Follow this blog:: RSS

9 amazing energy ‘believe it or not’ numbers from 2012

By Mark Halper | December 24, 2012, 3:38 AM PST

Some of Opower's facts are more believable than others. But certain ones indicate that the world's energy ship could run aground, if we're not careful.

Did you know that it costs only $0.41 a year to charge a new iPhone?

I’m not sure I believe that. But that’s what energy consulting firm Opower says, as part of a list that the Arlington, Va.-based company calls 10 energy numbers to remember from 2012.

Here are 9 of them, number-for-number and word-for-word as Opower describes them in a U.S. centric compilation of 2012 findings from various sources. The 10th is an advertisement for Opower, as you’ll notice if you click through the link in the previous paragraph, where you’ll also find some interesting elaboration on these numerical head scratchers:

1. 96 percent. The increase in electricity generation from natural gas power plants in the U.S. between 2000 and 2012.

2. $0.41. How much it costs per year to charge an iPhone 5.

3. 2017. Year in which the U.S. will become the world’s largest oil producer.

4. Number 1. 2012’s rank in the list of the warmest years ever recorded in the contiguous United States.

5. 23.8 miles per gallon. The average fuel efficiency of new cars sold in the U.S. during the first half of 2012 (a record high).

6. 1 in 3. Proportion of U.S. households that now have a smart meter.

7. 2. Number of nuclear reactors in the U.S. that were licensed in 2012 for new construction - the first licenses granted by federal regulators since 1978,

8. 50. Number of nuclear reactors that Japan has announced it plans to close by 2040.

9. 56.2 percent. Percentage of energy that is wasted by the U.S. economy each year.

Photo of Ripley’s Believe it or Not “Odditorium” in Panama City, Fla., by Joseph Klemen via Wikimedia.

Some SmartPlanet links to help you believe - or not:

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

About Mark Halper

Mark Halper is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

Full Bio
Disclosure
Contact

If you liked this, don't miss...

Comments

Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Follow via:: RSS

Top
Rated

Context?

It's really hard to be amazed at numbers without knowing the reliability of their sources and understanding how they were arrived at - the definitions used for say "wasted energy." For example in the first statement - are you stating the avg. increase per natural gas power plant, or you stating the total amount of increase in power from all gas powered plants, or the growing number of natural gas powered plants converted from coal? Or, the number of new NG powered plants? It's really a pretty meaningless number without proper context. Another example -"2012s rank in the list of the warmest years ever recorded" Does that include geologic heat derived recordings of the pre-historic past? Or, does that number include recordings excluded from the increased heat masses of large cities which is also a growing number in itself (I live out of a city near the water front and my temperatures are consistently 5-10 degrees cooler than the city that is only three miles away). It's all about context and qualifications - if you want to be better informed than the sound-byte/social media driven misinformation world that surrounds us more and more each day - of which SP unfortunately a good example.

Posted by dduggerbiocepts

24th Dec

Just
In

@Hates Idiots: Secretly funded propaganda

"Your last two links are propaganda by non-scientist, Willard Anthony Watts.
Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries.
Watts was to receive $90,000 in 2012 from the Heartland Institute.
That payment only became public when someone revealed internal Heartland budget documents.

"Hates Idiots" you do so much posting. Spending so much time. Someone paying you? "

Hates idiots is John McGrew... And it's curious how much Adornoe shows up spewing stupidity on anything with comments by John McGrew aka Hates Idiots... Perhaps all three are the same paid shill/moron.

Posted by i8thecat4

3rd Jan

Show:

Please Select

+5 Votes

+ -

Context?

Posted by dduggerbiocepts

24th Dec

Reply
Flag

+1 Vote

+ -

Recorded temperatures

In general when you see the term "temperature record" or similar phrases it implies that we're talking about the instrument temperature record which is something that started in the mid 1800's. 2012 is indeed the warmest year ever recorded in the contiguous United States by a wide margin (but only around 9th worldwide).

The effects of Urban Heat Islands are well understood and accounted for in compiling the temperature record so they don't affect the measurement to any great degree. If you're going to accuse scientists of ignoring the UHI issue you're going to have to provide some actual scientific evidence to back it up.

