Is Blue the next Green? Part #2

[webbie]

OK, so among all of us "ugly americans" who are sucking up more energy per capita than anywhere else in the world, is there a big difference between one state and another? Would folks in the colder states use more energy.....or would the wealthier states up here in the northeast and other "blue" areas use more?

Would California, with long distances and a car culture, be an energy hog?

The answers may surprise you. There is a MAJOR difference in energy use (per person) among states, with Alaska being by far the worst energy hog, and some of the usual suspects (Texas, etc.) being high on the list. But which 10 states use the least energy per person?

Total consumption in million BTU's per person.

Vermont 272.8
Connecticut 264.4
New Hampshire 262.5
Hawaii 256.9
Florida 256.4
Arizona 250.0
Massachusetts 239.7
California 233.4
New York 220.5
Rhode Island 209.9

Those states are the bottom of the list, for comparison Texans use over twice as much energy per person as Folks in New Hampshire or Florida.

California, BTW, has the lowest electricity use (by far) in the nation on a per person basis.

Although this data can be interpreted in various ways, it shows how a state like Ca. which has strict energy and environmental policies has cut energy use in a substantial fashion. It also shows that all of us "limousine liberals" in the NE and California must not be driving around in limousines nor leaving the AC on full all summer!

Imagine the savings in total energy if we were able to get ALL states down to 200,000,000 BTU per capita! To put this into a form that is easier understood, that would mean a family of 5 uses a BILLION BTU's or about 7200 gallons of oil a year.

As it is, in Texas, that same family uses 2.75 BILLION BTU, or about 20,000 gallons of oil each year.

WOW, that's a lot of energy! And to think, the TV tells us we will save the world by replacing a few light bulbs with compact fluorescents!

It's a bit sobering to think of this much energy use....

BTW, for comparison, our best states are similar to average European countries, although Italy and Denmark are at 140 and 168 respectively.

 

[begreen]

Is the source of this info online? If yes, can you provide a link?

 

[webbie]

Sure, although you can do some searching on "energy use per capital by state", etc.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/sep_sum/plain_html/rank_use_per_cap.html

here is electric:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/us_percapita_electricity_2003.html

and for a bunch of data, try:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/_seds.html

and for a couple weeks of fun:
http://www.nationmaster.com/

 

[jpl1nh]

Wow! Family of five using 7200 gals oil, let see, thats roughly 20 gals per day. That seems like a lot, kind of blows my mind. The switch to flourescents I do think makes a big difference, that and turning unneeded lights off. ;-)

 

[begreen]

Thanks for the posting Craig. Comcast had a DNS attack this morning. I barely made it to hearth.com. Searches were mostly useless.

I can see what you mean about electric consumption. I thought latitude might have something to do with it, but no. More like attitude.

 

[BrotherBart]

I ain't the dryest log in the woodpile but something about that DOE chart smells. The states that consume coal are getting double dipped on the per capita numbers. The ones that burn coal in electric plants, like the infamous Texas, also get smacked again for the BTUs when they use the electicity. There aren't any coal burning households in Texas. The coal is used in coal fired electric plants and the "per capitas" use the electricity. But they get double dipped on the per capita number for both the coal and the electric BTUs. The same would apply to states with gas fired electric plants, and oil fired as far as that goes.

Heavenly islands of conservation like California don't burn any coal. They buy the coal generated electricity from other states that are showing up as coal junkies. Enron set up the deals for them.

These same people must compile WMD numbers for the CIA.

 

[webbie]

BB, I think the numbers are for consumption. I only pay attention to the total. per capita. I cannot imagine that they do not assume state lines are crossed by energy.

Using the nationmaster numbers, which are pretty broadly accepted, the average american across all states uses the equiv of over 8 TONS of oil per year. That includes all energy sources. So we could speculate and say that Vermonters use 4 TOE (similar to Europe) and Texans use 12 TOE.

Let me look up a ton of oil.....it's about 7.4 barrels, and assuming 42 gallon barrels, that is say 320 gallons of oil.

So an average person uses 8.5 of those, which is about 2600 gallons, meaning the family of five uses 13,000 gallons!

So the comparison works out in general. There are some details missing, such as whether it includes the cost of manufacture of a car (for instance), but I don't think it does since some of the charts have separate numbers for commercial and industrial.

Any way you want to slice it, we are using a chitload of energy!

 

[webbie]

Here is an interesting editorial which may be an indication of why very populated states like NY and Ma. are high on the list. Then again, VY shows us that a cold, rural climate can use less energy also...in VT, it is due to personal efforts (mostly).

