I never stop to be amazed how average consumption figures in the US are often at least 100 per cent bigger than in Europe. At least for water and electricity, let alone fuel.
Just a thought that naturally pops up... :
If you take the reasoning one step back, wouldn't it be easier to optimize the consumption side (low hanging fruit) in favour if optimizing the cost per unit of energy? The latter seems a lot of effort, at least for the devs.
I believe that US households on average get a higher percent of their energy from electricity than do European households. For a proper comparison we need to compare energy use, not electricity use.
The average US household used 77 million BTU of energy in 2015 [1]. That's 1.94 TOE (tons of oil equivalent).
The EU average in 2014 was 1.3 TOE. It ranged from a little under 0.5 (Malta) to around 2.7 (Luxembourg) [2]. UK and Germany were around 1.4, France around 1.7, Italy around 1.9. Belgium was just under 2.
I would imagine in the southern states where it's 40 degrees C+ every day for 3 months-4 months or more on end the heatpump (aka reverse cycle a/c) is basically kept on constantly. Let's say it draws 1kw on average, that's 24kwh right there. They actually draw more than that. There's no way around it if you want to live comfortably. But I think the whole society is designed so much around driving everywhere and living in detached houses that the low hanging fruit is actually to install solar/batteries for these guys.
Personally I am convinced by now the difference is mainly cultural, how people live. Some things ~2x size (i might be off a bit but the list is large, I am open to be convinced otherwise) :
Fridge
Clothes dryer
Food plate fullness
Amount of conservatives in food
Car HP and m2 parking space
PC PSU wattage
ml in medium drink
amount of ice cubes in cold drinks
Tap water full flow rate
Breakfast calories (bacon/eggs)
Sugar in bread
Amount of packaging material resp. content
kg of luggage in flights
Number of short flights / person
Cars/ bicycles ratio
Still, it just amazes me. Its not because of wealth or temperature.
Again, I am open to corrections, I am curious about other's thoughts and want to learn.
its pretty easy to understand when you spend significant time in both.
european cities: typically built for density. I'm never more than a 10 minuite walk to a grocery store. I can hop on a train or tram to get to work and I can usually stop to get groceries for the day on the way. if you're in a city like athens, you can get fresh fish and meat. was probably dreaming of finding a mate or eating fresh acorns on the other side of the pasture barely a day ago.
USA: Its a hellish landscape of urban sprawl. want to get sone milk or eggs? its illegal in most place for there to exist a grocery store within walking distance. be prepared to walk along the side of a busy road to get to a convenience store which might have what you are looking for. maybe there's a sidewalk if you're lucky. Every damn trip requires a car. your work place is probably 30 min drive minimum. there is no other way to get to work. since getting to the store requires effort, you're going to go get a week's worth of groceries to save time. fresh meat? nah, killed weeks ago in a centralized slaughter house and shipped accross the country after a life of being fed corn farmed with chemical fertilizers and shipped to the animals in temperature controlled facilities. better keep a large fridge to hold it all. wouldn't want it to spoil before you eat it.
you literally can't live in the USA without increasing your consumption. its built into the dna of our infrastructure.
> If you take the reasoning one step back, wouldn't it be easier to optimize the consumption side (low hanging fruit) in favour if optimizing the cost per unit of energy?
Yes, absolutely.
In general, if you talk to a good solar sales rep, they'll first ask if you have done energy efficiency projects. If you have good quality windows, insulation, appliances, etc, not only are you going to be more efficient up front but you'll need a smaller array+battery overall.
There are also tax benefits for doing some of those projects together so you get some upside there too.
Developers won't make homes below a certain square footage because it's not profitable for them. That means that there will always be an amount of square footage that will need to be cooled and warmed, despite the space being largely unused.
Most people, like the couple in this article, aren't buying green 1350sqft homes, they're buying 2500 sqft McMansions because those are what are available in the market.
Just a thought that naturally pops up... :
If you take the reasoning one step back, wouldn't it be easier to optimize the consumption side (low hanging fruit) in favour if optimizing the cost per unit of energy? The latter seems a lot of effort, at least for the devs.