About Power

We stand naked and exposed in the face of our ever-increasing power, lacking the wherewithal to control it.

Pope Francis, Encyclical Letter of 2015

[Subsequent to the Chernobyl fiasco of 1986,] [c]ountries of the former USSR have been encouraged by the International Atomic Energy Agency . . . and the United States to shut down . . . [Chernobyl-style] reactors, but as of early 1995 demands for electrical power have prevented such action.

Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, 1994

Those 68,260 BTUs required to electroprocess that pound of titanium back in 1952 could have been applied slowly or quickly;* either way they would have performed their work.—But had the factory staff set out to produce so many pounds per hour, their machines would have needed to do work at a given continuous rate. The same would apply had they wished to listen to the radio in the front office:

Luxury is right. Her mother brings her ironing over every Tuesday, because we have the electricity. The last baby, her mother stayed with us a week and she never went to bed till two o’clock in the morning, listening to the radio . . . The old lady won’t believe it that the music comes from Chicago, through the air.

What the old lady “consumed” was not a commodity but an experience: electric power creating fleeting sounds, moment after moment, at her will.

Power is amount of work done per unit of time. When I was alive, my homeland’s unit of power was the watt.

1 watt = 1 joule* per second = 0.056884 BTUs per minute

In heat-equivalents, a watt expresses the energy in one match tip entirely burnt every 17 and a half minutes.

If none of its inherent energy were lost to electricity generation, and we could combust it with preposterous slowness, a pound of “average” Appalachian coal [at 12,500 BTUs] could give off 1 watt continuously for nearly 153 days.

By definition, a 100-watt lightbulb consumed 100 joules per second, which worked out to 5.6884 BTUs per minute. Twelve thousand simultaneously shining 100-watt bulbs would burn in one minute the same amount of energy as was needed to make that pound of titanium.*

Since the watt is an open-ended measure of continuous energy consumption, we require a different measure for absolute energy consumed. This latter is the watt-hour.* Two bulbs rated at the same wattage will draw the same amount of power. But the one that shines for a shorter interval will use less energy—fewer watt-hours.

An American radio from the 1950s might be rated at 60 watts. If someone played it for 15 hours, the power it spent would equal (60 × 15) or 900 watt-hours—a figure which in our day would be expressed in an electric bill as 0.9 kilowatt-hours.

A kilowatt is 1,000 watts. A kilowatt-hour inventories the result of 1,000 watts being consumed for the space of an hour, or 500 watts spent for two hours, or any other equivalent of 1,000 joules:

1 kilowatt-hour is equivalent to 1 kilowatt × 1 hour, or 1,000 × [0.056884 BTUs/minute] × 60 minutes

Hence this simple conversion:

1 kilowatt-hour = 3,600,000 joules = 3,413 BTUs

But what does a kilowatt-hour really “mean”? How can one conceptualize it?

Since one BTU indicates the amount of energy needed to warm a pound of water by 1° Fahrenheit, then 1 kilowatt-hour could correspondingly warm 3,413 pounds of water—more than 409 gallons.

Should you happen to have 2,650 hundred-pound sandbags on hand, please open your trap door and let them all tumble 10 feet. The work thereby accomplished on them by gravity adds up to 1 kilowatt-hour. This quantity is rather staggering. Imagine what would be left of you after a 265,000-pound weight fell 10 feet onto your head!—But our electric-powered toys could slurp up a kilowatt-hour almost effortlessly—which cost us next to nothing (never mind the future). A children’s illustrated book enthused: Today, electricity is such a familiar and convenient form of energy that it is simply called “power” . . .

Pastry-making machine, Kyoto

In 1952, one kilowatt-hour could power a sewing machine for about eight hours or a vacuum cleaner for three. It could percolate 40 cups of coffee, or keep a 40-watt bulb shining for 25 hours.* At our typical ⅓ efficiencies, a pound of Appalachian coal burned in a power plant would produce 1 kilowatt-hour, with a few BTUs left over.

