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.