Energy Consumption in the US 2010

According to the US Energy Information Administration, the statistics branch of the Department of Energy, the US used 98 quadrillion BTU last year. Energy sources are measured in different physical units depending on the type of energy source: barrels of oil, cubic feet of natural gas, tons of coal, kilowatt hours of electricity. In the United States, British thermal units (Btu), a measure of heat energy, is a commonly used unit for comparing different types of energy. In 2010, U.S. primary energy use equaled 98 quadrillion (=E15, or one thousand trillion) Btu. If it helps to visualize this any better, that is equivalent to about 2,471 Mtoe (million tons of oil equivalent) the energy measurement standard used by the International Energy Agency, IEA, the keeper of world statistics. In a world with seven billion people the United States is estimated to have 310 million people, about 4% of the world’s population, 7% of the land mass and use about 14% of the energy (depending on how fast China and India are growing since the world energy data is about two years old).

In the United States the US Energy Information Administration collects and reports the energy statistics in quadrillion BTUs and has recently reported the summary data for 2010. These statistics paint a picture of who we are today. The major energy sources in the United States are petroleum-gas and oil (37%), natural gas (25%), coal (21%), nuclear (9%), and renewable energy primarily biomass and hydro power generation (8%). The United States only produces about 75% of the energy we consume, the shortfall is imported petroleum. The major users are heating of residential and commercial buildings (11%), industry (20%), transportation including cars, trucks, trains, planes and ships (27.4%), and electric power generation (40%).

The slightly complicated chart above shows the types of fuel and the sector that consumes it. Looking at petroleum, you can see that it supplies 37% of our energy needs. Transportation, cars, trucks, trains, planes and ships, uses 71% of petroleum and that petroleum provides 94% of the total energy used in transportation. Industry uses 22% of the total petroleum consumed by the United States to supply 40% of the energy used by industry. Studying all the details of the chart tells you a lot about the United States in 2010. It will also allow you to understand the impact that policies, regulation and scientific advances might have on the country.

For example, 92% of coal mined in the United States is used to generate electricity, regulations like the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule affecting electricity generation are likely to impact coal use, cost of electricity, mining and mining regions. In 2010, of the 1,085.3 million short tons of coal produced in the United States, about 7.5% was exported, so if the number of coal fired electrical plants is decreased, the demand for coal to produce electricity is reduced, the amount of coal mined in the United States will decrease, the number of coal miners and employees of coal companies will decrease, the trains transporting coal and their employees will not be necessary, and the cost of electricity will increase as the electrical power industry builds new generation plants burning other fuels.
.
Some primary energy sources, such as nuclear and coal, are entirely used in one sector, electrical generation. Others, like natural gas and renewables, are more evenly distributed across sectors. Similarly, while transportation is almost entirely dependent on petroleum, electric power uses a variety of fuels. Because the United States is the world’s largest oil importer, it may seem surprising that it also exports about 2 million barrels a day of refined petroleum products. It seems were are also an excellent oil refiner on the easily accessed Gulf Coast. Petroleum is used primarily for gasoline for cars (55%), diesel for trucks and heating oil (23%), propane and liquefied petroleum gases used in homes and farms for cooking, heating, and jet fuel (9%). The five biggest sources of net crude oil imported to the United States in 2010 were: Canada (25%), Saudi Arabia (12%), Nigeria (11%), Venezuela (10%), Mexico (9%). Policy decisions about a future Keystone pipeline may change that in the future. U.S. crude oil imports grew rapidly from mid-20th century until the late 1970s, but fell sharply from 1979 to 1985 because of restructuring the economy (manufacturing as a component of the economy was reduced), conservation, and improved efficiency. After 1985, the upward trend resumed, peaking at 10.1 million barrels per day in 2005, and falling to 9.2 million barrels per day in 2010.

Natural gas is the source of 25% of the energy consumed in the United States and in 2010 was used almost equally for industry, electrical generations and residential and commercial heating. Most, but not all, of the natural gas consumed in the United States is produced in the United States. Some natural gas is imported to the United States in the older Keystone pipelines. Natural gas is also being shipped to the United States as liquefied natural gas (LNG). U.S. natural gas production and consumption were nearly in balance through 1986 though U.S. production of natural gas peaked in 1973. From 1986 to 2006 consumption of natural gas outpaced production, and imports rose. Then in 2006 U.S. production of natural gas began to increase as a result of the development of more efficient and cost effective hydraulic fracturing techniques. In 2010 natural gas production in the United States reached the highest recorded annual total since 1973. Regulation and control of hydraulic fracturing will impact the cost of natural gas production in the United States, the availability of gas and the environmental impact to our natural resources.

In truth I am an old time engineer who learned to look at the world with a slide rule (calculators were just coming in and thought to be cheating). Through numbers I understand the world, policies and see relationships.

Carbon Footprint, Carbon Savings and Carbon Offsets

All resources are finite. As humans our resources consist of money, time, passion and energy. In the end, where, how and when we deploy these resources will determine our comfort and happiness with our lives. While there are some basic truths, the optimal allocation of your resources is based on your values and goals. We all should be thoughtful in our living, smarter about the ways in which we use the earths and our personal resources.