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/11/opinion/edfoy.php

"New York City, for example, is the most energy efficient place in America. Yes, it houses 8.2 million citizens and uses an enormous amount of energy to do so. Its electrical load, more than 12,000 megawatts, is as large as all of Massachusetts. Yet because the buildings are dense and thus more efficiently heated and cooled, and because 85 percent of all trips in Manhattan are on foot, bike or transit, New York City uses dramatically less energy to serve each of its citizens than does a state like Massachusetts. Indeed, it uses less energy, on a per capita basis, than any state in America."

 

[BrotherBart]

BB, I think the numbers are for consumption. I only pay attention to the total. per capita. I cannot imagine that they do not assume state lines are crossed by energy.

I just don't see any value in per capita BTU numbers that include the coal used to generate electricity AND the electricity that was generated from that coal. One hundred percent of coal BTUs are not lost gening the electricity. The coal BTUs are converted to electicity BTUs which are then consumed. The only coal BTUs consumed are the total coal BTUs minus the electric BTUs produced. The old maxim that energy can't be created or destroyed. Ya just move it around.

It is the same as if you calculated the fuel consumption of a car by adding the barrels of crude oil plus the gallons of gas. A barrel of crude on average yields around 20 gallons of finished gasoline. Using the method used for the chart for every twenty gallons of gas a car burns it would be said to consume twenty gallons of gas plus twenty gallons of crude when in fact it is actually only consuming a half barrel of crude that has had its molecules banged around or twenty gallons of gas but not both.

 

[webbie]

BB, I think you assume that the chart columns are related (DOE chart)....where they actually overlap and each is independent (as you suggest).

The electricity column says "retail" electricity sales. That is the total of all electric bills in the state.

From the same site:
Question: How much energy does a person use in a year?

In 2005, energy use per person in the US was 337 million British thermal units (Btu).
(my note, this is 2400+ gallons of oil each)

The number is best used to compare states and countries.

Here is the historical data:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0105.html

An interesting tidbit is that energy use per person has remained relatively stable over the last 25 years, thanks mostly to fuel injection and modern building codes.

 

[begreen]

On a parallel note, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) just published their scorecard on the most energy efficient states. The Blues are in the green here too. New England scores very well.

1. Vermont, Connecticut, and California (tie)
4. Massachusetts
5. Oregon
6. Washington
7. New York
8. New Jersey
9. Rhode Island, Minnesota (tie)

http://www.aceee.org/pubs/e075.htm

 

[keyman512us]

BB, I think the numbers are for consumption. I only pay attention to the total. per capita. I cannot imagine that they do not assume state lines are crossed by energy.

I just don't see any value in per capita BTU numbers that include the coal used to generate electricity AND the electricity that was generated from that coal. One hundred percent of coal BTUs are not lost gening the electricity. The coal BTUs are converted to electicity BTUs which are then consumed. The only coal BTUs consumed are the total coal BTUs minus the electric BTUs produced. The old maxim that energy can't be created or destroyed. Ya just move it around.

It is the same as if you calculated the fuel consumption of a car by adding the barrels of crude oil plus the gallons of gas. A barrel of crude on average yields around 20 gallons of finished gasoline. Using the method used for the chart for every twenty gallons of gas a car burns it would be said to consume twenty gallons of gas plus twenty gallons of crude when in fact it is actually only consuming a half barrel of crude that has had its molecules banged around or twenty gallons of gas but not both.

...It does fall along the lines of good old GW's "fuzzy math" context...if you ask me. I would like to see "the numbers" based on something like # of McMansions' to # people comparison. Way too many variables to the equation...I will say though if people had to put a little more thought into "where the juice comes from" and more importantly what goes into it... they might be a little more apt to conserve it...I dunno.

 

[webbie]

A BTU is a BTU is a BTU.....the book I will author someday will be called "you and a btu".

While no one can claim these numbers are within 1%, they are vastly closer than counting McMansions or anything of the like. After all, we are not talking here about the waste stream nor the amount of energy it takes to make consumer products or houses. We are talking about USE of energy on an ongoing basis. The numbers make sense and add up. It is well known how much oil is imported, produced, refined...as well as how much coal mined and how much natural gas and electricity billed to the consumers.

A person could have a McMansion and yet never turn the air conditioning on, and close off 1/2 the house in the winter and use a pellet stove. Another person might have a Hummer and drive 5,000 miles a year, so the Accord owner who drives 15,000 uses as much gas.

The point is that the idea here is not to sit in judgment of individuals, but that as a sum total we are all sinners (some exceptions, of course). But what I get from the data are really two things.

1. Cutting down substantially on our fossil fuel energy use would be relatively easy
2. It is amazing how big each of our footprints are! Maybe that is a argument for birth control..........

Around here it is relatively rare to see full size SUV's. That seems to make sense given where Ma. is on the scale. Also, the state has a fairly well developed public transit system, and is also largely urban....those things also point to less per capita.

