State by state energy consumption rankings.

[NNadir]

One of my "nuclear is better than everything else because renewables are not even close to displacing fossil fuels" posts elicited a rather strange comment. Speaking about Florida - where the amount of electricity generated by renewable means in percentage terms fell over the 14 year period between 1990 and 2004 - a poster informed me that my comments were irrelevant because Florida "requires little heating and only moderate AC." This was proof, according to the poster, that Florida - said to be cooled by moderate breezes - gets most of its heat and cooling from a renewable source, the sun.

Maybe the comment supposed that one couldn't "look it up."

I write about the inadequacy of renewable energy not because I hate renewable energy - actually I don't. I write because the "renewables will save us" fantasy makes people ridiculously complacent and ill informed and intellectually lazy about conceding that one must make choices, none of which are risk free.

As it happens, commercial nuclear energy is developed in the world primarily for one purpose right now - to generate electricity. I often speculate loudly that it can do other things, like provide energy to make motor fuels and chemicals. Still by the same criteria I often assert, this is not available right now. Nuclear energy is all about electricity for the time being.

We have these state by state discussions here from time to time. A poster here tells us all about how wonderful Maine's energy profile is, for instance, and I - while ridiculing Maine's energy programs - often point to the fact that I think Vermont is an energy exemplar. It is useful therefore to keep in mind the old issue of scale.

The state by state ranking of energy consumption by type is available for 2003. It is here:

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

Florida consumes the third most amount of electricity, after Texas and California. Thus nuclear power in Florida would (and does) have a climate change impact there, as it would (and does) in Texas and California.

Vermont has the lowest electricity consumption of the 50 states. This is why one small nuclear plant can meet the majority of its electrical energy needs.

Maine is the ninth lowest consumer of electricity, which is why it can generate more than 20% of its electricity by burning wood. Maine chose to burn natural gas for the bulk of rest, since the locals couldn't stand the thought of their nuclear plant and forced it to shut down.

The argument that climate alone determines energy consumption is shown to be nonsensical by looking at the "per capita" consumption for all forms of energy.

The people of Vermont are the seventh best in the nation in per capita energy use, even though their state is often cold. The nearby state of Maine is the 33rd best in this ranking, better than Alabama but worse than Georgia, Idaho and Utah. Florida, where the gentle breezes blow and the air conditioning requirements are said to be moderate, is the 8th lowest in per capita consumption behind Vermont and Massachusetts.

Surprisingly enough - at least to me - Arizona is the 4th best for per capita conservation, ranking only behind, Rhode Island, New York and California. I can't explain that in any way. I posit, but cannot prove that New York and California are both aided in this column by having very large metropolitan areas that are well served by mass transit systems, New York City and San Francisco. I admit that California's excellent ranking is something of a surprise. In this case I'll bet a mild climate along the coast - where most of the population lives - does indeed play a role. When I lived in LA and in San Diego, I almost never felt the need to run an air conditioner. The need for lots of heating was also relatively rare there.

My home state, New Jersey, is the 16th best at conservation. We also are well served by mass transit.

[valerief]

1. Wow. The per capita rates are very telling. Looks like industry and

not regular people are the biggest fuel consumers.

[NNadir]

3. Here is the energy chart showing where our energy goes and where it comes from.

I haven't linked it in a while.

[Rabrrrrrr]

6. That's fantastic! I'm also glad it's 103 exajoules - that makes the numbers

pretty damn close to precentages as well.

So much wasted energy. It's sickening.

[valerief]

7. 60% of energy is lost? Know what this means? Is this energy

used to produce energy? Or is the 22% of petrol the oil spills?

[NNadir]

8. This the energy lost to the second law of thermodynamics.

The "lost" percentage can be reduced but never eliminated. This is a physical constraint. Modern fossil fuel systems have been built that reduce this lost energy to less than 40% and there are similar nuclear systems, but there must always be waste heat.

If this heat is captured and used for another purpose, such as heating homes for instance, it is called "co-generation." Co-generation is an excellent energy conservation scheme and is increasingly in use, but it is not without its own costs.

[LiberalEsto]

10. The farther electricity travels

over power lines, the more energy it loses due to the resistance in the wires. The most efficient way to use electricity is to generate it right on the site where it will be used. This is known as on-site generation or distributed generation.

The bonus of on-site electricity generation is that the heat created in the process can be harvested and used for indoor heating, hot tap water, and even air conditioning - by using an absorption chiller.

[NNadir]

11. On the other hand, on site electrical generation represents point source

pollution.

Actually transmission losses are relatively low, because of the high voltage lines we see everywhere. Such losses only become significant over hundreds and hundreds of kilometers.

The total external cost of energy is the lowest for large systems, in particular, nuclear power plants.

[LiberalEsto]

12. Yes but it depends on how it's generated

Diesel, kerosene, propane, natural gas, coal and other fuels emit varying amounts of pollutants. States control the amount of pollutants that can be released by distributed generation systems.

Ideally, I'd like to have on-site solar power.

[NNadir]

14. One might ask why you don't have solar power then.

I hear all the time about solar power and how wonderful it is, but the amount of energy it produces for all this talk is less than 0.01% of US energy demand.

There is a reason for this situation and it's not that Exxon feels threatened by solar energy.

The external cost of solar energy - and I'm not even talking about the batteries that would be required to make it continuous - is higher than the external cost of nuclear energy.

[LiberalEsto]

15. Because I've been unemployed for 4 months

and we can't afford to install it. My house is perfectly sited for solar. I'd do it in a minute if I had the money.

[NNadir]

16. And that is the crux of the entire matter.

You are not the only one who "can't afford it."

There are hundreds of millions of people who love solar energy in theory until they are asked to go pay for it. I note that there are many people here who love solar energy "but can't afford it (solar) right now" who do afford nonetheless to stay connected to the grid.

Personally I applaud anyone who can afford to install solar energy who does so. They are doing something besides mindless consuming. But my applause stops when someone tries to represent that solar energy is the only solution or even that it is a general solution. Solar energy, for all we talk about it here at E&E, is a completely trivial form of electrical generation. It doesn't really register as a fraction of renewables and renewables don't represent a significant fraction of energy.

In the crisis of climate change and energy my schtick is all about affordable energy for the great mass of humanity. If I was only concerned with what rich people need, buy, and do, I would be a Republican.

[LiberalEsto]

19. The price will come down

and quality will improve as demand increases.

I remember when pocket calculators were first introduced to consumers. They cost several hundred dollars, and they were large and unwieldy. Only the affluent could afford them. Within a few years, newer models came out, and the price started dropping.

Nowadays, small calculators are everywhere, even in children's toys. I can pick one up at a garage sale for 25 cents.

Demand for solar power continues to increase, and more and more people are installing it in their homes. As solar power equipment goes into mass production, I expect it will become affordable for the average homeowner.

[NNadir]

20. I've been hearing that my whole adult life. I'm in my fifties.

It is not even a good joke anymore.

Solar power is fine as a toy, but it is not a serious approach to addressing climate change.

[whoneedstickets]

2. Percentage of population employed by...

farming and resource extraction industries may go a long way to explaining the final BTU/capita. The highest scores are lower population states where there is a lot of 'low tech' production (timber, mining, farming).

[NNadir]

5. Well it would seem that states with large fossil fuel mining industries do lousy.

Of the 5 worst, 4 have significant fossil fuel industries, Alaska (oil), Wyoming (coal), Louisiana (Oil and Gas), and Texas (oil).

In fact, among the ten worst, only one, North Dakota, doesn't have fossil fuel extraction industries.

[Rabrrrrrr]

4. Yes, but people's - especially liberals - non-scientific "truthiness" outweighs facts

It's not about what's TRUE, it's about what FEELS TRUE.

Nuclear is DANGEROUS (insert scary B-movie chord here, perhaps with a theremin over it) and thus coal and oil are far better.

:eyes:

The level of science and math education in this country is the fucking shits.

If it were any good, people would be able to avoid a lot more of the stupid truthiness that passes for "facts" nowadays.

Most people have no idea how power is actually generated and distributed, and sadly, most of those people couldn't give a shit to bother to find out, either. But they'll all weigh in with their opinions, and the less they understand it, the louder they seem to shout.

You are totally spot on with ill informed and intellectually lazy about conceding that one must make choices, none of which are risk free.

No risk free choices. So many people seem to think that the only way to look at the world is that there is one perfect choice and all other choices are utterly ludicrous.

And when it comes to electricity production, all choices are ludicrous, at least in part.

[eppur_se_muova]

9. Building codes and age of buildings might play a big role.

The southwest states, for example, have grown dramatically in population in the last couple of decades, with the result that much of the infrastructure and buildings there are relatively new. More modern construction will *usually* (not always, obviously) mean more energy efficiency. Florida, I would think, would also have relatively few old, poorly insulated buildings. (There was very little permanent settlement in FL before air conditioning. Lots of resorts, but who wanted to live there year-round?)

I compare this to the leaky, creaky, old buildings in Boston or Baltimore (I'm a former resident of both), with their horribly ancient, all-but-uncontrollable steam radiators and ill-fitting single-pane windows. The landlords who refuse to upgrade these old buildings are as addicted to cheap oil as any auto mfgr.

[mzmolly]

13. Highly interesting. Let me be the first to recommend!

I can't believe as cold as it is in Minnesota today, that we do so well "per capita." ;)

[jody]

17. Why is AL per capita @ 447.3 but FL @ 252.3, MA @ 247.6, CA @ 229.3, NY @ 219.5?

Are building codes more energy efficient in those states with lower per capita rates?

[NNadir]

18. The per capita figures include all energy, including transportation.

I don't think there is one factor that explains it all.

Everything, climate, codes, laws, culture has an effect.

I do note that the best performing states have healthy Democratic Parties though.