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

[marmar]

from Grist:



California leads the way in green energy, but not green living
By Susie Cagle

At first glance, California seems like the greenest state in the union. Last week, the state’s voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 39, which will close a business tax loophole and send billions to clean energy programs. This week, the state is holding the first auction under its landmark cap-and-trade program. Reuters reports that California is “poised to double down on its investments” in the clean energy sector

“We put our money where our mouths are,” said Mary Nichols, chair of the California Air Resources Board, the agency charged with implementing the state’s cap-and-trade system.

“We back up what we do in regulation by shifting subsidies from things that pollute and are inefficient to things that are more efficient and make our state more resilient,” she said …

California has long been a bellwether for efforts by states and local governments eager to address climate change. In 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law a bill that requires the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. That law survived a challenge at the polls two years ago, when Californians overwhelmingly defeated an oil industry-backed measure to roll it back.

Hearings will begin in January on how exactly to spend the cash generated by Prop 39, some of which is specifically set aside for “new private sector jobs improving the energy efficiency of commercial and residential buildings” and job training “on energy efficiency and clean energy projects.”

So yes, California is pretty great! But as any Golden State resident could tell you, this is a complicated place full of contradictions. A defeated GMO labeling bill. Poisoned water. And so, so many cars.

While Californians may be progressive in some respects, we’re still clinging to the suburban dream. A recent report by Arthur C. Nelson for the Urban Land Institute argues that Californians are gravitating toward smaller lots and multi-family living, but demographer Wendell Cox disagrees. He finds that the California dream hasn’t changed much over the last 60 years. ...........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://grist.org/news/california-leads-the-way-in-green-energy-but-not-green-living/

[Kolesar]

1. Californians use about half the energy of everybody else*, because of efficiency standards

SMUD, the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, has designed some quite effective programs.

*Americans

[wtmusic]

2. Thank you

http://energy.gov/maps/2009-energy-consumption-person

[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

[wtmusic]

6. The graph shows energy consumption, not generation

and since the post was about "clean living" IMO industry is not really relevant.

[happyslug]

9. But Industry CONSUMES energy

And it also depends on how you define "Consume". Which state "Consumed" the energy if energy is "used" to produce the electrical power that is then "used" in another state? Which state "Consumed" the energy? The problem is as far as the maker of that map is concerned, it is the state where the electrical power was produced NOT the state where it was used. Thus electrical power used in California, but produced in Oregon, is allocated to Oregon NOT California.

[wtmusic]

10. How do you know

"as far as the maker of that map is concerned, it is the state where the electrical power was produced NOT the state where it was used"?

[wtmusic]

11. Here:

Statistics are based on end-user consumption, and include in-state commercial, industrial, and municipal uses divided by the state's population.

http://www.eia.gov/state/seds/sep_use/notes/use_technotes.pdf

[cprise]

3. ...and climate. Less need for heating and air conditioning is a big factor.

If the object is to do what we can, then we can ask Californians to reconsider their car-bound lifestyles along with (hopefully) everyone else.

[happyslug]

5. Four of the States with the highest energy per person, produce a lot of energy

http://energy.gov/maps/2009-total-energy-production-


In simple terms, it cost energy to produce energy. West Virginia and Wyoming are two of the largest coal producers in the Country. Notice they are also two of the bigger per person users of energy, for it takes energy to produce energy (in the case of Wyoming and West Virginia to produce coal).

Louisiana and Texas also produce a lot of energy, mostly oil and natural gas, but like Wyoming and West Virginia take up a lot of Energy to produce that oil and natural gas and to refine it into something that can be used,

One comment about the above chart, if you go to the Energy Department Web site where the chart is posted and click on California, you will see California only produces 25% of its energy produced in the state with renewable energy production, but Rhode Island and Delaware energy production is 100% renew-ables (The chart ignores that energy produced in one state is often shipped to other state for use, Delaware and Rhode Island both import energy from other states).

[XemaSab]

8. California imports HUGH amounts of energy from other states

n/t

[wtmusic]

7. The "defeated GMO bill" only concerned packaging

so it has nothing to do with green living.

Does the author realize that GMO crops allow farmers to use less pesticide and water? Prolly not.