Americans Are Using Less Steel, Paper, Fertilizer, and Energy • Hacker News Board

Re: Americans Are Using Less Steel, Paper, Fertilizer, and Energy

#301

Post by pm90 » Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 1:45 PM UTC

Hermitian909 wrote: post #272

pm90 wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More anecdotes. While you complain about your Owen, the efficient supply chains built across nations has enabled keeping costs low enough for Americans with stagnating wages to afford a reasonable standard of living.

One of the big efficiencies they've found though, is that no one prices externalities properly. By damaging the rest of society in ways that they're not directly accounted for, they find new ways to profit. Many have stayed competitive by costing the human race more that they provide in the long term in many cases.

Who is "they" here? Executives with MBA's? Middle managers? If so, this is true but only in aggregate. If you see private corporations strip mining the environment and society for profits, the Government and regulations are meant to be a check on that.

Re: Americans Are Using Less Steel, Paper, Fertilizer, and Energy

#302

Post by josinalvo » Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 4:13 PM UTC

BoiledCabbage wrote: post #95

josinalvo wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without growth above the population growth, life becomes zero sum or negative sum. That means that taking and fighting becomes more rewarding than building. It is either growth or war, no way around it.

Or simply reach peak population growth which is a common occurrence on the small scale. With population at a steady state, there is nothing GDP needs to outgrow.

If population is steady,GDP still must grow. Otherwise, most of the people who get ahead/gain a better life will do so at the expense of another. That is not a nice world to live in.

Re: Americans Are Using Less Steel, Paper, Fertilizer, and Energy

#303

Post by WhompingWindows » Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 4:18 PM UTC

jganetsk wrote: post #262

I would like to know how much of American dematerialization is just exporting materialization to China. They make our stuff, we import it. Does that count as materials consumed by Americans? Note that they mention the great reversal starting in 1970. Nixon went to China in 1972.

Not only that, what about the end of infrastructure? Timber, steel, copper, asphalt, cement -- these are signs of a country investing in its infrastructure. Other than copper, if we saw a trillion dollar infrastructure package, our de-materialization would vanish in a heartbeat, and our carbon emissions would shoot WAY up.

Re: Americans Are Using Less Steel, Paper, Fertilizer, and Energy

#304

Post by philipkglass » Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 4:42 PM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #291

philipkglass wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Jevons Paradox [1] is named a "paradox" as it is an unusual, apparently contradictory outcome. It can be considered a special case of the rebound effect [2] where the rebound is greater than 100%. Unlike rebound effects in general, a Jevons Paradox is not a routine outcome of any new technological efficiency gain. It is something that needs to be observed from data rather than assumed. In my experience, the Jevon…

There is a vast pent up global demand for electricity around the world. Africa needs electricity, China needs electricity, India, etc. The world is changing but at the moment that electricity largely comes from burning fuel. And if it makes sense to mine fuel when the payoff is X, then if still makes sense when the payoff is X + something (as it is when efficiency improves). It is a very safe assumption that Jevons's…

The decline of US coal production is right there in the page that you linked to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining_in_the_United_Stat...

American coal production peaked in 2008 at 1.172 billion short tons. Domestic use peaked in 2006 at 1.150 billion short tons. As of 2018 those numbers are down to 0.755 and 0.678 billion tons short tons respectively.

The EIA's latest Short Term Energy Outlook predicts that total US coal production for 2019 will be 0.679 billion short tons and for 2020 will be 0.603 billion short tons, 48% below the peak.

If you look at the "components of annual change" graphic in the EIA report, you can see that coking coal (used for making steel) is up slightly from 2017-2020. It's coal consumption for electric power that is in persistent decline.

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/coal.php

Coal supplies about 25% of American electricity in 2019 and is expected to decline to 22% in 2020:

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/electricity.php

Percentage-wise, coal reached its all time high in the mid-1990s, at over 50% of American electricity generation:

https://www.mjbradley.com/sites/default/files/MJBAcoalretire...

The Jevons Paradox observes the introduction of more efficient technology in an existing system but finds a "paradoxical" uptick in input consumption. The introduction of more efficient coal burning machinery in England was followed by higher coal consumption. That surprised Jevons.

The broadening of energy use (e.g. India developing like England did) certainly also increases demand for energy inputs, but it's a different case than the Jevons Paradox.

Re: Americans Are Using Less Steel, Paper, Fertilizer, and Energy

#305

Post by pjmorris » Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 5:40 PM UTC

pm90 wrote: post #225

pjmorris wrote: post #96

Someone I know posted a picture of an empty rolodex today, saying that they'd moved their friends to 'the cloud.' I'm sure you can look at your phone apps and see other things that would've been physical objects ten or twenty years ago. So, that's one way material use has, at least, shifted. There are two other trends that worry me more. One is visible in the freezer section at the grocery store; a "half-gallon" of i…

I'm only slightly surprised that a comment full of anecdote without a shred of actual scientific evidence is the top comment in this story. MBA's have optimized everything... which is great! We don't need to spend incredible amounts on labor. We don't need to buy incredibly large homes. Make work more efficient... its the only way to compete with low cost emerging economic markets. Specialization and efficiencies are…

Are you suggesting that scientific evidence for product shrinkage or for an increase in the money supply can't be found, and so my arguments have to be anecdotal?

Re: Americans Are Using Less Steel, Paper, Fertilizer, and Energy

#306

Post by jdkee » Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 8:46 PM UTC

dredmorbius wrote: post #294

jdkee wrote: post #163

A parallel to this concept is that of "decontenting" a product. Nissan did this in the 1980s and 1990s to the Maxima to keep prices in line with the Camry and Accord. See https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/decontent

Specific references on the Maxima and Nissan's practices?

https://www.autonews.com/article/19960122/ANA/601220731/deco...

