- #71
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,161
- 10,367
Yes, we already know that...
This technique has been patented in the U.S., Canada and Australia. The process is described in detail here.Subductive waste disposal method is the state-of-the-art in nuclear waste disposal technology. It is the single viable means of disposing radioactive waste that ensures non return of the relegated material to the biosphere. At the same time, it affords inaccessibility to eliminated weapons material. The principle involved is the removal of the material from the biosphere faster than it can return. It is considered that ‘the safest, the most sensible, the most economical, the most stable long-term, the most environmentally benign, the most utterly obvious places to get rid of nuclear waste, high-level waste . . . The subductive waste disposal method forms a high-level radioactive waste repository in a subducting plate, so that the waste will be carried beneath the Earth’s crust where it will be diluted and dispersed through the mantle. The rate of subduction of a plate in one of the world’s slowest subduction zones is 2.1 cm annually. This is faster than the rate (1 mm annually) of diffusion of radionuclides through the turbidite sediments that would overlay a repository constructed in accordance with this method. (Rao, 2001, Current Science 81:1534-1546)
Why should I care about dirtying-up space? I already asked you for an explanation and you haven't provided one.cyrusabdollahi said:But its sad that you don't care about things like that as well.
What are you talking about?!? The quote you were responding to said nothing about the planet. But if you haven't gathered it from my posts, my position is that we need to immediately build another 200 nuclear plants to take over the capacity currently in the form of coal. Air pollution is the #1 environmental problem facing the world today.You should want a clean planet for your kids and their kids.
Obvious to you, but how reasonable is that really? You won't be able to get people to give up heating and air conditioning, which is what would be required to cut our usage in half just to eliminate coal power. Even if you could force it, why would you want to? It would utterly destroy the world economy.Its faily obvious the solution to the problem should be strict controls on how much energy we use, and looking for cleaner alternatives when possible.
Of course - if we really wanted to, we could all stop using electricity altogether. The question isn't what is possible, the question is what is reasonable. It is not reasonable to think we can reduce our energy usage by half without significant alteration of our way of life.If we *really wanted to* we could, as a nation, drastically reduce our power usage.
It is not reasonable to think we can reduce our energy usage by half without significant alteration of our way of life.
The energy crisis is not localized to the US. Other developing countries, like China, stand poised to take the crown of "most wasteful country" in the next century anyway. It just happens that, at the moment, the US is the world's largest consumer of resources per capita -- it won't always be that way, but some country will always be #1.
This discussion does not need to be derailed into a discussion of how the "American lifestyle" is the root of all evil. I agree that proper education and better efforts for conservation are very important, but I disagree that Americans are somehow so different from other people that they can be uniformly characterized as "wasteful" or that they deserve to bear the burden of the entire world's energy problem.
It's true that Europeans get by with lower consumer energy expenditure. Why? Because their homes are generally much, much smaller than American homes. Why are American homes so much bigger? Is it because Americans are greedy bastards who want to see the destruction of the planet? In general, at least: No. It's because America has more land, and larger houses are within the economic means of a larger number of people -- so we buy them.
They're not "better people," they just have a different geographic and economic environment.
Even if residential users cut their energy use in half (which is perhaps possible, though very difficult to achieve), the total energy consumption of the US would decrease by only 20%. Substantial, but not enough to eliminate the energy crisis.
Do you have some evidence for this claim about American houses being much smaller 50 years ago?cyrusabdollahi said:Well, look back 50 years. The size of an average house was much smaller. People used a lot less, and saved a lot more. Their lives were not in the 'dark ages.'
Are you aware that Canada's per capita energy is 17% larger than that of the US? (Source: DOE 2001 http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/carbonemiss/chapter2.html )I never said they are any better. I am just showing that you can live very well without the need for so many extra niceties that use power.
Do you think you're the first person to realize that more efficient industry yeilds greater profits? Do you think industries are not already trying to maximize their efficiency? Do you have any specific methods by which industries should magically increase their efficiency without affecting their economic position, or do you only argue in vague, uninformed, accusatory tones?Yeah, I think we should put money into making industry more efficient. They would make more money, and we would use less energy, win-win.
Japan has nowhere near the energy-intensive industrialization as does the US. You're arguing out of ignorance.Japan, highly industrial, but they are also very careful in how they use their power.