We liked to keep the lights on in 1952.—Back then, we had carbon to burn. A pound of kerosene contained within it enough energy to generate 5.8 kilowatt-hours—nearly 20,000 BTUs.*

PER CAPITA POWER CONSUMPTION, ca. 1925 and ca. 2014,

in multiples of the 1925 Japanese average

All levels expressed in [kilowatt-hours and BTUs]. 1 kWh = 3,413.0 BTUs. I provide both units since kWh are the default in power reports.

All figures over 10 rounded up to nearest whole digit.

ca. 1925

1

Japan [88 and 300,344] (kWh and BTUs).

1.60

Germany [141 and 481,233].

5.36

United States [472 and 1,610,936].

5.60

Norway [493 and 1,682,609].

6.95

Canada [612 and 2,088,756].

7.96

Switzerland [700 and 2,389,100].

ca. 2014*

77

Japan [6,764 and 23,084,798]. An increase of 77×.

82

Germany [7,192 and 24,545,108]. An increase of 51×.

83

Switzerland [7,315 and 24,966,095]. An increase of 11×.

139

United States [12,186 and 41,590,610]. An increase of 26×.

163

Canada [14,351 and 48,979,963]. An increase of 23×.

267

Norway [23,486 and 80,157,718]. An increase of 48×.

Satisfying each Canadian’s electric appetite throughout 2014 would have required:*

Michigan brown peat: 4,885 pounds; or,

West Virginia bituminous coal, Pocahontas No. 3 bed: 3,666 lbs; or,

diesel fuel: 2,343 lbs = 362 gal; or,

gasoline: 2,174 lbs = 384 gal; or,

methane (primary constituent of natural gas): 1,890 lbs = 49,309 cu ft; or,

nuclear fuel: 0.00012374 lb = 1/505 of an ounce.

Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, 1925; Central Intelligence Agency; 2014, with calculations by WTV.

Although the tools, appliances and toys that we owned all did measurable amounts of work (as when we ran a vacuum cleaner over the hall rug), we never had to worry (unless they were battery-powered) how much electricity they required.* We just plugged them into the wall! They drank in current, each according to its rated need, and as long as we wished them to work, they would, hour after hour, without limit, until we got tired of them or they wore out. Then we bought new ones, which were built even “better,” because they could do more work.

Not all of us were careless and thoughtless. The government regulators who imposed efficiency standards and the engineers who met them deserve praise. Some appliances truly did become better, accomplishing more work while using less energy. Here is one such story: Between 1947 and 2008, American refrigerators grew in size by 159%—and by 1974 they were bolting down more than 400% more electric power than in 1947. Four ecologically conscious engineers from Stanford accordingly advised us: In general, old small refrigerators use less energy than the big new ones.—Then (in part because of what we called “the Arab oil crisis”) manufacturing standards kicked in. Of course most “consumers” hardly knew or cared—but the 2008 models drew less power than the dinosaurs of 1947—so much less that keeping older models running often became the wrong choice.

Building a refrigerator took energy—this much to smelt and shape the steel, that much for the glass, so much for the refrigerant, etcetera. Call the sum of all such the manufacturing energy.

Once some “consumer” bought it and plugged it in, the machine began drinking electric power, as it would do almost without letup throughout its entire working life. Let that consumption be named the use energy.

The sum of these is the embodied energy.

A refrigerator made in a certain year might stay in service for a decade, consuming ever more embodied energy. The manufacturing energy remained fixed forever, while the use energy grew second by second. If the householder who owned it cared about “some ecosystem somewhere,” she might strive to do good by nursing it as long as possible, delaying the time when the climate-changing CFCs or HCFCs from its dismantled guts rose up into the atmosphere,* and likewise putting off the necessity to smelt more steel and produce more glass for the sake of a new toy. All the while, her present refrigerator’s ratio of use energy to manufacturing energy increased. Oh, she meant well—but she might be doing harm. And if the intuitively laudable approach of retaining one’s workhorses, living frugally, declining to escalate demand, were wrong, who could blame her for throwing up her hands? When I was writing Carbon Ideologies, my friends said, “Bill, what’s your solution?” and “Bill, what’s the point of all this arithmetic?” and “Bill, if there’s no hope why even think about it?” (Of all the excuses I heard for doing nothing about climate change, the last one actually touched my heart.)

