I don't think you can treat all energy use equally. Part of the problem is that the only real measure we have to control consumption is cost, but the market price of energy use doesn't include all the costs to society of consumption. Take coal for example, we burn it to excite electrons because it can be bought so cheaply, but if you factor in the external costs of burning coal due to to factors like loss of forestry revenues and health care then it actually becomes one of the most expensive forms of energy.

Unfortunately the markets aren't sophisticated enough or willing to take those costs into account voluntarily, so the only way to do so would be through a regulatory framework (the kind of thinking that leads towards carbon trading). The trouble is that this level of government interference in the markets is anathema to many, and tbh there's a lot going for the idea of free markets, even if they don't always do what's of the greatest collective benefit to society.

My opinion: take the middle path. Leave the markets to set prices except in the most egregious cases of actual harm being proven. IMO coal would fall into the latter category, but the fact that we're so heavily committed to coal use means weaning ourselves will have to be a slow process.

Posted By: tonyDoes it matter how much energy we use?

Not really

Posted By: tonyAssuming that a person can afford the costs can they use as much energy or fuel as they like?

The money filters down through the economy, so yeas they can

Posted By: tonyIn a responsible society should there be some control?

There is through the market already.

Now if you want to analyse secondary effects, ask a different question

Errr. Using price as a regulator? With market forces already operating in that sector (energy, remember, the thread title doesn't discriminate between any particular source) then what previous posters seem to be saying is that they'd actually like to see MORE third-party interference in the "free market" if the presumption of a price-control mechanism is to be realised.

Mind you, raising prices (note, not RISING prices) would solve the problem of over-population in very short order.

What strikes me as odd is that in all these discussions on "energy" use, no one even gives a second thought to WOOD. What's going on there? Apart from those lucky enough to own their own woodland, of sufficient size to supply their own needs, others are noting the increasing scarcity and rising cost of fuel for their wood-burners due to increased demand from others of like-mind and the encroachment of biomass-fuel suppliers.

And I know you didn't actually write it, the inference is there in the assumption on your part.

In suggesting that "market forces" should operate to regulate energy use, and as market forces are already operating to regulate energy use, then the only way to get price to regulate use is for someone to step in and interfere in the working of the market forces - like a tax on petrol and diesel!

Er, wood, as in wood stoves... "the increasing scarcity and rising cost of fuel for their wood-burners due to increased demand from others of like-mind and the encroachment of biomass-fuel suppliers." Clear distinction there.

Posted By: Joinerthen the only way to get price to regulate use is for someone to step in and interfere in the working of the market forces - like a tax on petrol and diesel!

Not sure I follow you here, price is set by supply and demand. This recession is showing that, the price of fuel is fairly stable, the supply is stable and the demand is stable, they all change slightly but nothing like they should as it is a huge global market. All that happens is that the goods are delivered to a different place. One way that the UK could generate more income is to get more coal out the ground, not sure why we don't from a money viewpoint (money and price are not the same).

Posted By: tonyDoes it matter how much energy we use?

You cd start by checking the various end-products of energy use, whether they're beneficial or not. E.g. energy use to produce armaments - it does matter how much energy we use on that - less the better.

You cd also check the effects of energy production prior to use. Prob all more or less disastrous. E.g. shale oil/gas destroys swathes of natural environment - the less use therefore production of that, the better.

And consumption of finite resources. E.g. oil more valuable longterm as material feedstock, than as fuel. To greatly reduce the rate of depletion of finite resources that we'll need as a trickle for a long time, less use as energy the better.

Then the downstream waste-effect of energy use. Hi-grade (lo-entropy) energy, whether from burning fuel, or from 'renewable' sources is carelessly dissipated into lo-grade (hi-entropy) 'waste' heat which is no good to anyone and is just dumped as rubbish into the biosphere, regardless of effect.

That dumped extra energy, which the planet has to get rid of, results in a slight increase in biosphere equilibrium temp, at which the required higher heat flow-rate into space is attained. So far that's not been seen as a problem, so prob not a reason to use less energy.

However, one portion of that extra energy, the bit that comes from burning fuel, causes a disastrous multiplication of the effect of the dumped energy, by creating greenhouse gasses hand-in-glove with the energy's production (by burning), therefore hand-in-glove with its use. So the less use of burnt-fuel-derived energy the better; no such restriction on 'renewable'-derived energy. Where biomass-burning fits into that spectrum, is another debate! Ditto nuclear.

Overall, it's burnt-fuel-derived energy (especially fossil) that causes the overwhelming problem, which has to be stopped almost completely. As it's the world's overwhelming present source, that's a tall order.

