the gluttony of Energy conservation

[_subgenius]

William StanleyJevons explained that improving energy efficiency typically reduced energy costs and thereby increased rather than decreased energy use, an effect now known as the Jevons paradox.

Which means energy efficient cars will see an increase in petroleum use....energy efficient policies will cause a more rapid depletion of resources than not.

Let's take 2 examples: automobiles and refrigerators.

In scenario A, automobiles and refrigerators are inefficient.

Refrigerator use remains constant. No one turns off their refrigerator because of energy costs, the refrigerator simply consumes more energy.

but people purchase larger refrigerators, especially if it offers more for the same. While my cost may remain the same to operate a larger refrigerator - the larger refrigerator consumes more energy....that is inevitable, and consumers will tend to opt for "more".

The important thing to remember about automobiles is that it demand that influences cost. The demand will certainly be greater if cars average 14 miles per gallon than if they average 30 miles to the gallon. When cars average 14 miles to the gallon, people will drive less.

your statement here seems to contradict itself. The data with cars is obvious...efficiency has increased and demand has increased because of that....so demand is higher at 30mpg than at 14mpg.
cost is not really pertinent to the OP. For example, many "eco" cars have a larger cost even though the owner spends less money on fuel...if all things are equal (ie. miles traveled).

In scenario B, automobiles and refrigerators are more efficient. Your refrigerator uses less electricity. Your're not going to go out and buy another refrigerator just because your electric bill dropped. For many fixed items energy use will drop.

see above.

Now if you own a Prius, are you likely to consume more gasoline than someone with a V-8 4x4 SUV? You may drive more miles, but you still will consume less gas. If everyone drives a Prius, their will be less demand for gasoline, but that doesn't mean that people consume more and more fuel until the demand is the same as it would be if people were all driving cars that got 14 miles per gallon.

the usage statistics contradict your speculation. If anything, when facing a less efficient system one is more likely to optimize its use...whereas, if it "grows on trees" one tends to be wasteful...the Prius driver likely increases their miles traveled and consumed energy because of the efficiency....as my body becomes more efficient i do not tend to lay on the couch more.

[_MeDotOrg]

Let's take 2 examples: automobiles and refrigerators.

In scenario A, automobiles and refrigerators are inefficient.

Refrigerator use remains constant. No one turns off their refrigerator because of energy costs, the refrigerator simply consumes more energy.

but people purchase larger refrigerators, especially if it offers more for the same. While my cost may remain the same to operate a larger refrigerator - the larger refrigerator consumes more energy....that is inevitable, and consumers will tend to opt for "more".

Your assumption would be that the cost of running a refrigerator is a primary consideration in the purchase of a refrigerator. I think it is far more likely that the cost up front is the primary consideration.

To put it another way, I think the cost difference between $800 and $1200 is a far more important consideration than the number of BTUs consumed over a 20-year life span for the average consumer. Typically a larger refrigerator is not offering 'more for the same.' It is offering more for more. Features being equal, a larger refrigerator is going to cost more.

"While the cost may remain the same to operate a larger refrigerator - the larger refrigerator consumes more energy." Huh? I'm not sure of the difference between 'the cost to operate' and the consumption of energy. Could you elaborate?

The important thing to remember about automobiles is that it demand that influences cost. The demand will certainly be greater if cars average 14 miles per gallon than if they average 30 miles to the gallon. When cars average 14 miles to the gallon, people will drive less.

your statement here seems to contradict itself. The data with cars is obvious...efficiency has increased and demand has increased because of that....so demand is higher at 30mpg than at 14mpg.
cost is not really pertinent to the OP. For example, many "eco" cars have a larger cost even though the owner spends less money on fuel...if all things are equal (ie. miles traveled).

Now if you own a Prius, are you likely to consume more gasoline than someone with a V-8 4x4 SUV? You may drive more miles, but you still will consume less gas. If everyone drives a Prius, their will be less demand for gasoline, but that doesn't mean that people consume more and more fuel until the demand is the same as it would be if people were all driving cars that got 14 miles per gallon.

the usage statistics contradict your speculation. If anything, when facing a less efficient system one is more likely to optimize its use...whereas, if it "grows on trees" one tends to be wasteful...the Prius driver likely increases their miles traveled and consumed energy because of the efficiency....as my body becomes more efficient i do not tend to lay on the couch more.