Four technologists (one of them Professor Gutowski) who studied the relative contribution of each lifecycle stage of the product from cradle to grave concluded, as one might have predicted, that the use phase of [a] refrigerator is the largest contributing phase in regards to energy consumption. Better, then, to junk a 1974 model refrigerator and buy one from 1983, writing off the double expense of manufacturing energy for the two appliances, than to replace failing components, keeping the old one loyally humming and throbbing—and spending significantly more carbon-emitting electricity over its nine-year average useful life than would the model from 1983.

But keeping an old fridge running was the right thing to do in 1956 and the wrong thing in 1992.

If a householder’s room air conditioner, washing machine, refrigerator and dishwasher were all 1981 models, and if she replaced them with 2008 models, she might save herself—and our atmosphere—from the effects of 213 million wasted BTUs: many dollars, 4,900 gallons of heavy grade fuel oil burned in a power plant, and more than 20 tons of carbon dioxide.

Woman walking past the Flamingo substation, Las Vegas

Wearing our clothes out, right into rags, was always best; while replacing an electric motor usually saved more energy than repairing it. As for retreading our automobile tires, that strongly depends on the boundary conditions of the analysis.

Meanwhile we lived our own lives, buying toys and plugging them in. This was our glory—in the developed world, at least, where we still had all the power we could pay for. Where that power came from was no business of ours. (Where did it come from? I quote from Power and the Plow, 1911: Possibly the most stupendous discovery in the history of the world was that heat from burning materials could be made to do the work of plants and animals.)

What an apt word, power!—Here are some ways we spent it:

COMPARATIVE POWER REQUIREMENTS AND ENERGY USAGES,

in multiples of what was needed per minute ca. 1975 to operate a plug-in vibrator

[From American sources, unless otherwise stated.]

All levels expressed in [BTUs per minute]. Early-21st-century U.S. electricity assumed to be 115 volts. Note that some devices such as refrigerators cycle on and off, while others receive only intermittent use; hence while these comparisons are accurate per minute of operation, they prove nothing in regard to longer-term power consumption. Unless otherwise stated, these are rated figures. “Typically, the input power for a microwave oven is 50% higher than its rated power.”

These estimates come from many different sources and are not utterly consistent. For instance, compare 1.87–2.49 to 4.0, and 289.48 billion to 299.39 billion.

The symbol <H> indicates that a longer block of energy consumption has been broken up into assumedly equal increments of BTUs/min. This may be an oversimplification. For instance, the refrigerator in 2.4 must do more thermodynamic work than usual after the door has been opened in order to put away groceries.

The symbol <C> is a reminder that in a given case some or all thermodynamic work was supplied or could be supplied non-electrically—by combustion. For instance, much of the total U.S. energy consumption for 1990 went not to electric power but motor power: burning gasoline in vehicle engines.

All comparative headers over 10 rounded up to nearest whole digit. Absolute figures over 200 rounded likewise. Absolute figures and comparative headers over 1 billion rounded to 2 significant digits.

<1

<C> 1 watt [0.056884 BTUs/min]. Please recall that a watt is a unit not of energy, but of energy consumption. 1 watt = 1 joule per second.

<1

Operating a certain medium-quality rechargeable drugstore electric toothbrush, purchased 2015 [0.051].

<1

<C> The amount of heat to be withdrawn from 1 pound of water in order to form ice in 24 hours. [Based on definition of a refrigeration ton.] [0.100 BTU per minute].

<1

<H> Operating a passive infrared sensor LED motion detector light, purchased 2015 [1.74].

1

Enjoying a plug-in vibrator, ca. 1975 [2.28 BTUs per minute].

1.6

<C> Sleeping: metabolic requirement of a human body [3.67].

1.5

Operating a popular brand of laptop computer, purchased 2014 [3.43]. Compare with 359.

1.87

Operating a “consumer” grade sewing machine, ca. 1975 [4.27]. Compare with 629.