I agree that we should set an example -- I agree that we, as a nation, could do more to conserve resources. I disagree strongly that there's some magic bullet to be found, or some individual people who deserve to have fingers pointed at them. We happen to live in the most industrialized country in the world, and thus use the most energy. The two go hand-in-hand, and no amount of your enviro-babble cooing (e.g. "Ooh! let's just reduce consumption by 50%! It's not so hard! Let's just eat ice cream in the summer!") is going to cut our energy use in half without affecting every economy on the planet.As Americans, we should be setting an example to the rest of the world on how we treat the environment and how we use energy. I think there is allot we could do, that would influence other countries as well. And that would have a HUGE impact on the world.
Leaving aside environmental ethics, there are practicle problems with using Earth orbit as a dumping ground. Already Norad keeps track of thousands of manmade space objects, most of which serve no useful function anymore. These are a hazard to space navigation. And if any of the nuclear waste containers collided with each other or something else, they will break apart into hundreds or thousands of smaller particles that increase the threat. We're back to the question of intergenerational ethics again: it's morally wrong that we dump the problem of monitoring thousands of radioactive packages in Earth orbit onto future generations. Moreover, as space travel becomes more common, there would little to prevent a bad guy with a spaceship to go get one of the containers to make nuke bombs or dirty bombs out of. Until a space elevator or something similar is built that can reliably launch trash into the sun, the idea that nuke waste can be sent into space is idle speculation at best.Russ said:Why should I care about dirtying-up space? I already asked you for an explanation and you haven't provided one.
One technology that could do this that is right around the corner is LED lighting. These are an order of magnitude more efficient per lumen than incandescent light bulbs. Even florescent lights are now old-fashioned.Cyrus said:Yeah, I think we should put money into making industry more efficient. They would make more money, and we would use less energy, win-win. I think 20% of the power saved by a country that uses the most power in the world is quite a respectable achievment. It would do a lot of good. Look at Japan, highly industrial, but they are also very careful in how they use their power.
Yeah, just drive around some older neighborhoods, and you'll be able to see for yourself.chroot said:Do you have some evidence for this claim about American houses being much smaller 50 years ago?
Sure, and don't sweat it. Disagreements happen, so do agreements. And I don't hold grudges (too heavy).cyrusabdollahi said:(Look I am a nice guy see!?)
It's colder up north though. Since economies and lifestyles are very similar, this difference could be just heating costs.chroot said:Canada's per capita energy is 17% larger than that of the US
I wouldn't like my planet to share an orbit with all this waste either. Dumping in the Sun would be a more permanent solution, but a more costly one. As I understand it, you need to cancel out the speed of the Earth's orbit in order to achieve this. If you don't then the load will simply assumes a lower orbit instead of truly falling in. So adding up escape velocity of 11.2 km/s and our planet's orbital speed of about 30 km/s, each load has to be accelerated to 41.2 km/s to achieve the result. If anyone has information on the fuel and rocket cost required to do this for a ton of material, we can guesstimate the cost of such permanent disposal.WarrenPlatts said:there are practicle problems with using Earth orbit as a dumping ground.
It's an intriguing concept, but aren't there a lot of unknowns as to what truly happens at the core of the Earth? Have these geological theories been verified? The concern of course is about just throwing our waste in some inaccessible area that is outside our control and assuming that everyting will be fine.WarrenPlatts said:The subductive waste disposal method, however, is a concrete proposal that is economical and permanent, and it might just work.
Are you aware that Canada's per capita energy is 17% larger than that of the US? (Source: DOE 2001
Canadian electricity generation in 1999 totaled 567.2 billion kilowatt hours (bkwh), of which 60% was hydropower, 26% was conventional thermal power (oil, gas, and coal), 12% was nuclear generation, and 1% was derived from other renewable sources.
Canada is the G-7’s largest per capita electricity consumer. To a considerable extent, this is because of Canada’s large, hydro-powered aluminum-manufacturing sector. Between 1980 and 2001, Canadian per capita power consumption increased an average of 1.0% per year, from 13,100 kwh to 16,200 kwh.
Japan has nowhere near the energy-intensive industrialization as does the US. You're arguing out of ignorance.
The theory of plate tectonics is one of the most well-confirmed scientific theories known to humankind. There is a lot less disagreement among geologists regarding the reality of plate tectonics than there is among cosmologists regarding the reality of the Big Bang.Orefa said:[Subductive waste disposal is] an intriguing concept, but aren't there a lot of unknowns as to what truly happens at the core of the Earth? Have these geological theories been verified? The concern of course is about just throwing our waste in some inaccessible area that is outside our control and assuming that everyting will be fine.