Unfortunately, too much focus is on replacement 'clean' energy sources, which rapidly leads to the conclusion that nothing (except perhaps nuclear) can come close to replacing fossil - so it's hopeless, so business-as-usual, with a bit of carbon-capture etc maybe.

The focus should instead be on energy-use reduction all round - like 80% demand-reduction worldwide. Then relatively harmless 'renewables' stand a chance of being sufficient. Such demand-reduction is seen as even more hopeless that energy source replacement, so again it's business-as-usual, with a bit of building insulation etc maybe.

But the potential for demand reduction has hardly been explored, with a will - mainly because of the focus instead on source-replacement (even novice 'greenies' think it's all about solar panels and other add-on gadgets, rather than fundamental building design, or even full-blown Permaculture-type understanding). David MacKay is guilty of this inadequacy, and his thinking is about as 'advanced' as any government has so far taken on board.

The biggest, and least explored route to massive demand reduction is, as mentioned above
"Hi-grade (lo-entropy) energy, whether from burning fuel, or from 'renewable' sources is carelessly dissipated into lo-grade (hi-entropy) 'waste' heat which is no good to anyone".
Energy use can be a cascade, from energy's hi-grade (lo-entropy) starting form, the waste heat from that being conserved as hot as possible (hi-ish grade, lo-ish-entropy), so can be usefully used as input by the next process down the chain, and so on down to prob building space-heating or algae-tanks as happy with lo-ish-grade, hi-ish-entropy energy input.

In that way 4 or 5 energy uses can be squeezed out of one original tranche of hi-grade energy input. Instead of all taking a tranche of hi-grade energy and carelessly dissipating not only its energy content (as 4 or 5 times as much waste heat dumped to atmosphere), but more to the point, 4 or 5 times as much lo-entropy resource.

Entropy thinking is the key - and we have to admit no-one's even begun on that, really.

So massive demand reduction is the key, and is possible - hence, yes it does matter how much energy we use. Human survival depends on it, until such time as 'limitless' 'clean' energy sources become available. At that point, prob doesn't matter how much energy we use - but don't bank on it, for the foreseeable.

To stop burning fossil is the absolute necessity, and to not resort to nuclear as substitute, but instead to switch to 'renewables'.

Energy demand reduction is not in itself an absolute necessity, but it is the necessary tactic, for the foreseeable, to bring demand down to what's feasible for 'renewables' to supply.

As Einstein showed there is rather a lot of it (energy) so really there is no theoretical problem with us becoming energy hungry. The problem comes form both how we use it and how we convert it to a firm we wish to use. Both of these can have an effect on others around us and thus have to be taken into account. We are still at a technological and political level whereby we use combustion for the majority of our needs and we are all very aware of the consequences of this. There are other ways, currently available and in the pipeline. We must remember that we can use energy for good and for conservation of more fragile resources.

Posted By: JoinerOoooh dearie, dearie me. There's heresy for you!

From an ethical viewpoint it is, not from an economical one though.

Posted By: Joiner"price is set by supply and demand" only in a truly free market. Need and ability to pay the going price regulate use.

The need and ability to pay is part of the supply and demand, just sets a new market price.

Another way to look at this is how much would you be willing to be compensated for not using energy, would you want more money per kWh if you used less than a set amount or less money. Would be easy to work out what it is really worth then. I get a discount on my bill because I used less than 90% of the previous year. Think it was a couple of quid, so no incentive there to change.
The people that have installed PV rather set a trend here.

Take electricity, and if we had an 'all inclusive' price, do people have a view on what it should be per kWh.
How about gas, oil, REs. Should they all be the same price?

Posted By: JoinerWhere's the free market competitive element in that lot?

Right
The mechanism to balance the grid is based on an auction to supply. Whoever can supply, to the required standard, for the cheapest price, does so. If the customer, then wishes to pay another supplier to disconnect, they are free to do so. The net result is the cheapest energy to the required quality.
I think there is a debate to be had on the standard of quality, but not the free market in the energy sector.

http://withbotheyesopen.com/

Allwood is speaking in Cambridge tonight.

I remember seeing somewhere that the last 100 odd years of exponential scientific developement
could be considered directly related to the exponential increase in enrgy use.

Do we need to increase our energy use to continue to develope ?

We can do more and better and cleverer things using energy, but we don't need to be so wasteful of it. That hasn't been a priority till now. e can as much, or more, development-wise, using a fraction of the energy. Just because the two have been correlaTED TILL NOW, DOESN'T MEAN A CAUSE-AND-EFFECT LINK (oops sorry)

Have you got a little book of 'Handy Analogies' always to hand?