Posted by riverat1

24th Dec

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Problem is, which "scientists" are making the claim for higher temperatures

in the continental U.S.?

When the temperatures of the "UHI" are tossed in with the rest of "recorded" temperatures, then, the average temperature will be higher, and not really indicative of the average for the continent.

Posted by adornoe

24th Dec

Reply
Flag

+1 Vote

+ -

@adornoe: which "scientists" you say ... Ha ha ha

Earlier this month you said

So, go back to school if you can, and learn what real science is about. But, don't go to a liberal university or the public school system, because, they'll be trying to sell you on the principles of "junk science".

Posted by Cmd_Line_Dino

26th Dec

Reply
Flag

+1 Vote

+ -

UHI effects are not a factor

First you need to understand that what climate scientists are interested in is the change of temperature over time, not so much the absolute temperature. It is easily possible for a thermometer in an Urban Heat Island to accurately measure how temperature is changing over time while still reading higher than the surrounding more natural areas.

Second, a study was done years ago now using Antony Watts' SurfaceStations.org list of well sited and poorly sited weather stations. It found that the well placed sites actually showed a slightly greater warming trend than the poorly placed sites. Maybe they're overcompensating.

Here's a few papers that address the subject.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009JD013094.shtml
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/wmo/ccl/rural-urban.pdf
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Hansen_etal.pdf

Posted by riverat1

26th Dec

Reply
Flag

-1 Votes

+ -

Never seen documentation of any accounting for UHI.

I recently reviewed a comprehensive study of local New England temperature patterns over the past 50 years that made no mention of adjustments made for UHI.

It did speak of the negligible impact on readings recorded in spite of the relocation of several temperature reading points over the decades, but UHI was never discussed.

The report contained dire warnings of temperature spikes in every New England city with a population over 20,000, but never mentioned urban sprawl or UHI as a factor that was or needed to be accounted for.

This regional report is typical of the many regional and national reports I have reviewed.

I think you are over estimating the competency and/or integrity of the people creating these reports by blindly believing they are making such adjustments.

I also continue to question the accuracy of such adjustments as local conditions can magnify UHI effect to a greater degree on some temperature monitoring sites verses others. Take the ubiquitous building mounted remote weather stations for example. Which side of the building, positioning near air intake or exhaust vent outlets, over a parking lot or over a glass atrium, and a thousand other building factors influence the temperature fluctuations they would need to accounted for by any honest attempt to adjust the numbers.

Without specific site surveys for each recording location to determine what adjustments have to be made for each location, I highly doubt any attempt at adjustments would be accurate.

This is but one example of my point.

"It was plenty hot this week in downtown Baltimore. It's only the thermometer that has cooled off. At the end of April, the National Weather Service moved its downtown weather station from the broiling rooftop of the old Custom House on Gay Street, to a grassy patch across the Inner Harbor."

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1998-07-25/news/1998206006_1_custom-house-weather-station-downtown-baltimore

"Since then, the official daily highs reported for downtown have been lower, by as much as 9 degrees, than those that would have been reported from the Custom House. The overnight lows have been as much as 12 degrees cooler."

The new location at the Science Center by the Inner Harbor is still considered to be a non-standard setup. The site is pole mounted in a sand covered area in the middle of a small patch of grass. The grass patch is in the middle of a brick paved open space, close to the water. And a large brick building is less than 10 meters away. All violations of the standard weather station setup requirements. (yes there is a largely ignored standard setup)

I also highly doubt any effort was made to go back into the records and make adjustments to the decades of inaccurate temperature readings recorded by that weather station. Now multiply this situation by over 1,000 other known questionable reporting sites in the US and you have a slight comprehension of how those numbers have skewed the nations average recorded temperatures for the last 20 years.

Here are just a few.

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

This is the strongest indicator of how bad the problem is.

http://www.surfacestations.org/

Posted by Hates Idiots

Updated - 26th Dec

Reply
Flag

+1 Vote

+ -

Link please

Do you have a link to that regional study? I would be interested in reading it.

