If that's really accurate, then I'm staggered at how much energy folks must be using to keep cool, and makes my efforts at saving energy seem paltry in comparison.
I have been keeping daily logs this summer and find that my daily power consumption swings between about 25 kWh on cool days to 65 kWh on really warm days. Definitely a lot lower than 100 kWh mentioned previously.
I went to Egypt as a teenager and remember the temperature in Sharm el Sheikh cracking 50C. We would literally sprint from the A/C in the hotel across the beach to the water because the sand was too hot to walk.
Equivalent latitude doesn't mean equivalent climate. As an example, which of these cities is further north, Buffalo, NY, USA or Cannes, France? Hint: it's the one known for topless sunbathing, not the one known for sub-zero outdoor football games.
Based on this very scientific single-neighborhood sample, I'd guess 40-60kWh/day would not be unusual during the peak summer months.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Texas
The source in wikipedia is out of date, but it's still true as of Q3 2016:
US insulation requirements in Dallas is R-20 in the walls [1]. The PassivHaus standard is R-40 to R-60. I believe Germany requires R-5 at a minimum. Mainstream US construction design and practice still doesn't account for thermal bridging, so that defeats much of the insulation we're throwing into our buildings.
[1] https://eepartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Texas-2...
A/C efficiency ("power factor") is measured using the ratio of heat (energy) moved outside to the amount of energy put into the air conditioner , which is usually >> 1 unless there is a huge temperature difference between inside and outside.
An ideal furnace has a 1:1 ratio of heat energy injected into the house to energy used to run the furnace. Heat pumps can get over 1:1 ratios, but come with caveats and are more expensive than A/C units.
Also, you can make it feel cooler with a dehumidifier, which often is more efficient than cooling. For furnaces, you need a sweater, but your article assumed a 70F indoor target.
Heating can also be made more efficient easily with insulation, and heat generation through CHP or geo heatpump.
Last month my average home used between 100 and 120 kwh per day [2].
Luckily we rarely have to heat in the winter - although it's not uncommon to have the A/C running for Christmas.
[1]: http://www.statesman.com/news/local/wipe-that-brow-austin-re...
That's half of my entire energy usage for a month...
Have you considered a swamp cooler?
They do not work well if it's hot and humid, for two reasons. One is that the water doesn't evaporate as well, so they don't cool well. The other is that the whole point is comfort, and in a humid climate you don't achieve that unless you remove both heat AND humidity, but swamp coolers add humidity.
Texas has some desert areas (western part of the state), but most of the population lives in the part of the state that isn't a desert.
The good news is with modern construction techniques and equipment, you can cut energy usage WAY down. You can cut energy usage a lot with stuff like a radiant barrier in the attic, attic vents, lots of insulation, double pane windows, a "tight" house with little air leakage, proper angles to keep direct sun from heating up the house at the wrong times, and a high-efficiency AC unit that you service and maintain properly. In fact, a lot of those things are actually more beneficial than getting solar panels.
This is the figure in an environment where electricity costs nothing and there is zero pressure from home design to the actual AC unit to reduce consumption. Let's face it, this attitude isn't going to fly in the future. You could probably cut that figure by a good 10% by installing your choice of solar panels or a bunch of trees, just from less sun hitting the structure.
(Cut it in half if you consider the average American in the South lives in a freakishly large house fit for a queen with entourage and is cooling all of it..)
It should be noted that peak energy expenditure for air conditioning happens more or less at exactly the moment when the influx of energy from the Sun is also at its peak. That's, like, a gigantic hint that mother nature is dropping on you, hoping you'll notice it. The disease, and its cure, are gushing forth from the same place at the same time.
Probably most of the energy for air conditioning in the future will not come out of storage, but it would be produced at the moment when it's consumed, by solar panels or some other solar technology.
> "The hottest part of the day usually starts at about the end of the prime solar hours."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diurnal_temperature_variation#...
Here's one company that makes them.
http://energyblog.nationalgeographic.com/2013/09/17/10-myths...
5gkal per hour is more than enough to keep a 50m2 room with huge windows at 21-22C in scorching heat.
If your house is huge, like 200m2 McMansion, and your ventilation does no recuperation whatsoever, and you have near nil heat insulation (like most of housing in US,) you will barely use 50kw/h per day even if you live in the middle of Sahara
That applies to lead acid batteries. Lithium ones are much more forgiving on that (as long as you stay within design limits.)
(Interestingly Canada's per capita consumption is comparable to the US despite being much further north)
Investing in insulation or other things might or might not make sense. High electricity price for a long future period would also encourage investment.
Alternatively, constructing your house in a benign climate, if you do a lifecycle analysis and look at the upkeep cost.