even with someone as energy and environmentally-conscious as I am, if I could drive my car the same distance for less I would use it more - when gas was $1.50 gallon or less I was driving 10-12,000 miles/year.

Now, you are moving off-grid I believe, and maybe building yourself an Earthship to live in. I used to design and sell off-grid AE systems to people just like you (and also took classes in shelter design as well as spent time helping someone build a rammed-earth home). Do you consider us representative of typical Americans? :lol:

What did that survey of typical Leaf owners show, that 92% or maybe it was 96% of them owned their own homes and that 52% had post-graduate degrees? Not exactly a representative cross-section of the American public, is it? The average American won't conserve energy for environmental reasons, and they won't do so for energy/national security reasons either. The _only_ reasons they will do so are because not doing so hits them in the wallet, or else because accessing that energy is very inconvenient. IMO the same holds true for just about every other human population grouping on the planet, outside the miniscule lunatic fringe (such as ourselves) who do so for ideological reasons.

 

[AndyH]

If "typical..." or "that's the way we've always done it, therefore tomorrow will look the same as yesterday" was 'real' then we'd still be wearing leopard skins and hunting with sharp sticks. Macro views are forced to change once enough micro factors change.

Inertia is powerful enough - why should we look for more outdated beliefs to chain ourselves to? Maybe it would be good for us to leave at least a slightly opened window for evolution to enter? Viva la Hundredth Monkey! LOL

 

[AndyH]

As the link states, _unless_ you also raise the price of the energy, energy efficiency will result in more of it being used (in the medium and long-term).

You and I have both given real-world examples that refute the above, haven't we? :lol:

Sure have, but as I also wrote,

My lifestyle choices, and the lifestyle choices of many here are hardly representative of the typical american, yet even with someone as energy and environmentally-conscious as I am, if I could drive my car the same distance for less I would use it more - when gas was $1.50 gallon or less I was driving 10-12,000 miles/year.

Now, you are moving off-grid I believe, and maybe building yourself an Earthship to live in. I used to design and sell off-grid AE systems to people just like you (and also took classes in shelter design as well as spent time helping someone build a rammed-earth home). Do you consider us representative of typical Americans? :lol:

What did that survey of typical Leaf owners show, that 92% or maybe it was 96% of them owned their own homes and that 52% had post-graduate degrees? Not exactly a representative cross-section of the American public, is it? The average American won't conserve energy for environmental reasons, and they won't do so for energy/national security reasons either. The _only_ reasons they will do so are because not doing so hits them in the wallet, or else because accessing that energy is very inconvenient. IMO the same holds true for just about every other human population grouping on the planet, outside the miniscule lunatic fringe (such as ourselves) who do so for ideological reasons.

While I stand by my prior post I think you deserve a bit more on-target response.

I may be missing some info and/or concepts to totally grok Jevon's contribution and thus may be missing the point you're trying to make. Mea culpa. What bothers me about the view, though, is that I think today's world is significantly different than the world in the mid-1800s. While we still have carbon based fuels and have to restrict use of some for other than supply reasons, it appears the overall result is the same: While energy demand continues to increase, supply is limited, as is the planet. I simply do not think that we have the option today or in the near term to follow the 'Jevon's Path' of consuming more on a macro level.

I do get your point about the demographics of this site, but the few 'Abby Normals' here are matched with a significant population of similar-worldview folks in the outside world. They're mostly in the 'newer than baby-boom' generations - and not generally the type of folks that'll get time in the mainstream/corporate media. It seems to me that the "old-way/new-way" tension that's building today between the boomers and young'uns will be released once a significant portion of the boomers move on. I think Jevon's will be sidelined for some time unless/until cold fusion or antimatter (or similar non-polluting power) is widely deployed.

I don't know if that helps build a useful bridge, but it's heartfelt anyway.

Andy