This is the only thing you said that I disagree with. If the comparison is being made that "A typical german household is not using half of an american but less then a fifth," then you are having to compare apples and oranges. The net energy usage (or, if you get right down to it, the carbon usage) is the point, rather than an irrelevancy.

HVAC--for most areas--remains the largest consumer of residential electricity.

Like you, my electrical rate is $.105/kw. I live in a sunny area (far more so than Germany) but the mathematics for solar don't really make sense for me. Even with tax breaks my payback would be a decade out. Plus, most of my electricity is from the local nuclear plant and I likewise don't feel guilty at all (I've never been into self flagellation). I do more to conserve water as that can be (during droughts) more scarce.

I've run the numbers, clothes drying is not that significant for our household numbers. It is dwarfed by HVAC. For a time we were using cloth diapers and I was counting the number of loads (which, as you might expect, was very high!).

I would like to use a clothesline, but living where I do, we have extreme humidity in the summer that adds some difficulty. A major annoyance of mine is the fascist nature of American home owner's associations, many of which BAN clotheslines. Ridiculous.

I also log local weather station data. For July 2014, the average temperature near my house at 1PM was 33 C and the average humidity was around 80% (with 97% not at all uncommon). You would appreciate the air conditioning too if you lived here (and indeed, a German couple who live in my neighborhood are NOT fans of the humidity during July and August at all!).

Yes, I would expect that outcome, or very close to it anyway.

In 2014, my maximum monthly kWh and lowest monthly:

July: 1599 kWh (almost continual AC usage. max electrical)
April: 489 kWh (min, zero AC usage)

I have smart thermostats and a python script running on cron that logs their status every 3 minutes. I have exact HVAC usage records going back three years, so I can say this with some confidence :)

So, establish a baseline of ~500 kWh if you take away my HVAC usage. Almost 50% of all of my electrical usage is HVAC. If you reduced my house space in half, I would expect the HVAC portion to decrease by more than half. For one thing, I could probably ditch one of the HVAC units, for another thing the external wall portion of the house would be proportionally smaller (fewer leaks, etc). Lighting and wiring losses would add some additional reductions in electrical usage.

So, I think watt per square meter of home is a very informative measure.

If you would rather argue kWh / person, I'm guessing--giving the GP's data--that I would still compare favorably to many European households! It's possible I'm missing something, but that GP's data is the first real numbers I have seen of individual, not aggregate, European (German) household usage.

I have 3 cats and I can guarantee they have never killed a bird (they are indoor only)! They did catch a mice once...

To be fair, in both rural and urban areas in many parts of the country, there are large feral cat populations. I still don't believe the 4 billion number.

Fully agreed that those numbers look totally specious.

This discrepancy is almost entirely a function of living space size and the cost to heat or cool this space.

Where I live, 100 sq meters would be a fairly average or small studio (meaning one room with integrated kitchen and separate bathroom/closet) or one-bedroom apartment. I doubt apartment energy usage per sq/meter in the US vs Germany is very different at all.

The real difference comes down to houses. My house is right around 270 sq meters, with a disconnected basement (outside access, though it is heated and cooled) and two living levels, two potable natural gas water heaters (also used for heating) and two HVAC systems. My house was constructed around 1995 and still has all original equipment. The windows are poorly insulated. I run many LED lights, no CFLs, and some incandescents (bathrooms). I have a 55" tv, two desktop computer, one NAS, two laptops and an array of smaller rechargeable electronics. Clothes washer and dryer (both electric), refrigerator, and an extra freezer in the garage are included. Out of curiosity, I just pulled my energy usage for the last year (2014-02-01 through 2015-01-31). Total electricity usage from the electric company was 10,067 kWh. The biggest single month was July when I used almost 1600 kWh on air-conditioning.

So, on the face of it, I use almost 3x the energy you do in a year! I'm one of those pig Americans!

As a rough calculation, your flat gets 3500 kWh / 100 m^2 = 35 kWh / m^2.

My house gets 10,067 kWh / 270 m^2 = 37.2 kWh/m^2

What's that--a 3% difference when you take into account the area?

