A Very Short History of How Americans Use Energy at Home

We use less energy heating our homes, but more on the appliances inside them.

Still from a natural gas promotional filmPrelinger Archive


This story first appeared on the Atlantic website and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Let’s take a quick tour of how Americans use energy at home. Per capita energy consumption has stayed fairly stable over the past thirty years, but how we use energy has changed.

Insulation improvements and efficiency gains in heating and cooling have made the task of temperature management less energy-intensive. And these improvements have been offset by the proliferation of electronic appliances and gadgets.

While appliances and electronics have grown in their share of total energy consumption, the single biggest energy drain remains heating, as well as cooling in warmer climes.

Since temperature regulation is very energy-intensive, regional trends explain much of the change in the residential energy picture—as America’s population shifts towards the South and West, heating becomes less important, but cooling more so. The coasts also consume much less energy per capita than inland America.

Heating tends to use more energy than cooling, and in residential heating the energy usually comes from natural gas or electricity. Fuel oil is still used as a heat source in the northeast, but 85 percent of households across America heating systems are either electrical or gas-powered.

The fuel of choice has changed considerably driven by America’s demographic shifts: electricity is most commonly used in the South, and the pivot towards the South and West meant electricity’s role in heating homes increased substantially during the last quarter of the 20th century. As more people move South, electricity’s share may continue to increase.

This trend may not be the best when it comes to paying bills—electric heating is hugely energy-intensive, and a study conducted by an Austin-based research group found that it may be cheaper for households to use gas instead of electricity in appliances that consume lots of energy, such as dryers and ovens.

Appliances vary considerably in the amount of electricity they require, but one way to measure their consumption is through “wattage“—the maximum power of the appliance.

Electric water heaters, dishwashers, and clothes dryers are some of the highest wattage items—meaning that they draw a lot of electricity when running—and the percentage of households with such appliances has hugely increased over the past thirty years.

Still from a natural gas promotional film Prelinger Archive

 

However, wattage is misleading as a guide to total consumption, since some items are run infrequently and use less electricity than a lower wattage appliance that is permanently on. When measuring overall consumption, refrigerators are revealed as one of the biggest culprits guzzling energy, despite massive efficiency improvements since the 1980s. The California Energy Commission reports that today’s refrigerators “use 60 percent less electricity on average than 20-year-old models.”

Taken overall, though, the higher number of appliances and gadgets has more than offset the efficiency improvements in both individual appliances and in space heating. This phenomenon is known as the “rebound effect,” revisited by David Owens in his piece in the New Yorker, and based on an argument put forward in the mid-19th century, called the “Jevons paradox.”

The theory suggests that efficiency savings can never reduce energy consumption, because the money a household saves on energy bills will be used to buy other energy-intensive products.

If correct, this would suggest policies to increase the cost of energy are just as important as improving efficiency. However, Owens’ argument has also been criticized by energy wonks who argue that the phenomenon may be in some part true, but will not come close to fully canceling out efficiency gains.

Either way, it seems that it’s one thing to reach a plateau of energy consumption, but quite another to begin reducing it altogether.

More Mother Jones reporting on Climate Desk

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE

We’re falling behind our online fundraising goals and we can’t sustain coming up short on donations month after month. Perhaps you’ve heard? It is impossibly hard in the news business right now, with layoffs intensifying and fancy new startups and funding going kaput.

The crisis facing journalism and democracy isn’t going away anytime soon. And neither is Mother Jones, our readers, or our unique way of doing in-depth reporting that exists to bring about change.

Which is exactly why, despite the challenges we face, we just took a big gulp and joined forces with The Center for Investigative Reporting, a team of ace journalists who create the amazing podcast and public radio show Reveal.

If you can part with even just a few bucks, please help us pick up the pace of donations. We simply can’t afford to keep falling behind on our fundraising targets month after month.

Editor-in-Chief Clara Jeffery said it well to our team recently, and that team 100 percent includes readers like you who make it all possible: “This is a year to prove that we can pull off this merger, grow our audiences and impact, attract more funding and keep growing. More broadly, it’s a year when the very future of both journalism and democracy is on the line. We have to go for every important story, every reader/listener/viewer, and leave it all on the field. I’m very proud of all the hard work that’s gotten us to this moment, and confident that we can meet it.”

Let’s do this. If you can right now, please support Mother Jones and investigative journalism with an urgently needed donation today.

payment methods

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE

We’re falling behind our online fundraising goals and we can’t sustain coming up short on donations month after month. Perhaps you’ve heard? It is impossibly hard in the news business right now, with layoffs intensifying and fancy new startups and funding going kaput.

The crisis facing journalism and democracy isn’t going away anytime soon. And neither is Mother Jones, our readers, or our unique way of doing in-depth reporting that exists to bring about change.

Which is exactly why, despite the challenges we face, we just took a big gulp and joined forces with The Center for Investigative Reporting, a team of ace journalists who create the amazing podcast and public radio show Reveal.

If you can part with even just a few bucks, please help us pick up the pace of donations. We simply can’t afford to keep falling behind on our fundraising targets month after month.

Editor-in-Chief Clara Jeffery said it well to our team recently, and that team 100 percent includes readers like you who make it all possible: “This is a year to prove that we can pull off this merger, grow our audiences and impact, attract more funding and keep growing. More broadly, it’s a year when the very future of both journalism and democracy is on the line. We have to go for every important story, every reader/listener/viewer, and leave it all on the field. I’m very proud of all the hard work that’s gotten us to this moment, and confident that we can meet it.”

Let’s do this. If you can right now, please support Mother Jones and investigative journalism with an urgently needed donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate