California leads the way in green energy, but not green living

[happyslug]

4. Good Chart, except it ignores heavy industry and its effect on energy use per person

Last edited Thu Nov 15, 2012, 08:29 PM - Edit history (2)

For example Washington and Oregon have a lot of aluminum smelters, the reason is easy and cheap access to Electricity from the Dams along the Columbia rivers and other rivers in the area.

Pennsylvania still has extensive Steel operations, not what is was pre 1980, but still extensive. Steel uses a lot of Electrical power. The most efficient US Large Steel Mill is in Gary Indiana, which brings up the energy per person use in Indiana. Ohio has extensive steel mills AND auto plants, both use extensive electrical power and thus bring up the energy use per person. Louisiana and Texas has extensive oil refineries, all of which uses energy. The refined oil products are not just used in Texas and Louisiana but is shipped throughout the US (via the Mississippi and its tributaries, the inter-coastal waterway up to the East Coast, various other water ways and ships a huge amount of refined oil products overseas, Mexico and Venezuela are two of the biggest importers of REFINED oil products from Texas and Louisiana, even well both are net exporters of oil to the US).

While there are steel mills in California (Pittsburgh CA for one) these tend to be small specialty plants providing products needed and used locally and thus not huge energy users like the larger plants elsewhere. This is true of most manufacturing in California, most are NOT energy intensive (Aluminum for Planes and Bicycles are produced elsewhere and shipped to Southern California for use in Planes and bicycles). Even the computer makers tend to be design mills, not the actual place where computers are mass produced (Apples for example makes most of its products overseas, while it is based in California). This lack of heavy energy intensive production tends to bring DOWN the energy per person in California (and brings it up in Texas, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Indiana and others). California refines a lot of oil, but the refined product is used in the West Coast, Nevada, Arizona but further East you get into the supply lines from Texas and the Mississippi River system (Which includes the Red River and the Missouri River).

The point I am trying to make is the map provided ignores the effect of heavy energy industrial use. That should be a separate category from individual use. That is especially true given what started this thread, the report that while California is doing a lot about improving energy efficiency, many Californians are increasing they use of energy. The net result of both trends is an overall increase in energy usage in California. The rest of the country is doing worse, for the rest of the country is way behind California in energy reduction, but many areas use more energy in Industry then in personal use (i.e. if they did what California has done, you would see almost no reduction in overall energy use, given how much energy Industry uses in those areas).

I live in Western Pennsylvania, Many of the Steel Plants are long gone, but several still survives (including a "Coke" plant that uses energy to transform Coal into Coke for use in Making Steel elsewhere, that requires a lot of energy). We still have extensive Coal mines, which require energy to operate. The population had held level, due to how many "Young people" have moved out since the 1970 (if you were 20 in 1970, you are 60 today, but you moved out when you were young). Thus a energy use per person has gone up, even while personal use of energy has gone down (Smaller cars, more efficient lighting etc). Total energy use has increased, more due to increase demands by Industry, including the Coal and Steel industries (Both employing less people then in the 1970s, but using more energy then they used in the 1970s).

A better chart would be use per household with an exclusion for use by industry. You would have a better idea of what is working for people AND a better idea what is working for industry. What is good for people may NOT be effective in Industry. The energy demands for both must be addressed.

Side note: Ohio has one of the largest Nuclear plants in the Country, built in the 1960s to supply electrical energy to the Steel plants not only in Ohio but Western Pennsylvania. The collaspe of the Steel Industry in the early 1980s lead to this plant producing excessive energy Since the 1980s proposals have been made to build power lines through Pennsylvania to ship that electrical power to the East Coast. I meniton it for Ohio, on the chart, looks like an energy hog compared to Pennsylvania, but that seems to be more a product of where the energy is produced, even if it is used elsewhere. In the case of Ohio, the shipping of that electrical power to Western Pennslyvania increase the energy