Let's take a single person: If he drives the original Hummer, he gets about 10 MPG. If he drives a Prius, let's be conservative and say he gets about 40 MPG. Now I would agree that if he owns the Prius he is going to drive more miles (although in this admittedly extreme example, he would have to quadruple his mileage to use the same amount of fuel). But the economic constraints on the individual remain the same. He is not going to make more money because he drives a Prius. Your contention seems to be that because he gets better mileage in the Prius, he will spend MORE on fuel. I don't see that as a logical pattern of consumption. If anything the Hummer, stretching and straining to do the same daily chores as the Prius, will be consuming more energy.

In 2007, U.S. passenger miles (in millions) for all vehicles was 4,981,088. In 2010 it was 4,244,157. Economics, not fuel efficiency, was the primary reason for the drop in miles traveled. People had less money to spend on fuel, so they spent less on fuel.

[_Res Ipsa]

Here's the fallacy on which Subgenius's reasoning is based: when the price of a good drops, people will automatically spend all of their savings to buy more of that good. By this reasoning, gas companies could reduce the price of gas to one cent per gallon and not lose any revenue -- everyone would react to the savings by spending the entire amount on more gas.

If I could wave a wand and magically double my car's fuel efficiency, why in the world would I blow all that saved money by simply driving more? Why wouldn't I finish my basement or buy a PS 4 or go on vacation or save for kids' college? You get the point.

[_subgenius]

Brad and Metdog,
I do not consider the premise in the OP to be too reliant on price, though you may currently be distracted by that idea. The cause may be price or any other factor given a specific culture or climate, but the premise is that an increase in efficiency brings about an increase in consumption.
Yes, cost is a consideration in buying a refrigerator but as refrigerators have become more efficient, they have become more capable and more prevalent. That is to say, there are more refrigerators today because they are more efficient; while one refrigerator may be using less energy power cubic foot, there are more cubic feet involved, resulting in a net increase of consumption. Efficient energy use has facilitated more refrigerators being used.
So, the premise in the OP is more about how efficiency is what increases demand not cost...cost is merely a reflection that may our may not be imposed by the culture doing the consumption.
Yes?

[_subgenius]

Here's the fallacy on which Subgenius's reasoning is based: when the price of a good drops, people will automatically spend all of their savings to buy more of that good. By this reasoning, gas companies could reduce the price of gas to one cent per gallon and not lose any revenue -- everyone would react to the savings by spending the entire amount on more gas.

If I could wave a wand and magically double my car's fuel efficiency, why in the world would I blow all that saved money by simply driving more? Why wouldn't I finish my basement or buy a PS 4 or go on vacation or save for kids' college? You get the point.

But the facts contradict your notion here. The car has gotten incredibly more efficient since its invention and the demand for fuel has increased and how much/far a car is driven has increased....as have the number of cars being driven increased...the result of efficiency, not price.

[_Res Ipsa]

Brad and Metdog,
I do not consider the premise in the OP to be too reliant on price, though you may currently be distracted by that idea. The cause may be price or any other factor given a specific culture or climate, but the premise is that an increase in efficiency brings about an increase in consumption.
Yes, cost is a consideration in buying a refrigerator but as refrigerators have become more efficient, they have become more capable and more prevalent. That is to say, there are more refrigerators today because they are more efficient; while one refrigerator may be using less energy power cubic foot, there are more cubic feet involved, resulting in a net increase of consumption. Efficient energy use has facilitated more refrigerators being used.
So, the premise in the OP is more about how efficiency is what increases demand not cost...cost is merely a reflection that may our may not be imposed by the culture doing the consumption.
Yes?

I think we need a little more precision in terminology. We have to be specific about the particular efficiency and what is being consumed. Suppose you drove 15,000 miles last year. You inherit a car that is more efficient in terms of gasoline usage. In fact, it's twice as efficient. If I understand correctly, your claim is that you will consume more fuel this year than last because of the increased efficiency.