According to McKinsey and Co. it cost an additional $30-$40 above normal energy production costs to eliminate one ton of CO2 emissions by replacing traditional energy production with solar or wind power (the presumed life of the equipment was unreported). However, when a ton of CO2 was saved using LED light bulbs or energy-efficient appliances money was also saved ($108-$159 less was spent on energy for every ton of CO2 saved). The costs associated with generating power without CO2 emissions are higher than current costs. If the money is spent to reduce CO2 by replacing generating capacity there will be less money to spend on other things that matter to you or are necessary for your life, but if you reduce the use of energy less money is spent on energy and more money is available for other goals.

When you use less energy, by insulating, changing to lower energy light bulbs, controlling passive solar heat, or using energy star appliance, less energy is used, less CO2 released and money is saved. Reducing your energy consumption is a far better utilization of resources. While solar panels and wind turbines are sexy, and renewable sources of energy sound wonderful, these technologies are still in their infancy. Geothermal generation of heating and cooling and nuclear generation of power have failed to catch on in the United States, but have advanced significantly in the past few decades in overseas locations. Conservation and energy efficiency are currently well developed technologies, effective and relatively cheaper. Use less so that we can all live within the productive capacity of the existing infrastructure. Then only expand the generating capacity in ways that do not release CO2, do not burden the earth.

Adding insulation and sealing existing homes and commercial buildings is by far the low hanging fruit and a good source of “green economy” jobs. The Wall Street Journal reports that heating and cooling buildings account for about half of the CO2 emissions in the U.S. My home was built in 2004 and is heated and cooled with a duel system; the upstairs with an air heat pump and the lower levels with a gas furnace and air conditioner. Replacing the heating and cooling systems with geothermal systems would only make sense when the existing systems reach the end of their functional life. After eliminating incandescent light bulbs, upgrading all appliances to energy star, installing reflective films on the window and installing drapery, I found that adding insulation was a good way to further reduce the energy consumption of the house. Following the recommendations of the Building Envelope Research of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory the attic, crawl spaces, eves, duct work, underside of a large portion of the main level floor were insulated with cellulose. The pipes, end caps, knee wall, sump pumps and all identified areas were sealed, the garage was insulated and an insulated garage door installed. After six months electricity usage (as measured in kilowatts for the same six months the previous year) had been reduced by over 6% (despite relocating our workspace to the home with all its attendant equipment) and the winter liquid propane usage (as measured in volume use December through March both years) was reduced by 25%. Also, the overall comfort in the bedroom over the garage and the master bedroom has been vastly improved. I was very surprised (and pleased) at the energy savings for what was a well insulated home.

Though I do not need to commute to a job, I still drive my (gas hybrid car) almost 4,000 miles a year. The hybrid does not make economic sense especially because I drive so little. However, it does make me happy to drive so to me it was worth the extra money I paid for it. In searching for the carbon emitted per vehicle mile I could only find the 1993 data from the Nowak study which lists 0.88-1.06 lbs CO2 per mile. This is probably high for my hybrid, which was not available at the time of the study. The same article states that each person in the US generates 2.3 tons of CO2 each year, which appears in conflict with the automobile numbers until you realize that babies and children do not have cars and city dwellers automobile ownership and use is also much less than suburban use. During the eight years I lived and owned a car in the city, I drove less than 1,000 miles a year. After reducing the energy use in my home, eliminating commuting from our lives, reducing frivolous travel I still wanted to do more.

I found the following fact: “A single mature tree can absorb carbon dioxide at a rate of 48 lbs/ year and release enough oxygen back into the atmosphere to support 2 human beings.” The Tree Folks are the source of the above information, and are willing to sell carbon off-sets in the form of trees. I tend to think of carbon off-sets for people who want to vacation in Bora Bora or have the wedding or Oscar party of the century, but in truth they are probably for people like me who use various technologies to make their lives richer and happier. My large house comes with a big piece of land. Admittedly, most of the land is wooded undisturbed land and part of the Chesapeake Bay water shed, but I do have about 3 acres of mostly open land around the house. We planted 43 trees of moderate maturity (over 6 foot each). Using the Tree Folk data, forty-two trees absorb a ton of carbon a year and the last tree replaces a diseased tree we cut down. Beyond watering the trees in the first three weeks they were planted, they have thrived on benign neglect. I am already drawing up plans, researching native trees, and saving my nickels for another 3.6 tons of annual carbon off-sets otherwise know as another 150 trees. I may have to make that 152 trees because there are two more existing trees that are not doing well.

Trees can also reduce air conditioning and heating needs by providing shade and providing a wind shield for winter. Trees also act as natural pollution filters. Their canopies, trunks, roots, and associated soil and other natural elements of the landscape filter polluted particulate matter out of the flow towards the water shed and use nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium which are contributing factors to the decay of the Chesapeake Bay water shed. Trees are pretty.