Refer to my reply to adornoe above about accounting for the UHI effect in climate research. Here are the links repeated for you convenience:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009JD013094.shtml
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/wmo/ccl/rural-urban.pdf
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Hansen_etal.pdf

The compensation being done for UHI effects is old and well known enough that papers won't necessarily mention it because it's assumed you're aware of it.

As far as the Baltimore weather station move, when you're reporting the weather you would report the temperature without compensation because the temperature is the temperature. When you're examining climate then you do make the compensations since you're more interested in how the temperature changes over time than what the actual temperature was. The move of the Baltimore downtown weather stations would have no effect on climate studies since it is a known discontinuity in the record that is easily accounted for.

Posted by riverat1

Updated - 26th Dec

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

@Hates Idiots: Secretly funded propaganda

Your last two links are propaganda by non-scientist, Willard Anthony Watts.
Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries.
Watts was to receive $90,000 in 2012 from the Heartland Institute.
That payment only became public when someone revealed internal Heartland budget documents.

"Hates Idiots" you do so much posting. Spending so much time. Someone paying you?

Posted by Cmd_Line_Dino

Updated - 26th Dec

Reply
Flag

-1 Votes

+ -

Do not need a scientist to read site standards and do site surveys.

Maybe it takes outsiders to keep these alleged experts honest when they do not even attempt to comply with their own standards for consistent data collection.

I do not care if you do not like the source of this information, and you should not either.

The poor locations of the weather station sites are undisputed facts.

The fact that over 1,000 weather station sites are out of compliance with their own data collection standards does not matter to you?

The fact is the creeping increase in the average temperatures recorded in the US mirrors the post 1985 migration of the US Weather Service away from manned weather stations to more automated stations. The glaringly bad locations of many automated weather stations should not be so casually dismissed.

So what is your point? Who cares who funds this group if they are presenting solid facts.

The point is that from the collection point the temperature data is corrupt. Thye foundation of all US global warming studies and the decisions about global warming made because of those reports are being made based on bad data.

You might have heard the expression, GARBAGE IN GARBAGE OUT.

Why are people obsessed that anyone opposed to the global warming scam is a paid shill?

It is kind of sad, but history has shown me that usually accusations like that come from people who are paid the shills.

Posted by Hates Idiots

Updated - 27th Dec

Reply
Flag

+1 Vote

+ -

Get real

Do you really believe that scientists are not aware of or deliberately choose to ignore the issues with weather station siting? They wouldn't be doing proper science if they did. The links I provided above speak to the efforts scientist have made to address data quality issues. Using the list from SurfaceStations.org a paper by Menne in 2010 compared the adjusted temperatures from well sited weather stations to those from poorly sited weather stations. Menne found that the poorly sited stations actually showed slightly less warming than the well sited stations. The paper can be found here:

http://surfacestations.googlecode.com/files/menne-etal2010.pdf

All of your complaints are simply hand waving if you don't directly address the efforts scientists have made regarding this.

Posted by riverat1

27th Dec

Reply
Flag

-1 Votes

+ -

Again with the data massaging.

Why do they mask things behind data massaging that requires an advanced degree in mathematics to understand when simple proper site location would fix the problems?

It has always been considered junk science to manipulate data because of poor data collection methods.

You are supporting a fundamental shift in the understanding of what good science is.

As seen in the climate gate email, data massaging can be manipulated. Accurate data collection cannot.

Further discussion on this topic is irrelevant at this point, because of your support of science without integrity.

The reality is it is not just people like me calling for data integrity. There are climate warming scientists like Kim Cobb who have been calling for better data integrity for years.

If it is hand waving for me, what is it when one of there own calls their practices into question?

Posted by Hates Idiots

28th Dec

Reply
Flag

+1 Vote

+ -

You have a simplistic and idealistic view of science

No, "simple proper site location" would not fix the problems. You still have issues with sensor drift, especially in electronic sensors, the issue of correlating the record when you change the sensor for a new one, the issue of changes in the time of observations and any number of other issues that have to be accounted for.

The weather stations are placed where they are to report weather primarily. That the data they collect can also be used by climate research is a bonus. The problems with data collection at thousands of weather stations by thousands of different observers over the years is what is is. There is no going back and redoing the data collection so you have to work with what you have.

