Pennsylvania is moving up the energy production rankings.
Based on the latest available data, the five top energy producing states in order are: Texas, Wyoming, West Virginia, Louisiana, and Pennsylvania. www.eia.gov/state/seds/sep_prod/pdf/P5.pdf. That ranking is based upon 2010 data for coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, and renewable energy production.
When 2011 data is collected, Pennsylvania will jump over Louisiana and West Virginia to become
the third biggest energy producer, because of a huge increase in natural gas production that took place in the Commonwealth last year. Among the states, Pennsylvania will soon rank second for nuclear production, third for natural gas, and fourth for coal.
At the other end of the energy production spectrum sits 5 states that produce the least energy. They are Vermont, Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, and Nevada. States that produce little energy rely on energy imports from states that produce a great deal to keep their economies and communities functioning. The interstate commerce of energy is a vital daily exercise all across our land.
Jobs are a major product of that commerce and energy production. The 5 biggest energy producing states all have unemployment rates below the national average, but the same cannot be said about the 5 states producing the least energy. Rhode Island and Nevada are among the 5 states with the highest unemployment rates, though Vermont enjoys a low rate of unemployment.
Hosting energy production has economic benefits for energy producing states as well as challenges. Wind farms, nuclear plants, gas production, coal mining, solar systems, biofuels all trigger controversy and sometimes intense opposition to their development because every energy source impacts the environment to some degree.
While battles to stop wind farms or gas production continue, no American stops using energy. Every American should use energy wisely and be thankful for the energy that comes from America's top 5 energy producing states.
Interesting to see how Pennsylvania has quickly become an energy powerhouse on the strength of shale gas. Another interesting way to look at this is the energy production to consumption ratio - a sort of energy self-sufficiency assessment. Have you done that analysis? The states listed are blessed with great natural resources, but also require energy to produce energy, and TX and PA also have large populations that consume energy.
ReplyDeletePennsylvania would probably rank number 1 on the ratio you suggest. PA will rank 3rd in total energy production but ranks 33rd on per capita energy consumption. No other state produces so much energy but uses it so wisely.
DeleteEven before shale gas, Pennsylvania ranked high on energy production as a result of ranking 2 in nuclear energy production and 4 in coal. But shale gas pushes PA into "powerhouse" status, as you say.
jobs? We watch bus loads of workers brought here to do the gas industries work..they are not local..it reminds me of earlier years when the bus loads of migrant workers rolled in to pick the tomatoes at the big farms here...those tomatoe fields are gone..What position does PA hold in agriculture? Dairy? Produce? As a former social studies teacher, I taught PA history. Gas extraction, contrary to what a very high PA official said..is not a renewable resource!.. lots of water, land and soil gone forever..We will see if your applause is premature. Can't drink gas, can't eat oil.
ReplyDeleteThere's no legitimate reason for us NOT to be building more nuclear power plants, especially in the areas where they don't produce their own energy sources from fossil fuels. There have been some obvious mistakes along the way, but we've learned how to build safe nuclear power plants now, and their record statistically, now makes them the safest form of energy on the planet.
ReplyDeleteWe should also be using all of our abundant and cheap hydrocarbon based energy sources, in fact given our economic condition, we should be exploiting them for export as they represent what may be the only chance that we have to ever pay off our staggering debt, and eliminating our deficit.
China buys its energy from all over the world. If we developed our resources in a reasonable manner we could afford to tell China that we would pay for all of our imports of Chinese goods with oil, gas or coal. As long as it cost China the same or less, to buy ours rather than buying it from the middle east, they would have no objection, and it would have the added advantage of fixing our balance of payments, while simultaneously denying those funds to the terrorist supporting states in the middle east who are our enemies.
America is the biggest importer of goods from all over the world. The same strategy would work with any other nation from whom we purchase lots of goods, that doesn't have its own plentiful source of fossil fuels.
Since the use of fossil fuels, including clean coal, has no detrimental environmental effects whatsoever, there's no reason for us not to be using everything we have in order to achieve maximum prosperity for the American people.
fs
New nuclear is 6 times more expensive to build than new gas. The only reason to build new nuclear is to avoid releasing carbon dioxide.
ReplyDeleteI simply said that nukes were a viable option in places were cheap fossil fuels were not readily available. However, in the long term, the ongoing costs of nuclear power are quite competitive with fossil fuels on a cost per KwH.
DeleteThe cost of nuclear energy has also remained quite stable in relation to energy from petroleum. Energy costs are less volatile from gas, however, the most stable costs have consistently been from coal. Obama's war on the coal industry is politically driven and makes no sense from an economic or environmental perspective.
There are still real pollution problems that we need to deal with. What C heron & Texaco did to the Ecuadorian rainforest is unforgivable, as is the pollution of the upper Hudson River valley area by GE's wholesale dumping of PCB's in the river from its factories in upstate NY.
Accidents will still happen, but their frequency will continue to decline as we learn more and more about safe technology.Even disasters like the BP oil spill in the Gulf aren't as bad as the eco-fascists would have us believe. Mother nature is remarkably resilient in cleaning up messes like that in surprisingly short periods of time.
fs
I am delighted when China builds new nuclear, as it is now. It is constructing 27, an incredible number. They are using their money to buy in some case American nuclear know how. The nukes emit no carbon dioxide, no mercury, no soot, no air pollution.
DeleteThe calculation of a new nuke in US is different.
You wrote:
Delete"The nukes emit no carbon dioxide, no mercury, no soot, no air pollution."
Do you really believe that carbon dioxide is a pollutant?
Granted that Mercury is dangerous, but CO2 is a beneficial trace gas.
fs
Natural things like mercury. lead, arsenic can be pollutants. The amount or dose is often what makes the difference. Non-toxic things can be pollutants. Carbon dioxide (and the other heat trapping gases) in the right amounts traps enough heat so that earth does not become frozen. Too much heat trapping gas and temperatures rise and climate changes. While 97% of scientists that are credentialed in the area of climate agree with what I just wrote, you do not agree with them. You and I will not agree on these points either.
DeleteSo informative and comprehensive post.
ReplyDelete