Well, what has to happen for that to be true? You will have to spend more money this year on driving than you did last year by driving over 30,000 miles. Nothing in economics says that we would expect you to do that. In fact, in most cases, what we would expect is that you would use your savings from efficiency to drive some additional quantity of miles, as well as spend some of your savings on a bunch of other things. So, except in some special cases, we would expect the result of improvement in automobile fuel efficiency to be some increase in consumption of miles driven, but a net decrease in fuel consumption.

The refrigerator example is fairly complicated. The cost of a refrigerator has two components: up front capital expense and operating expense. Increased efficiency decreases the total cost of the refrigerator. This shifts the supply curve -- what economists call a change in supply. It doesn't change demand (the demand curve itself), but will result in some increase in the quantity of refrigerator demanded (movement along the curve). But the increase in the number of refrigerators demanded does not mean an increase in the quantity of electricity used. That depends on what consumers choose to do with the savings resulting from the decreased cost of the refrigerators.

That's the reason we have Jevon's Paradox and not Jevon's Law. Under the right circumstances, an increase in fuel efficiency could result in a net increase in consumption of fuel. But only under certain conditions. And I don't think we have empirical evidence that halving the price of gasoline would result in over a 100% increase in miles driven.

[_Res Ipsa]

The car has gotten incredibly more efficient since its invention and the demand for fuel has increased and how much/far a car is driven has increased....as have the number of cars being driven increased...the result of efficiency, not price.

You're engaging in the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Are you seriously contending that the only thing that affects demand for fuel that has changed since the Model A is fuel efficiency?

[_krose]

Two questions:

- What are the efficiency advances in regards to paper that make it fit your formula?

- How are population growth and rising standards of living in developing countries factored in to your numbers?

[_subgenius]

between 1993 and 2005, air conditioners in the U.S. increased in efficiency by 28%, but by 2005, homes with air conditioning increased their consumption of energy for their air conditioners by 37%.
"Losing our cool" - stan cox

more efficient cars have led to more miles being driven...but more importantly the increase in engine efficiency have made increased consumption more affordable...so air conditioning, bigger bodies, etc. are more available....and increase consumption of energy. Efficiency in car engines allow for larger engines, not better use of the same Model A engine.

if one considers that the price of energy is related to its demand, then the efficiency for the use of energy will influence that price/demand.

look at vending machines...once they were rare and inefficient, so they were only cost effective for those with the income to support them...but now these machines are multiplied and more efficient...able to be installed in areas that could not afford them before...an increase in over all consumption (see air conditioner example above).

Some may try to argue that the USA has found a certain efficiency/consumption balance that contradicts Jevons paradox...but they ignore the global implication...it is reasonable and true that our excess i n consumption has been outsourced to other locations such as China....and when that is factored in, our efficiency has certainly increased consumption.

[_Res Ipsa]

between 1993 and 2005, air conditioners in the U.S. increased in efficiency by 28%, but by 2005, homes with air conditioning increased their consumption of energy for their air conditioners by 37%.
"Losing our cool" - stan cox

more efficient cars have led to more miles being driven...but more importantly the increase in engine efficiency have made increased consumption more affordable...so air conditioning, bigger bodies, etc. are more available....and increase consumption of energy. Efficiency in car engines allow for larger engines, not better use of the same Model A engine.

if one considers that the price of energy is related to its demand, then the efficiency for the use of energy will influence that price/demand.

look at vending machines...once they were rare and inefficient, so they were only cost effective for those with the income to support them...but now these machines are multiplied and more efficient...able to be installed in areas that could not afford them before...an increase in over all consumption (see air conditioner example above).

Some may try to argue that the USA has found a certain efficiency/consumption balance that contradicts Jevons paradox...but they ignore the global implication...it is reasonable and true that our excess i n consumption has been outsourced to other locations such as China....and when that is factored in, our efficiency has certainly increased consumption.

You're just doing the whole post hoc fallacy over and over again. You simply assume that whatever changes there are in consumption are due entirely to improvements in efficiency. The book you cite discussion many different causes for increase of air conditioner use. The causation issues are complex. To claim that efficiency is the sole cause is either naïve or disingenuous.

Of course the price effect of efficiency will will cause some increase in consumption. What you keep leaving out is that the efficiency itself causes a decrease in consumption. What you haven't shown, and can't show, is that the increase will be larger than the decrease. Seriously, pick up a book on basic microeconomics and read it.