1950s vs. 2000s: The Drive to Supersize

Originally posted at www.thegreengrok.com. This post has been updated.

A lot has changed in the past 50 years, much for the better. Energy efficiency measures, for example, have meant less pollution and savings in electricity costs. But there is a but....

Thanks to advanced engineering and government-backed programs such as Energy Star, our appliances and homes have become more efficient. And yet, when all is said and done, we are a lot less efficient than our 1950s counterparts.

In the 1950s the average American consumed roughly 2,200 kilowatt-hours of electricity per year; today that number has grown to roughly 13,800 kilowatt-hours per year. (Estimates derived from population numbers here and electricity totals here [pdf].)

What's going on? Take a look at a few comparative statistics.

	1950	2000s
Persons per household .............................	3.37	2.56
	source [pdf]	source
Average size of single- family home built .....................................	983 sq. ft.	2,349 sq. ft.
	source [pdf]	source [pdf]
Number of housing units with refrigerators .....................................	~ 40,000,000	124,647,000
	source	source [pdf]
Average volume of refrigerator .................	~ 9 cu. ft.	~ 20 cu. ft.
	source [pdf]	source [pdf]
Average energy use for a refrigerator ......................................	~ 360 kWh	~ 420 kWh
	source [pdf]	source [pdf]

It would appear that our drive to supersize is making us less efficient even as we strive to go out and buy more efficient appliances. So, if you're looking for one way to lower your impact, try downsizing.

Notes: All recent stats are from 2007 except for: size of home built (stats from 2004), average energy use (stats from 2001) and average volume (stats from 2001). A tilde in front of a number (e.g., ~ 9 cubed feet) indicates the number is rough.

This post has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction/Update: October 19, 2009
As initially published, this post mistakenly cited ~4,000,000 U.S. refrigerators in 1950. It should have been roughly 40,000,000 [86.4 percent of the 43,554,000 U.S. households [pdf]].

Sources

U.S. Census Bureau - census.gov

Sue Bowden and Avner Offer, "Household Appliances and the Use of Time: The United States and Britain Since the 1920s" in The Economic History Review, New Series, Vol. 47, No. 4 (Nov., 1994), pp. 725-748 (published by Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the Economic History Society) - jstor.org

Housing Facts, Figures and Trends - soflo.org

"The California Vision: Reducing Energy Intensity 2% Per Year," California Energy Commission, 2003 - aceee.org

Follow Bill Chameides on Twitter: www.twitter.com/theGreenGrok

Comments

[Corey Tournet]

03:42 PM on 11/02/2009

Interesting article as it uses some numbers to illustrate the point. The house size increase might partially explain why there were more one income households in the past.

With the laundry, one of the best ways to significantly cut down on energy use is to use a spin dryer such as at http://www.laundry-alternative.com/drying.htm
They are nearly 100 times as energy efficient as tumble dryers and easy to use. Of course clotheslines are the most energy efficient method, but for people who aren't willing to use them (the majority of the population) spin dryers are another way to cut down on energy use without a loss of convenience.

[HeevenSteven]

08:27 AM on 10/16/2009

Only 4 million fridges in 1950??? Is that a typo?

[vim876]

03:54 PM on 10/15/2009

Just a thought. The small size of fridges implies someone (women) had more time for shopping. Having two full-time workers and a 9 cubic foot fridge isn't gonna do it. This is equally true of line-drying laundry and a number of other energy-saving habits. I'm certainly not going back to the kitchen for this. The environmental movement needs to find out something better.

[Bill Chameides]

12:58 PM on 10/19/2009

vim876: You make a very good point. All I can say is that I grew up in a household with 2 working parents, in a small apt with a small fridge and no clothes dryer, and somehow we managed. Which is not to say that I am any better than anyone else. The home I live in now is a lot larger than the apt I lived in as a kid; we have a large fridge, and you better believe we have a clothes dryer. Perhaps a little downsizing in all our lives might help. And by the way, the next time you fill up your fridge with stuff from the supermarket, try to figure out how much of the space is being taken up by food and how much by packaging.

[TryToBeFlexible]

01:34 PM on 10/15/2009

Uh, I think the fridge does not make the difference. I think the heating and cooling for such a huge house makes the difference. Probably accounts for 99% of the difference.

In fact, a larger fridge allows for fewer grocery shopping trips, so the electricity can be offset by the lesser gasoline expenditure.

[Bill Chameides]

12:58 PM on 10/19/2009

Super-sized life requires super-sized fridge, and you don't have to make a special trip to the market -- do it on the way home from work.