Rao 2001 said:The waste will be carried beneath the Earth’s crust where it will be diluted and dispersed through the mantle. The rate of subduction of a plate in one of the world’s slowest subduction zones is 2.1 cm annually. This is faster than the rate (1 mm annually) of diffusion of radionuclides through the turbidite sediments that would overlay a repository constructed in accordance with this method. The subducting plate is naturally predestined for consumption in the Earth’s mantle. The subducting plate is constantly renewed at its originating oceanic ridge. The slow movement of the plate would seal any vertical fractures over a repository at the interface between the subducting plate and the overriding plate.
And your point? Are you suggesting that all countries should be able to produce 60% of their energy from hydro? This obviously is not the sort of thing one can legislate; there are only so many rivers.cyrusabdollahi said:Well, the majority of their electricity is from hydroelectric.
But cyrusabdollahi had his panties all in a twist about how people could just make such small changes as "wearing layers" to slash heating costs by half. It appears to me that those damn arrogant, wasteful Canadians aren't wearing nearly enough sweaters, and their wasteful, disgraceful lifestyle is driving the whole planet into ruin. That's what you meant, right cyrusabdollahi? Or was your irrational attack limited only to the US, which actually uses less energy per capita?Orefa said:It's colder up north though. Since economies and lifestyles are very similar, this difference could be just heating costs.
Hey, no problem, let's remove the industry. Canada used 403 million BTU per capita in 2001, while its entire industry used 2,680,111 terajoules, or 78.4 million BTU per capita (with a population of 32.4 million people). That means that Canadian residential users alone -- the ones who apparently are such arrogants pricks that they won't wear sweaters to save our planet -- used almost as much energy (324 million BTU per capita) as the average US citizen including its industry (342 million BTU per capita).DOE said:To a considerable extent, this is because of Canada’s large, hydro-powered aluminum-manufacturing sector.
You really need to brush up on those reading skills before entering these kinds of debates.cyrusabdollahi said:Perhaps I was not clear. What I was trying to convey was the fact that the standard of living in Japan has gone up significantly in the last ~30 years, while the power consumption has remained relatively neutral.
DOE said:Japan’s per capita energy consumption increased an average of 1.7% per year between 1980 and 1996. From 1997 to 2001, however, its annual growth rate was -0.1%, which likely reflects the country’s economic downturn. Japan’s low overall per capita consumption rate is indicative of Japan’s comparatively smaller share of energy intensive industries.
DOE said:The United States remains the second largest per capita electricity consumer in the G-7 behind Canada. U.S. per capita electricity consumption grew at a comparatively modest pace between 1980 and 2001 -- an average of 1.5% per year
Chemical waste?? I thought this thread was about nuclear power! Quit trying to change the subject to support your enviro-babble!cyrusabdollahi said:if things don't get better, and we are not careful in how we consume, we will have lots of chemical waste accumulating from years and years of dumping unnecessarily.
But cyrusabdollahi had his panties all in a twist about how people could just make such small changes as "wearing layers" to slash heating costs by half. It appears to me that those damn arrogant, wasteful Canadians aren't wearing nearly enough sweaters, and their wasteful, disgraceful lifestyle is driving the whole planet into ruin. That's what you meant, right cyrusabdollahi? Or was your irrational attack limited only to the US, which actually uses less energy per capita?
the ones who apparently are such arrogants pricks that they won't wear sweaters to save our planet. That's what you meant, right cyrusabdollahi?
I never said anything of the sort about Candians, you did. I also never said wearing sweaters would cut it in half, you took my words out of context, thanks. You are putting words in my mouth. Now this is just getting out of hand. I am not going to get into a shouting match with you, that was not my intention. End of discussion, goodbye.But cyrusabdollahi had his panties all in a twist about how people could just make such small changes as "wearing layers" to slash heating costs by half.
I snoozed off there, but to reply to this (and other member's posts), I was referring to population control globally (which would decrease the need to enter richer countries illegally):Azael said:Trying to controll the population of the rich countries would be totaly wasted effort since many of those countries already have aging and diminishing populations. Only imigration keeps the numbers up.
In china, india, middle east population controll would help to prevent a explosion in power usage. But in the western world I se no need for it at all, it would probably hurt our societs a lot to try and keep population growth down.
Goverments need to step in and restrict energy consumption if anything is to be done.