In all honesty, when I ran these numbers, I was very surprised to see this. I was expecting that you would be far more efficient per area, but the difference is really inconsequential. Is there some error in your numbers (or my math) that I am missing?? The much larger number on my side really just comes down to my much larger space. In fact, if you include the fact that I have 5 people in my space, I think I would be considered more efficient! Americans still do tend to have larger families than Europeans (that's true when comparing immigrant populations in both regions and when comparing non-immigrant populations).

I also pulled the natural gas numbers for my house for the year 2014 (I couldn't get the exact same range) and total usage was 735 CCF (centum cubic feet). I'm not sure what you measure natural gas usage in--m^3? If so, approx 20.8 m^3. I don't know this would compare to you.

Americans a generation ago were used to much smaller houses, and Europeans today are certainly used to smaller spaces and, I should note, smaller families. The reason we moved to our current house (our previous house was ~140 sq meters) was with the birth of our 3rd child, we wanted more space. Not everybody wants to live in the same size space. I'm happy to pay more for the difference.

What will they think of next--fake Rolex watches? Fake Oakley sunglasses? I'm shocked--SHOCKED--by this most recent development.

"Wannabe" is also a negative term that connotes one lacks the ability. It sounds pretty contemptuous! Maybe not what you meant, but that's how I interpreted it as well.

No question that the EFF is happy overall (after all, they've been fighting for net neutrality for years). (And see my other posts on this article if you care about what else I've said.)

What I'm objecting to--or at least curious about--is why so many posts here are so rabidly partisan and specifically attacking Fox News. I must have missed the memo that Fox News was responsible for anyone and everyone who objects to the FCC's net neutrality rules. Even the EFF objects to parts of the rules and has complained about the FCC's lack of transparency. Are they too just lackeys of Fox News for uncritically objecting to the FCC's rules?

No question that the EFF likes net neutrality overall. Over the last decade I have probably flip-flopped about a dozen times on the issue. I loathe greater regulatory loads, but I also loathe many of the ISPs and their practices. Ultimately, I am not happy that the FCC can force through these rules (though I think many aspects of the rules are positive). I believe that any rules that affect such a large portion of the economy (and so many people and companies) should be passed as laws by elected officials.

The FCC's net neutrality rules cover a vast regulatory area, that's not in any question. From the link I posted, the EFF's letter stated:

I don't think that my saying the EFF has "serious issues" is hyperbolic when the EFF's wording was "deeply concerned."

That, I think (IMHO), is the EFF's mistake. They are looking at the net neutrality rules in purely utilitarian fashion. That's certainly a valid approach and effective, at least in the short term. The EFF often fights against too much law (even stating here that "[w]e strongly believe that the Commission should...engage in light-touch regulation"), while here they are asking for more law and regulatory agency. I think this is a bit myopic on their part, and I hope they do not end up fighting tougher battles against government regulation of the Internet in the future.

It's a lot easier to fight against a corporation than it is against the government (though good luck either way).

If you want nutbags, you can find them on either side. The second I see the name "Koch brothers" or "Soros" my eyes glaze over. What I fail to understand is why so many people hide behind their partisan beliefs and pretend that when they disagree with other people, the other people are automatically liars, being manipulated, morally bad, etc.

Whatever happened to just disagreeing with somebody?

If you honestly don't believe that the EFF objects to the general conduct rule, I guess we'll just have to disagree. I suspect you're being disingenuous, however.

It absolutely was an objection! I don't see how you could possibly read the EFF's letter and think anything else.

Snippets:

The EFF clearly has a problem with the general conduct rule. Leave the partisan group-mindedness behind--there are clearly some not-black and some not-white (grey, you might even say) shades here.

You're either with us or against us, right?

I'm a bit curious why the leftist talking points right now seem to solely be focusing on Fox News. Even the EFF had serious issues with the vast extent of the FCC's net neutrality rules, see, e.g.:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/dear-fcc-rethink-those-vague-general-conduct-rules

I do not know what the status is of the general conduct rules. Do you?

Disregarding your rant against Fox News, the EFF had some serious objections too:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/dear-fcc-rethink-those-vague-general-conduct-rules

I do not know what the status is of the general conduct rules. Do you?