Re: Americans Are Using Less Steel, Paper, Fertilizer, and Energy

#307

Post by clairity » Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 10:27 PM UTC

G_T_T wrote: post #260

clairity wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i'm partial to the labor theory of value, not for pricing (which is better modeled with marginalism, as you speak to), but for an intrinsic value by which we can evaluate how well a particular market might be working. a well-functioning market should tend toward the intrinsic (labor) value of a good (if, for example, relevant information is widely available and known, competitors can easily enter and exit, distortion…

How do you determine if the market price is tending toward the labor value of a good if there is no clean way to map from labour-hours to prices?

that's the whole point though. price can be highly decoupled from cost, which i'm positing is a signal of the magnitude of the distortions in a given market.

but to your question, you'd just "measure" price as the prevailing price that you see in the marketplace, and labor is measured as the aggregate cost of all labor inputs, including parts and raw materials and amortized capital costs. in a well-functioning market, you'd expect prices to trend with the labor value. the industry profit percentage would then be an reasonable expression of the riskiness of the market/industry (in drug discovery, it might be 50% but in grocery, it might be 5%).

so for example, if apple sells iphones for $1000 but it costs them $400 in labor to make and sell, their labor-price markup would be 250%. in a functioning competitive market, you'd expect a competitor like samsung to pursue those profits and, as a result, eventually drive prices down.

Re: Americans Are Using Less Steel, Paper, Fertilizer, and Energy

#308

Post by roenxi » Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 10:55 PM UTC

philipkglass wrote: post #304

roenxi wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a vast pent up global demand for electricity around the world. Africa needs electricity, China needs electricity, India, etc. The world is changing but at the moment that electricity largely comes from burning fuel. And if it makes sense to mine fuel when the payoff is X, then if still makes sense when the payoff is X + something (as it is when efficiency improves). It is a very safe assumption that Jevons's…

The decline of US coal production is right there in the page that you linked to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining_in_the_United_Stat... American coal production peaked in 2008 at 1.172 billion short tons. Domestic use peaked in 2006 at 1.150 billion short tons. As of 2018 those numbers are down to 0.755 and 0.678 billion tons short tons respectively. The EIA's latest Short Term Energy Outlook predicts that t…

Which is meaningless unless you believe that energy efficiency has only happened in the 2008-2018 period, which is not true. I happened to be working in the coal industry for most of that time and the decline isn't because people are using 40% less energy. It has nothing to do with increased efficiency. It has to do with:

1) Political action.

2) Alternative energy sources getting more competitive. Particularly natural gas, renewables and US shale oil.

You're arguing that use-of-energy efficiency can cause a decline in coal production. That is wrong; if you use energy more efficiently I'll mine more coal - I've met the people who make that sort of decision. Coal is declining for other reasons - mainly that alternative sources are getting cheaper (which is not using energy more efficiently).

Re: Americans Are Using Less Steel, Paper, Fertilizer, and Energy

#309

Post by philipkglass » Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 11:24 PM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #308

philipkglass wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The decline of US coal production is right there in the page that you linked to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining_in_the_United_Stat... American coal production peaked in 2008 at 1.172 billion short tons. Domestic use peaked in 2006 at 1.150 billion short tons. As of 2018 those numbers are down to 0.755 and 0.678 billion tons short tons respectively. The EIA's latest Short Term Energy Outlook predicts that t…

Which is meaningless unless you believe that energy efficiency has only happened in the 2008-2018 period, which is not true. I happened to be working in the coal industry for most of that time and the decline isn't because people are using 40% less energy. It has nothing to do with increased efficiency. It has to do with: 1) Political action. 2) Alternative energy sources getting more competitive. Particularly natura…

I did not say that greater efficiency in coal use was the cause of US coal's decline. My last post was contra to:

Take a look at US coal production [0]. There is no evidence there that energy use from coal will decrease with improved technology.

There is ample evidence that improved technology is driving declines in American coal use/production. The combined cycle gas turbine made it possible to extract more electricity from a megajoule (thermal) of natural gas than a megajoule of coal. Hydraulic fracturing made natural gas cheap in the US. Improved technologies and economies of scale made wind and solar electricity more efficient and cheaper. These are all electricity production technologies. They are what what I had in mind with my up-thread Alice and Bob example. US electricity production is getting more efficient (more electricity per ton of material inputs consumed); Bob believes that any efficiency increase must be more-than-offset by increased electricity consumption, and exclaims "Jevons Paradox!" before even reviewing the numbers.

Re: Americans Are Using Less Steel, Paper, Fertilizer, and Energy

#310

Post by Faark » Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 11:25 PM UTC

supermatt wrote: post #270

panpanna wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 99% this is _not_ a EU thing. Maybe some German law?? Or just common practice in Germany? Edit: I think I confused your response with parent. I understand price/kg is a thing although I didn't knew it was mandated by law. What I don't understand is being forced to use some odd unit like price per 500g.

Its unit price as required by directive 98/6/EC. A unit is how the product is customarily sold (singly) in the member state. So for items typically sold as 500g in Germany, all items of that type in Germany would be labelled with 500g as the unit size for comparison. That same product may typically be sold in the UK as 1kg, so in the UK they would use 1kg.

Are we talking about stuff that can vary in size but isn't weighted? Like kiwi's or cucumbers have a fixed price each while apples or bananas have a kg price. But I don't remember seeing processed food without a kg price.

The only time I remember having difficulty comparing was different formats of toilet paper when our usual brand was out of stock... #rolls × #sheets / pack price was a bit to much for me to do in my head. Yeah, I'm not really complaining.