1.87–2.49

<C> “A typical adult male at sustained labor is estimated to produce 75 to 100 watts of power.” [4.26 to 5.69]. Compare with 2.95 and 4.0.

2

Operating a radio, ca. 1975 [4.56]. Compare with 22.

2.4

<H> Operating refrigerator, ca. 1961 [5.53]. Compare with 3.8, 5.9, 419.

2.5

Powering a 100-watt lightbulb, by definition [5.69].

2.95

<H> <C> “A moderately active human adult requires about 3 million cal[ories] [= 3,000 “food calories” or kcal] every 24 hr.” [8.27].

3.7–4.7

<C> Removing 1 cubic inch [per minute] of brass, using a round-nosed lathe tool, ca. 1945 [8.48–10.61 BTUs per minute].

3.8

<H> Operating refrigerator, 1969 [8.69]. Compare with 2.4, 5.9, 419.

4.0

<H> Sweeping the floor: metabolic requirement of a human body [9.2]. Compare with 1.6, 1.87–2.49.

5.9

<H> Operating refrigerator without freezer, ca. 1975 [13.37]. With frostless freezer: [25.31]. Compare with 2.4, 3.8, 419.

7.5

<H> Running home freezer, hair dryer or color television,* ca. 1975 [17.05].

9.3–14

Activating 15-pound power hammer, ca. 1945 [21.09–31.82].

9.5

<H> Operating a 40-gallon electric water heater, purchased ca. 2011 [21.7].*

13

Operating a certain brand of electric corn popper, 1956. “It’s 25% bigger and much faster than many poppers of this type. Full 500-watt heating element (not just 400 watts) gives faster popping and fluffier, more tender popcorn. No stirring or shaking!” [28.44].

13

<H> Average per-minute power consumption by William T. Vollmann during December 2014 [28.92]. Compare with 16.

13

Operating a vacuum cleaner, ca. 1975 [30.72]. Compare with 34, 1,048.

15

Operating a cell phone charger, ca. 2012 [34.13].

16

<H> Average per-minute power consumption by William T. Vollmann during December 2013 [36.26]. Compare with 13.

19–33

<C> Removing 1 cubic inch of cast steel, using a round-nosed lathe tool, ca. 1945 [42.42–76.35].

19

<H> Operating a heavy-duty blender, purchased 2012 [42.51].

21

<H> “American average” household power consumption (about 20 kilowatt-hours per day), ca. 1975 [47.4]. Compare with 31.

22

Listening to a radio, ca. 2012 [51.2]. Compare with 2.

25

• <C> 1 kilowatt [56.884].

26

<H> Average power consumption “for a single family residence” in Sacramento, California, 2016 [59.3]. “S[acramento] M[unicipal] U[tility] D[istrict], through its energy efficiency programs for customers, set an aggressive goal in 2007 to accomplish 15 percent energy reduction in 10 years. SMUD is on track to meet or exceed that goal next year.”

29

Operating .75 horsepower air compressor, purchased ca. 1999* [66.33].

30

Running a dishwasher, ca. 1975 [67.69].

31

Operating a 11 × 14" photographic dry mount press, mfg. ca. 1970s [71.105].

31

Average American household power consumption, 2010 [71.7]. Compare with 21.

32

<H> Operating a window air conditioner, ca. 1975 [73.95].

33

<H> Operating a “Fan-forced Non-Automatic Electric Heater,” 1956 [75.08].

34

<H> Using a home electric broiler, ca. 1975 [78.22].

34

Operating a hypoallergenic vacuum cleaner, purchased 2010 [78.50]. Compare with 13, 1048.

35

<H> <C> Per capita American “food-related energy flow,”* 2002 [78.92]. Compare with 284.

81

<H> <C> Per capita American energy use, including burning wood for fuel, 1870 [184.87].

93

<H> <C> Accomplishing average work with a bulldozer of 29-inch width and 14-inch head movement, ca. 1945 [212].

93

<C> Operating a horizontal boring, drilling and milling machine with a 2.5-inch-diameter spindle, ca. 1945 [212].

100

<C> Rated capacity of Parsons steam turbine dynamo, 1884: 4,000 watts at 100 volts d.v. [228].

