Wyoming, Highest per capita energy use state? (Veteran: how much, unemployment)

[CptnRn]

I was surprised to see that Wyoming has the highest per capita energy use of all the states.

1. Wyoming: The 10 States that Use the Most Energy Per Capita - US News & World Report
BTU Usage (2008, in billions): 541,600
Population (2008 est.): 532,668
BTU Usage Per Capita (billions): 1.017

Do most of the coal, mineral and gas extraction industries us electrical power primarily? That could account for it. I assume it has to be industry related.

[BennyPhoenix]

Military, Yellowstone, mining.
That probably messes up the statistics quite a bit.

[ElkHunter]

Almost all of the major Drag Lines used in open pit mining are electrical powered now.

It could be that we have very cheap power in Wyoming and tend to use more just because it's available.

My place is all electric and last month I used:

1000 KWH at $ .058020
294 KWH at $ .078020

I figure I'm running pretty lean in this cabin for energy. My bill runs about $100-$120 a month during the winter, but only about $55-$60 a month during the summer with central air set at 75.

[StealthRabbit]

Just one of the flukes of using Statistics for reporting.
(of which US News and World Reports is a PRO at providing skewed data as being relevant)

WY=
Low density of population to spread useage of:
Heavy Industrial Production
Colder / wind convection energy loss than median USA
Long distances to travel (higher fuel usage per capita)

Cosidering the size of the LARGE towns / cities in WY, make even AK seem like a metropolois.

WY should get an award for this!!! (hopefully shows in low unemployment and fewer per capita 'program' people.)

A list of US Government susidized income per capita shows WY in a much more favorable light.
The Geography of Government Benefits - Interactive Map - NYTimes.com ('income support' tab)

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by StealthRabbit

Just one of the flukes of using Statistics for reporting.
(of which US News and World Reports is a PRO at providing skewed data as being relevant)

WY=
Low density of population to spread useage of:
Heavy Industrial Production
Colder / wind convection energy loss than median USA
Long distances to travel (higher fuel usage per capita)

Cosidering the size of the LARGE towns / cities in WY, make even AK seem like a metropolois.

WY should get an award for this!!! (hopefully shows in low unemployment and fewer per capita 'program' people.)

A list of US Government susidized income per capita shows WY in a much more favorable light.
The Geography of Government Benefits - Interactive Map - NYTimes.com ('income support' tab)

I don't think it is a fluke or skewed, it points out an interesting anomaly due to the high amount of extraction industries in the state.

That Government Benefits map you linked to is interesting, especially the one on Veteran's Benefits, how much higher they were in 1969 then they are today. I would have expected the recent wars to have had a bigger impact then they have, perhaps that will come later as veteran's age.

[ElkHunter]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

I don't think it is a fluke or skewed, it points out an interesting anomaly due to the high amount of extraction industries in the state.

That Government Benefits map you linked to is interesting, especially the one on Veteran's Benefits, how much higher they were in 1969 then they are today. I would have expected the recent wars to have had a bigger impact then they have, perhaps that will come later as veteran's age.

Veterans benefits have changed through the years. The current vets are not intitled to the same thing I am from the time I was in the Service.

[sunsprit]

This is another one of those most meaningless "factoid" studies with little useful information.

We might just as well have posted a startling revelation that almost 100% of the raw materials for manufacturing, and foodstuffs consumed in New York City, San Francisco, D.C., or Chicago is imported to the residents of those (or, for that matter, all of the top 20 population cities of the USA) cities.

As well, the sources of energy consumed by those dwellers comes from outside of their environments. From states that produce those items, such as coal and oil ... like Wyoming.

Did you know that New York City imports it's domestic potable water supply? and so forth ....

Cities and states have developed as economic centers dependent upon their respective resources. Wyoming's resources aren't hogged by the residents of this state, but used to supply residents of other states with their requirements ....

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by sunsprit

This is another one of those most meaningless "factoid" studies with little useful information.

We might just as well have posted a startling revelation that almost 100% of the raw materials for manufacturing, and foodstuffs consumed in New York City, San Francisco, D.C., or Chicago is imported to the residents of those (or, for that matter, all of the top 20 population cities of the USA) cities.

As well, the sources of energy consumed by those dwellers comes from outside of their environments. From states that produce those items, such as coal and oil ... like Wyoming.

Did you know that New York City imports it's domestic potable water supply? and so forth ....

Cities and states have developed as economic centers dependent upon their respective resources. Wyoming's resources aren't hogged by the residents of this state, but used to supply residents of other states with their requirements ....

How is it meaningless? Often time those relationships have to be pointed out before people connect the dots. As you did in your previous 5 sentences.

[sunsprit]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

How is it meaningless? Often time those relationships have to be pointed out before people connect the dots. As you did in your previous 5 sentences.

It's meaningless because you cannot draw a direct line from the "highest per capita" consumption figure to any meaningfull conclusion ...

Such as:

1) Does this mean that the people of Wyoming are the most wasteful of energy use?

2) Does it mean that the people of Wyoming are hogging precious resources to the detriment of other states?

3) Does it ignore that the net benefit of the energy consumption in Wyoming goes to fuel the energy needs of other states? or of raw mined materials, such as bentonite or trona or uranium or coal?

4) Does it ignore the costs of food production in this state? Wyoming ships a lot of product out of state ... sugar beets product, wheat, barley, etc.

5) The study commingles industrial energy consumption with personal energy use. What's a valid connection between the two?

These examples are but a few of the aspects of the report which render it meaningless due to no context, no perspective, and no analysis of what the energy produces or provides in Wyoming or any other state.

The bottom line is that the study is meaningless in it's assumptions of energy use per capita and the net benefit to others not in Wyoming.

I don't know what the purpose of your posting such nonsense is meant to accomplish, but such talking points are fodder for nothing beneficial.

If you want to encourage Wyoming residents to cut back on their per capita energy consumption, where would you begin? Are you suggesting that we are each personally responsible for excessive consumption or waste?

At what point do you recognize that the total energy consumption figure includes industry, mining, and capture of natural resources to the benefit of the people of the USA and not specifically Wyoming residents individually?

I know how I can reduce my personal energy consumption ... along with a whole bunch of other Wyoming residents. We can quit raising our crops and livestock. If all of us did so, it'd sure save a lot of our discretionary expenses and energy consumption. I'd drive a lot fewer miles for my farming and ranching habit, too. Similarly, if we shut down the coal mines we'd save a lot of energy, too. Do you think that the net benefit to the country would outweigh the loss of the production?


This type of "statistic" study is as meaningless as someone living in a big city of the USA saying "I don't drive very much because everything I need is within walking distance or accessible by public transportation, so I'm not an energy user". Yet nothing that they consume (food, raw goods, manufactured items) walked into the city under it's own power, it was transported after being produced somewhere else. There's a dependency relationship from others, some as far away as Wyoming.

As my example above mentioned, even water is a transportation expense. Or do you think that the water on the levels above ground in a high rise building is brought there by gravity? It's gotta be pumped up to every one of those levels and then balanced for output at each level. Similarly, there's a lot of vertical transportation expense in a high rise building; ie, folks don't head up to the higher levels on stairs, they use elevators which consume energy to do their function (up and down, they don't run by gravity). Oh, and that water requires pumping stations to get it to the city to begin with in many locales.

[Tex?Il?]

Well, the fact that you need to drive 100 miles to go to a basic mall, I'm not suprised.