But if the people have a chooise betwen giving up some quality of life or wanting more nuclear power plants no one would vote no to nuclear power. I sure as hell wouldnt.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10789265/Conservative Christian allies of the president are pressing the U.S. foreign aid agency to give fewer dollars to groups that distribute condoms or work with prostitutes.
I'm not sure, Russ - is anyone, though? I have just heard on news reports that it is a temporary solution, and very capital-intensive in the initial phases of setting up the facilities.russ_watters said:What do you mean by "temporary"? How many years do you think we can go before running out of nuclear fuel?
I voted "yes' to phasing it out because I'd rather the world's most intelligent scientists/engineers focus on more long-term, sustainable, even 'cleaner' solutions. But I'm no expert in this field; this was just my opinion...russ_watters said:I voted "no" because of nuclear power's track record and cost: it is safe, clean, inexpensive (relative to "alternative" energy sources), and plentiful.
Never think that your opinion is invalid unless you ARE an expert. When only experts in a field are consulted you generally see a bias in favour due to the group's vested interest (look at the health reports sponsored by tobacco companies for illustration purposes). In spite of what some experts may say, non-experts can still voice valid opinions.alexandra said:But I'm no expert in this field; this was just my opinion...
I agree with Orefa. The opinion expressed is valid.alexandra said:I voted "yes' to phasing it out because I'd rather the world's most intelligent scientists/engineers focus on more long-term, sustainable, even 'cleaner' solutions. But I'm no expert in this field; this was just my opinion...
Not really! There are challenges in obtaining the optimal design for a wind turbine, and pushing the technical limits. Computational fluid dynamics is interesting and challenging whether its a wind turbine or the core of a nuclear reactor.WarrenPlatts said:Ah, but these less invasive and more cost effective technologies tend to be more boring from an engineering perspective.
I'd be happy to work on either one. There are engineering/intellectual challenges in both.WarrenPlatts said:Take wind power: there is a lot more to it than most people realize--but compare that to a pebble bed nuclear reactor! Think about it: what would you rather work on?
I never think in those terms.WarrenPlatts said:There are so many more parts that have to be put together just so. . . . Saying you're a nuclear engineer is so much more fascinating than saying you're a wind farmer.
Nuclear engineering is just what I do, not who I am. It's a mixed bag. I have done some really incredibly and unbelievably exciting things, I have had worries that most do not, and there is also a lot of mundane work. Actually, I look forward to mundane sometimes.WarrenPlatts said:It's like being a high priest in the old days, you've got this stuff (human souls, radioactive material) that only you can control. You get to speak a different language that only you and your fellow nuclear engineers understand. Such power! And you don't even have to run for office! And the lame politicos have to take your advice because you are the only one who knows the Truth.
WarrenPlatts said:Once the price gets much above $500 a pound, it's not worth it anymore. That's the problem with nuclear. Until the waste problem is fixed, we just do not know the true cost of a kWh of nuclear energy.
Chroot said:Your focus on "wasteful Americans" also seems painfully short-sighted. You seem to be concerned about conservation at home: turning off lights when you don't need them, not using air conditioning when a fan might work just as well, and so on. You're missing the much bigger picture: industry uses more energy that residential users. Even if residential users cut their energy use in half (which is perhaps possible, though very difficult to achieve), the total energy consumption of the US would decrease by only 20%. Substantial, but not enough to eliminate the energy crisis.
You could try telling the industries to reduce their consumption, but most industries already operate as efficiently as is reasonably possible (they're out to make a profit, of course). Industry, of course, is what has made the US so wealthy and powerful in the first place. If you try to cut US industrial energy use in half, you're quickly going to find that the global economy will suffer dramatically.
Chroot said:Hey, no problem, let's remove the industry. Canada used 403 million BTU per capita in 2001, while its entire industry used 2,680,111 terajoules, or 78.4 million BTU per capita (with a population of 32.4 million people). That means that Canadian residential users alone -- the ones who apparently are such arrogants pricks that they won't wear sweaters to save our planet -- used almost as much energy (324 million BTU per capita) as the average US citizen including its industry (342 million BTU per capita).
It's amazing what you can learn when you read, isn't it cyrusabdollahi? Do you still think the "wasteful US lifestyle" is responsible for our worldwide energy crisis?
Transportation 25.04 quads 27%
Industrial 35.43 quads 38%
Residential & commercial 33.74 quads 36%
TOTAL 94.21 quads
It's amazing what you can learn when you read, isn't it cyrusabdollahi?