Anyway, the point of the whole exercise is to get some idea of where we could shoot for as a nation....if we wanted to. It would not be a big leap...considering technology, to save 10 to 30% in just a few years (get to less than 300 million BTU per person)

 

[begreen]

Here's what the ACEEE judged by. It's a good indicator of what the top states are doing differently:

1. Spending on Utility and Public Benefits Energy Efficiency Programs
2. Energy Efficiency Resource Standards (EERS)
3. Combined Heat and Power (CHP)
4. Building Energy Codes
5. Transportation Policies
6. Appliance and Equipment Efficiency Standards
7. Tax Incentives
8. State Lead by Example and Research & Development

 

[Rhone]

There's something that really smells about that table. Take electricity, this chart http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/sep_sum/plain_html/sum_btu_eu.html shows MA used 444.9 units and their population is 6,437,193. Texas used 3,468.1 units and has a population of 23,507,783. Doing the math, New York uses 31% more electricity per individual, Vermont uses 65% more, and Mass 213% more per individual. Massachusetts should learn from a Texan how to save electricity they're using over twice that of a Texan. Take their cars. On average a Massachusetts resident uses 10% less gasoline than a Texan, but given the distance between things in Texas I don't see that being unreasonable particularly when Vermont uses 13% more gas per individual than a Texan. New York uses 33% less gasoline per individual than someone in MA, NY does a good job. Maybe that chart is how much renewable energy? That would put Texas low at 1.4% from renewable, followed by MA at 10%, New York (thanks much to Niagra) at 19.6%, and Vermont 28.3%.

So, something's pretty fishy about those numbers. In particular, I don't like the "Other" column which Texas has a big amount. I interpret the "other" column to be they're including all that oil Texas uses to make plastic as part of it's "btu oil consumption" which, honestly is crap I think. But, it's not big enough to account for what they're saying. It doesn't look like Texans are using the energy on electricity, not using it on gas, doesn't look like they're using it for heating... so, where is all this energy they're claiming Texas uses is going?

 

[BrotherBart]

There's something that really smells about that table. Take electricity, this chart http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/sep_sum/plain_html/sum_btu_eu.html shows MA used 444.9 units and their population is 6,437,193. Texas used 3,468.1 units and has a population of 23,507,783. Doing the math, New York uses 31% more electricity per individual, Vermont uses 65% more, and Mass 213% more per individual. Massachusetts should learn from a Texan how to save electricity they're using over twice that of a Texan. Take their cars. On average a Massachusetts resident uses 10% less gasoline than a Texan, but given the distance between things in Texas I don't see that being unreasonable particularly when Vermont uses 13% more gas per individual than a Texan. New York uses 33% less gasoline per individual than someone in MA, NY does a good job. Maybe that chart is how much renewable energy? That would put Texas low at 1.4% from renewable, followed by MA at 10%, New York (thanks much to Niagra) at 19.6%, and Vermont 28.3%.

So, something's pretty fishy about those numbers. In particular, I don't like the "Other" column which Texas has a big amount. I interpret the "other" column to be they're including all that oil Texas uses to make plastic as part of it's "btu oil consumption" which, honestly is crap I think. But, it's not big enough to account for what they're saying. It doesn't look like Texans are using the energy on electricity, not using it on gas, doesn't look like they're using it for heating... so, where is all this energy they're claiming Texas uses is going?

Thank you.

 

[webbie]

There's something that really smells about that table. It doesn't look like Texans are using the energy on electricity, not using it on gas, doesn't look like they're using it for heating... so, where is all this energy they're claiming Texas uses is going?

That is a totally different chart you are looking at - it has nothing to do with either residential nor with per capita! It includes industry and commercial use....AND, look at the title - Electric Power Sector Consumption Estimates - which has even less to do with the subject.

In other words, you are looking at something totally unrelated to the subject.......

Here is per capita gasoline use by state:
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/ene_gas_con_percap-energy-gasoline-consumption-per-capita

There are many ways to slice the data, especially when you add in all the commercial and industrial stuff.

Any way you slice it, certain states (and countries) use more and certain use less. See this area and redraw the charts using various checkboxes (residential, etc.).....

http://nationalatlas.gov/natlas/Natlasstart.asp

The map is relatively close to the normal Red/Blue states in the last couple elections.

 

[TMonter]

I'd be more interested in what the average household energy usage is in Texas versus other states. Not only that but they are widely differing climates. I would expect Texas heating fuel usage to be almost nil but high in northern states. You're not exactly comparing apples to apples.

Any way you slice it, certain states (and countries) use more and certain use less. See this area and redraw the charts using various checkboxes (residential, etc.).....

Which is an indicator of almost nothing unless you include population density and average distance driven to get somewhere as well.

Texas 268,601 square miles

California 163,707 square miles, but California has high density urban areas that do not exist in many other states. California also trucks very little produce because it is grown locally and a high concentration of people who don't own cars.

Vermont 9,615 square miles

Texas is ~28 times bigger than Vermont.