You appear to have some idealistic vision of science that reality can never reach. It distorts your understanding of what good science is. As I said, get real.

"Massaging" data is done in all science. For instance did you know that satellites do not directly measure temperature? What they measure is the strength of various radiances, primarily in the microwave range, coming from various components of the atmosphere from which they can calculate an inferred temperature. Talk about massaging data! Most of quantum mechanics data is not measured directly but implied statistically. All science has issues with the calibration of the measuring instruments.

Then you bring up "climategate". Huh? At least 5 high level investigations have been done of that incident and none of them found any hint of malfeasance in the science work they did. The worst they found was that the CRU could have been a little more open in sharing their data. "Climategate" was much ado about nothing.

I respect Kim Cobb too but I suspect she would not think much of your complaint about data "massaging". Here is a commentary Dr. Cobb made on "Climategate" in 2009:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/kim-cobbs-view/

And here is a commentary on the state of the temperature records by James Hansen:

http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/mailings/2009/20091216_TemperatureOfScience.pdf

I have to say I'm a little surprised at your apparent lack of knowledge of how science works when you get down to the nitty-gritty. As long as the problems are properly acknowledged and quantified as much as possible they're all part of the scientific process.

Posted by riverat1

Updated - 28th Dec

Flag

+1 Vote

+ -

If your supposition holds...

...then it's the not-so-secretly well-funded climate change industry, mostly (funded by statists and tax dollars) that we should be critical of.

It will be interesting to see what comes up in Lisa Jackson's secret e-mail account.

Posted by JohnMcGrew@...

28th Dec

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Supposition... really

The moment Watts says anything favorable toward climate change his nice $90,000 per year is gone ... so he never will.
As Alexander Hamilton said...
"In the main it will be found that a power over a man's support (salary) is a power over his will."

Lisa Jackson secret e-mails, climate scientists all lying, black helicopters,
tin foil hats. Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense.
Do something productive with your time or perhaps you are earning some money. I wonder do Heartland and the like pay denier commenters a flat rate or per post.

Posted by Cmd_Line_Dino

28th Dec

Reply
Flag

+1 Vote

+ -

And the same goes for the "climate scientists"...

...whom lose their grants if they don't toe the "carbon is the evil" line.

But don't believe me. How many real "scientists" sign "loyalty oaths"? Is it professionally okay to do so if it means you get to keep your funding?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703514404574587811671196406.html

Nobody gets government grants for disproving global warming. Quite the contrary.

Posted by JohnMcGrew@...

Updated - 29th Dec

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

@Hates Idiots: Secretly funded propaganda

Posted by i8thecat4

3rd Jan

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Copy and Paste + Mark's opinion. No facts.

So, is every article Mark Halper "writes" just copy and pasted from another website? Once again: no context, no supporting evidence, no real reason to even call this an article. May as well just have posted a link to someone else that has actually done the work and the research. There is more information provided by commenters than in the "article" itself. SmartPlanet needs to wise up and replace this hack with someone willing to put in the effort.

Posted by jessmart

27th Dec

Reply
Flag

+1 Vote

+ -

Sorry Jessmart... It's actually you that needs to wise up...

Blog sites like Smart Planet, ZDNet, etc... These are places we can go to for the cliff notes of news... They are blogs... Do you know what a blog is jessmart??? These blog sites make it easy for us to find the topics we find interesting and it is up to us to pursue the story further if we want more information on them. All you have to do is follow the links or Google. If you don't want the cliff notes, then you are in the wrong place. Your complaints about Mark are as silly and naive as complaining that a bicycle is not a car and doesn't have a decent heater.

These are NOT independent news people that independently research and write original stories... You are complaining about them being news people when they clearly are not and are not trying to be.

Most of these bloggers tag/link/copy the stories they find interesting or that they think we will find interesting and add opinions. You can choose to accept the conveniences they offer or go to real news sites and wade through the muck and search for your own stories. These are bicycles, and no jessmart, bicycles do not have heaters.

Posted by i8thecat4

3rd Jan

Reply
Flag

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!