105

<H> <C> Per capita American energy use, 1900 [240].

132

Operating a LG front-loading dryer, electric model, purchased ca. 2015 [301]. “Tumble driers [sic] are hugely energy inefficient and should be avoided if at all possible.”

161

Operating a Samsung front-loading dryer, DV42H5 series, gas model, purchased ca. 2015 [367].

180

Operating a 24-inch LCD television, ca. 2012 [410].

194

<H> <C> Per capita American energy use, 1950 [443].

270

<H> <C> Per capita American energy use, 1990 [616]. This is 3.33 times the comparable figure for 1870; see 81. For 1990 per capita figure, see 67.84 billion.

284

<H> <C> Per capita American overall “energy flow,” 2002 [647]. Compare with 35.

292

Cooking on a home electric range, ca. 1975 [667].

359

Operating a desktop personal computer, ca. 2012 [819]. Compare with 1.5.

372

<C> Accomplishing average work with a bulldozer of 63-inch width and 20-inch head movement, ca. 1945 [848].

372–465

<C> Operating a horizontal boring, drilling and milling machine with a 9.5-inch-diameter spindle, ca. 1945 [848–1,061].

419

<H> Operating a 12-cubic-foot refrigerator, ca. 2012 [956]. Compare with 3.8, 4.8, 5.9.*

465–651

Activating a 1,000-pound power hammer, ca. 1945 [1,060–1,485].

629

Operating a light commercial sewing machine, purchased ca. 2010 [1,434]. Compare with 1.85. This figure, calculated per usual procedure, strikes me as far too high.

688

Flying the first Piper Cub two-seat airplane at full engine capacity (“a whopping 37 horsepower”), 1938 [1,569].

897

Operating a hedge trimmer, ca. 2012 [2,044].

898

Powering the 5 screens of a multiplex movie theater, ca. 2009 [2,047].

1,048

Operating a vacuum cleaner, ca. 2012 [2,389]. Compare with 13, 34.

1,347

Operating a small microwave, ca. 2012 [3,071].

1,497

Operating a hair dryer, ca. 2012 [3,413].

1,796

Operating an espresso machine or a dishwasher, ca. 2012 [4,096].

2,096

Operating a large microwave, ca. 2012 [4,779].

7,442

<C> Capacity of an Illinois Central 1930 model 100,000-lb electric locomotive, 400 continuous horsepower [16,967].

11,102

<H> <C> Average U.S. electric production, week of June 17, 2015 [25,313].

126,510

<C> Capacity of a Virginian 1948 model 1,033,800-lb electric locomotive, 6,800 continuous horsepower [288,442].

2.29 billion

<H> <C> U.S. energy consumed in paper manufacture, 1988 [5.23 billion].

5.44 billion

<H> <C> U.S. energy consumed in refining petroleum, 1988 [12.39 billion].

67.84 billion

<H> <C> Total U.S. energy consumption, 1990 [154.68 billion]. For corresponding per capita figure, see 270.

74.85 billion

<H> <C> World energy consumption rate, ca. 1950: 3 terawatts [170.65 billion].

The following two entries vary by under 4%. Presumably we actually used more energy in 1991 than in 1990. Hence this small lesson in approximation errors.

289.48 billion

<H> <C> World energy consumption amount, 1991, converted as usual to the necessary per-minute rate, and computed from a different source than the next entry [660.01 billion].

299.39 billion

<H> <C> World energy consumption rate, ca. 1990: 12 terawatts [682.61 billion].

498.98 billion

<H> <C> World energy consumption rate, ca. 2015: “About” 20 terawatts [1.14 quadrillion].

748.47 billion

<H> <C> World energy consumption rate, ca. 2050 (ca. 2015 projection): 30 terawatts [1.71 quadrillion].

Circa 2010, per capita manufacturing power consumption was increasing by a steady 1.2% per year all around the globe.

And so a little picture-book on electricity, written for the benefit of American first-graders, did well (or at least appropriately) to end as follows: People everywhere need more and more electricity each day. Scientists keep looking for new ways to make electricity.