Commercial. An energy-consuming sector that consists of service-providing facilities and equipment of nonmanufacturing businesses; Federal, State, and local governments; and other private and public organizations, such as religious, social, or fraternal groups. The commercial sector includes institutional living quarters. Common uses of energy associated with this sector include space heating, water heating, air conditioning, lighting, refrigeration, cooking and running a wide variety of other equipment.
Industrial. An energy-consuming sector that consists of all facilities and equipment used for producing, processing, or assembling goods. The industrial sector encompasses the following types of activity: manufacturing and mining. Overall energy use in this sector is largely for process heat and cooling and powering machinery, with lesser amounts used for facility heating, air conditioning, and lighting. Fossil fuels are also used as raw material inputs to manufactured products.
Residential. An energy-consuming sector that consists of living quarters for private households. Common uses of energy associated with this sector include space heating, water heating, air conditioning, lighting, refrigeration, cooking, and running a variety of other appliances. Sales to farmhouses are reported under “Farm” and sales to apartment buildings are reported under “Commercial.”
Residual Fuel Oils. A general classification for the heavier oils, know as No. 5 and No. 6 fuel oils that remain after the distillate fuel oils an lighter hydrocarbons are distilled away in refinery operations. It conforms to ASTM Specification D 396 and D 975 and Federal Specification VV-F-815C. No. 5, a residual fuel oil of medium viscosity, is also know as Navy Special anis defined in Military Specification MIL-F859E, including Amendment 2 (NATO Symbol F-77). It is used in steam-powered vessels in government service and inshore power plants. No. 6 fuel oil includes Bunker C fuel oil and is used for the production of electric power, space heating, vessel bunkering, and various industrial purposes. The United States includes the 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Kerosene. A light petroleum distillate that is used in space heater, cook stoves, an water heaters and is suitable for use as a light source when burned in wick-fed lamps. Kerosene has a maximum distillation temperature of 400 degrees Fahrenheit at the 10-percent recovery point, a final boiling point of 572 degrees Fahrenheit, and a minimum flash point of 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Included are No. 1-k and No. 2-k, the two grades of kerosene called range or stove oil, which have properties similar to those of No. 1 fuel oil.
Distillate Fuel Oil. A general classification for one of the petroleum fractions produced in conventional distillation operations. It includes diesel fuels and fuel oils. Products known as No. 1, No. 2, and No. 4 diesel fuel are used in on-highway diesel engines, such as those in trucks and automobiles, as well as off-highway engines, such as those in railroad locomotives and agricultural machinery. Products known as No. 1, No. 2, and No. 4 fuel oils are used primarily for space heating and electric power generation.
Weather was another factor that played a significant role in curtailing distillate demand in 2004 and its impact was more widespread than typical. 2004 was both considerably warmer than 2003 and also considerably warmer than normal. Although the overall difference in 2004 compared to 2003 as measured in heating degree days was just 3.8 percent for the nation as a whole, when examined on a regional basis the differences are more pronounced,particularly in the principal fuel oil consuming sections of the country (New England, the Middle Atlantic and East North Central) where heating oil demand for both residential and commercial consumers is the greatest. The winter of 2004 was warmer than the winter of 2003 in all three of the principal consuming regions and was also warmer than normal in both the Middle Atlantic and the East North Central regions. Overall, sales of heating oil to the residential sector decreased by 282 million gallons or 4.1 percent to 6.6 billion gallons. The warmer than normal winter also contributed to a sharp decline in distillate sales for use in the electric power generation. In addition, the summer was also cooler than the summer of 2003 in most regions of the U.S.; consequently, demand for distillate fuel to meet peak summer generation loads was not a great as it had been in 2003.9 Sales to the utility sector fell in every region of the country, dropping by 324.3 million gallons a decline of 28.3 percent.
"The warmer than normal winter also contributed to a sharp decline in distillate sales for use in the electric power generation."
Sales of kerosene jumped by more than 18 percent increasing by 151.2 million gallons. Sales increased to all sectors generally in all regions of the country. The largest increases occurred residential and industrial sectors where sales increased by 107.0 million gallons and 28.2 million gallons respectively. Residential sales increased in all three Subdistricts of PAD District 1. Sales increased the most in Subdistrict B of PAD District 1 where they grew by 40.9 million gallons or 25.2 percent. Sales to the commercial sector increased in all regions with the exception of Subdistrict C of PAD District 1, the South Atlantic region which suffered damage from a number of hurricanes, particularly from Hurricane Ivan.
