TalkClimateChange

I’m sorry to say, but E-Day seems a poorly-designed experiment from a statistical sense, in dealing with a noisy time-series like electricity usage. A better idea is to look at long-term trends and comparisons, which is a little easier to do here in the US, because US states often make different choices that allow comparisons.

1) Energy/capita in US states, 2005:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/us_per_capita_electricity_2005.html
Some states do better than others, and CA doesn’t do well just because it’s mild here. Some NorthEast states do OK as well.
2) Per capita electricity use, California vs USA as a whole:
http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/policies/images/es3.jpg

I.e., US average grew, CA flat, over 30 years. That is simply from paying attention, mandating more efficient refrigerators (started in CA), and lately, because the state Public Utility Commission *incents* utilities for efficiency, not just for selling megawatts.

Realistically, there are no silver bullets for energy efficiency, just a myriad of relentless efforts over decades spread across many different applications. As far as I can tell, such efforts in CA have not destroyed our economy.

I am not sure how not increasing energy use makes CA an example of what to do.

Paying Attention? By bucking an overall trend in per capita consumption is not a effect of frugality, it is simply a by-product of applied living standards.

Where is your reduction? That would be a true test of energy efficency claims. Even with the largest pre capita private electrical co-generation of solar and wind power you have not impacted consumption, so what does that tell you?

Just some additional points to consider.

It says we’ve got a lot to do.

The point of the previous posting was:
1) Showed that energy/person wasn’t just a function of climate or location: some adjacent, fairly similar states have rather different energy uses, and it indeed has something to do with *policy*.

2) Policies matter, and one can at least limit the growth in energy use without turning into a third-world country.
The following is a nice, short PPT presentation, by Art Rosenfeld, Commissioner of the California energy Commission in 2003:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/papers/2003-11-19_ROSENFELD.PPT
Detailed histories of refrigerators, A/C, and gas furnaces are interesting.
Rosenfeld is a serious guy.

Personally, I’d be quite happy if we could keep the KWh/per capita constant, lessen population growth, and eliminate all fossil fuels from our electicity supply via
- efficiency,
- solar CSP in the Mojave,
- PV on lots of roofs,
- some more wind,-geothermal. At best, that’s going to take quite a few decades, but is actually what we’re trying to do, before all the cheap petroleum is gone. [CA’s worse problem is transport of course; we love our cars, and we don’t have enough railroads, and even if ethanol/biodiesel were free, half the state couldn’t afford to burn it, due to air pollution in LA and the Central Valley.]

The Hirsch Report has a good analysis of the economics impacts of *not* starting de-petroleumizing early enough:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirsch_report
Start early: less disruption and less intrusive government, which appeals strongly to Silicon Valley. delay: bad economy, and [as appeared in original topic] potential rationing.

CA also has to deal with snowmelt-fed water supply problems, [not a problem for UK] and in a few areas, sea level rise is a serious issue [UK does get that one], fortunately without having to deal with hurricanes. At least, CA grows a *lot* of food, so as longer-distance transport costs rise, there will at least be food, assuming the water issues can be kept under control. Post-petroleum, when steel, concrete, and bulldozers are all much more expensive, building dikes and replacing infrastructure by moving uphill is going to get real expensive, which is why we’d like to keep the SLR as small as possible. Fortunately, most of our coast is steep, and we’ve disallowed almost all development on the beaches, unlike the other coast.

Of course, solutions vary by country, geography, economy. Not every place gets as much sun as CA, for example, and wind is more useful in some places. Lots of places have more railroads than we do. Nuclear is a separate issue, which every place has to decide for itself, but it is clear there are earthquake-prone areas of CA that will never, ever have nuclear plants.

CA wishes to maintain a first-world economy beyond Peak Oil, and to help mitigate the worst effects of climate change. For *us*, the necessary actions are mostly the same.

Do you have a different plan? What is it?

TALKING CLIMATE CHANGE, I WOULD HAVE TO USE MY GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTION, TO PUT NATURE BACK ON COURSE, BY SELLING MY PROVEN DISASTER SOLUTIONS FOR $35,000.00 EACH STARTING WITH FLOODS, FIRES, LACK OF WATER.I’M A DISASTER SOLUTIONIST I SOLVE DISASTERS. M.J. SCHMITZ 22001 125TH.ST.E. BONNEYLAKE,WASHINGTON STATE, 98391, USA. I’ ON EARTH QUAKES NOW AND HAVE FOUND THE COMMON DENOMINATOR FOR A DRY LAND EQUASION OF EARTH QUAKES.==TO CHANGE THE CLIMATE, WE MUST PUT MY GLOBAL SOLUTION INTO OPERATION. IT TAKES 12 COUNTRIES AND WHEN MY PLAN IS COMPLETE, THEN NATURE WILL RETURN NORMALLY, IF MY PLAN IS NEVER USED THEN ALL LIFE ON EARTH ID DEAD.

Well having lived in CA from 1999 to 2006 and having experienced the effects on the economy from the energy shortages of 2000-2001 I would have to say that infrastructure and capacity are the top priorities for the entire West Coast Grid.

Mainly because the pressure for electricity is going to grow exponentially as the acceptance of EV and PHEV cars are adopted and Industry re-tooling takes effect.

Most Industry re-tooling will replace manual fuel intensive processes for electrical assisted high volume automated production. Example: Ports, Train Yards, Freight Transfer Points, Warehousing, production lines, fabrication, assembly, transportation. They have to save CO2 and the only way to do that is switch to low emission strategies, if you are going to have to re-tool go for the highest energy to production ratio available.

So hardline or contact source power, no human operator equipment, being done already and is proven technology so it is ripe for widescale implementation.

We need constant reliable massive power generation, there is only one proven zero CO2 renewable source. Hydro. New run of the river technology and multi step projects have massive potential.

Solar and Wind just do not have the sustained peak load potential and reliability required. Never will, but are excellent supplementals for user implemented co-generation where applicable.

We need to accept the green world will need more electricity, not less, demand will increase exponentially as carbon pricing systems get widely adopted.

John,

I forgot to mention the Energy Star program is 16 years old in case anyone wondered. So I think I can safely say it’s installation base is quite broad.

Next I looked at the per capita figures you linked, they are a little misleading. They have absolutely nothing to do with personal consumption as they include all industry in the sources.

Example If I have all the steel mills in my state, my coal/coke consumption per capita would be abnormally high.

Heavily Industrialized states should consume more electricity per capita, and more service orientated states should consume considerably less. Climate and primary heating/cooling sources as stated are a factor as well. Population density has a measurable impact on consumption as well.

Amazing.

The two most population dense states with service based economies are the lowest on the list.