92% went to making power.Consumption
The continuing economic recovery in 2004 pushed total
U.S. coal consumption to another record level. Data
show that total coal consumption increased 10.5 million
short tons to reach a level of 1,105.4 million short tons,
an increase of 1.0 percent. The electric power sector
(electric utilities and independent power producers)
accounted for almost 92 percent of all coal consumed in
the United States in 2004. The other coal-consuming
sectors (other industrial, coking coal, and residential and
commercial sectors) had minor changes in their
consumption totals. The other industrial sector had
almost the same level of coal consumption in 2004 as in
2003, while the coking coal sector had a decrease of 2.4
percent. The residential and commercial sector, the
smallest of all coal consuming sectors, (accounting for
less than one half of one percent of total consumption),
remained at the same level in 2004.
The largest use of electricity in the average U.S. household was for appliances (including refrigerators and lights), which consume approximately two thirds of all the electricity used in the residential sector...Air-conditioning accounted for an estimated 16 percent, space heating 10 percent, and water heating 9 percent
Sales to Ultimate Customers (thousand megawatthours)
Residential ........... 1,293,587
Industrial .......... 1,018,522
cyrusabdollahi said:As you quite well say, care to back that up?
So, what was that you said about industry being the main user of energy in the United States? It appears that Transportation and Residential & Commercial combined are nearly 63% of our countries power consumption. Perhaps, reading would do you some good as well.
Now, let's further this argument with more recent data, shall we? Next, I present to you, a Fuel and Oil Sales Report for November 2004, by the US Department of Energy, office of oil and natural gas.
The evidence clearly supports my view Warren.
Who gives a crap about fuel oil consumption rates? I never once mentioned anything about it. I was talking about total energy consumption, regardless of its generation. The rest of your post is therefore completely irrelevant as a rebuttal. I'm glad to see that, perhaps, it indicates you're learning to read, however.
Most reports consider the term "industry" to include both "industrial" (i.e. motors and factory powerplants) and "commercial" (i.e. lighting and heat for office buildings).
If you compare (industrial + commercial) use to residential use, you'll see what I'm talking about.
cyrusabdollahi said:Lets move on to coal, which is the major area where our power comes from.
Now I refer you to the bar graph on page 13, If you add the three areas, Nuclear, Hydro, Petroleum and natural gas, you get 48.6% of the power production for the united states, for all fuel sources not just coal. That seems like an awful lot of power that could be saved, as I said, *If we really wanted to.*
Nuclear and Hydro are already nearly 100% savings by definition.
Natural Gas and Petrol could be significantly reduced, the explination why is above in the previous post.
It seems all those sweaters would make 2/3, or 75% of an impact on the residential power category in the united states. hmmmmmm still sounds like enviro-babble warren?
industrial: 29%
residential: 36% commercial: 35% transportation 0.5%
So we clearly see the majority of usage of power by the major source of where we get our power goes to, yes, YOU AND ME, and NOT to a factory.
cyrusabdollahi said:I give a crap, becuase these are the major areas that we get our power from. I have already shown you the statistic for non coal based power consumption in the US, ~48%. It is 100% relevant, as it affects our total overall energy consumption.
Nope, I wont. Becuase you said it was industrial that was the major sink of power, and I have shown you that it is not. I am not going to argue with you about this issue, because I have given you reports by the US government that clearly show you are wrong. Industry is not the driving force of our energy use in this country.
So you're instead going to sniggle over my use of the term "industry," meaning all business-related use?
Industrial. An energy-consuming sector that consists of all facilities and equipment used for producing, processing, or assembling goods. The industrial sector encompasses the following types of activity: manufacturing and mining. Overall energy use in this sector is largely for process heat and cooling and powering machinery, with lesser amounts used for facility heating, air conditioning, and lighting. Fossil fuels are also used as raw material inputs to manufactured products.
Commercial. An energy-consuming sector that consists of service-providing facilities and equipment of nonmanufacturing businesses; Federal, State, and local governments; and other private and public organizations, such as religious, social, or fraternal groups. The commercial sector includes institutional living quarters. Common uses of energy associated with this sector include space heating, water heating, air conditioning, lighting, refrigeration, cooking and running a wide variety of other equipment.
Business-related use accounts for two-thirds of our consumption.