Monthly Archives: February 2015

Update: I now learn via Judith Curry’s blog that Pielke is not the only scientist being pursued. In addition to Pielke and Curry herself, David Legates, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Robert Balling, Steven Hayward.

This is scary.
I am a registered Democrat most recently living in Nancy Pelosi’s district in San Francisco. I am more than a Democrat–I am a liberal progressive who supported Barack Obama (and who thinks he has done a very good job as president).

Some years ago I wrote an open letter to Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli regarding his investigation of Michael Mann. I told him it was a witch hunt and that absent prima facie evidence of wrongdoing he had no business going after Mann, who is someone I have criticized for getting on for a decade.

Arizona Congressman Raul Grijalva is also a Democrat. Anything else we share is a mystery to me.

People get burned in modern times for being witches. McCarthyism is not such a distant memory. Persecuting scientists because you don’t like their science is not that old either–just ask about Lysenkoism, something that happened within living memory.

Grijalva is investigating 7 scientists including Roger Pielke Jr. to ascertain if they are receiving funding from sources Grijalva does not like. This is in the wake of the recent controversy over Willie Soon’s funding.

Apparently Grijalva has a particular dislike of scientists receiving funding from the Koch brothers. I assume physicist Richard Muller of BEST had best get his papers in order.

Pielke has already disclosed his funding to Congress. He receives no funding from fossil fuel interests. Even if he had received such funding, it is clear that he is being harassed because the data he presents to Congress is not welcome politically.

Pielke has researched the effects, incidence and impacts of large scale climate events. He has found consistently that, although he accepts the science of climate change, it is impossible to impute it as a cause for more or stronger weather disasters. And he is correct. Even the IPCC has said that extreme weather events would not start impacting our planet until 2030 in some cases and even later in others.

The fact that the data he presents to Congress is accurate seems not to matter. Pielke has blogged that he intends to drop all research related to climate issues.

Grijalva’s investigation is resulting in a defeat for science. It is a wicked act and a shame, not just for Democrats such as myself but for the country I love.

When Republican Cuccinelli did this I felt a little smug–my party would never stoop so low. Congressman Raul Grijalva is proving me wrong–Democrats can be as stupid, short-sighted and dirty as any other party.

This is a witch hunt. Representative Grijalva, call off your dogs. You make me ashamed of my political party.

The short version of this post is simple: We are in a bit of trouble.

The U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Agency projects that the world will consume 819 quads of energy in 2040.

Background

A ‘quad’ is one quadrillion BTUs. A BTU is the amount of energy required to heat one pint of water by one degree Fahrenheit. It’s about the same amount of energy as in burning a wooden match. One quadrillion of them is about the same amount of energy as in a train full of coal, a very long train. Each car in the train would contain 100 tons of coal. The train would extend 3,789 miles.

The world consumed a projected total 558.7 quads in 2014, according to the EIA. 160 of those quads were fueled by coal. By 2040, again using the EIA estimates, that will grow to 219.5 quads from coal.

That’s a scary figure. Most of that coal will come from China (121.5 quads in 2040), India (22.4) and the U.S. (20.4), a total of 164.3 quads. That’s 75% of 2040 coal consumption from just 3 countries.

EIA Predictions

I have just finished analyzing EIA numbers for the 5 biggest consumers of energy, China, the U.S., Russia, India and Japan. During this analysis I looked at their plans to increase energy production from nuclear, hydropower, wind and solar.

These countries have published plans for future energy infrastructure. Taken at their word, they will build energy plants that are non-emissive (including nuclear). Using heroic assumptions (that everything that is planned will be built, something that has never happened), the 5 top energy consuming countries will get 97.35 quads from non-emissive sources out of a total of 404.8 quads they will be consuming. Which leaves three-quarters of their energy coming from fossil fuels. In the best case scenario, a lot of that will come from natural gas. In the worst case scenario, most of it comes from coal.

Those who are hoping that green energy takes over need to realize that this is what is planned for construction. The only deus ex machina available would be for unplanned (that is, residential) solar rooftops to grow at a very high rate. We know how many nuclear power plants and dams are going to be built. And make no mistake, these plans are ambitious–China’s nuclear power program and hydroelectric construction are making government planners and environmentalists very nervous. India is reacting to their energy issues by trying to make it easier–to dig coal out of Indian ground. It is difficult to imagine the USA finding the political will to increase either nuclear or hydropower construction.

All of the attention and announced new construction will have the effect of maintaining the status quo regarding green energy as a percentage of the total. Sadly, the total will grow rapidly.

The top 5 nations will produce 61% of all human fossil fuel emissions in 2040. The second 5 will only produce 10%. It is only the top 5 who can move the needle on the balance of their energy portfolios to make a difference.

At the present it is explicitly clear that they have no plans to do so.

Postscript

As it happens, I believe the situation is even worse than I have described it. My calculations show that energy consumption will increase more rapidly than does the EIA. My projections show world energy consumption rising to 965 quads by 2040, as opposed to the EIA figure of 819.

I show my figures here. I hope someone will tell me I missed a decimal point or forgot one important factor. I really do.

The U.S. consumed 95.9 quads of energy in 2013, or at least that’s one of several figures provided by the US Department of Energy’s Energy Information Agency. This particular figure comes from their interactive table browser, which I’ll be using for the rest of this post.

That’s down from America’s recent peak consumption of 101 quads in 2007 and far below the leading energy consumer, China. We’re number two!

The DOE expects the US to reach 107 quads by 2040, again something I consider a serious underestimate. My personal projection has America at 120 quads in 2040. But we’ll play with the DOE numbers here.

Here is the U.S. energy portfolio balance today:

We see that about 17% comes from non-emissive sources (including nuclear), a total of 16 ‘green’ quads (depending on your level of purity required for non-emissive status).

How does that play out going forward to 2040?

The EIA expects American use of coal to rise about 10%, from 20 quads to 22 by 2040.

They also expect nuclear power to rise from about 7.7 quads in 2013 to about 9.2 quads in 2040.

The EIA expects power from hydroelectric and other renewable sources to rise even more, from 7.9 quads to 11.9 quads in 2040. Given the negative press dams get in this era, it is safe to assume the EIA thinks that increase will come from wind and solar–with perhaps a nod to ethanol.

So using the EIA’s numbers, about half of the projected increase by 2040 of 11 additional quads will be supplied by non-emissive energy–6 additional quads from nuclear, hydro and renewables.

But the percentages will barely move from their current levels. Despite a heated political discussion, executive orders to the EPA, a concerted drive to put solar power on millions of rooftops, commercial solar and wind power plants across the country, the U.S. will not be generating a significantly higher percentage of non-emissive energy than it does today. It rises slightly to 20%.

And if you prefer to use my higher totals of energy consumption (which are driven by population growth and increase in GDP), the picture looks worse. The same number of green quads will of course be a smaller percentage.

In 2013 Japan consumed 21.4 quads. The EIA estimates that by 2040 their energy consumption will rise slightly, to 22.2 quads. My own projections show their energy consumption actually declining to 19.4 quads.

Although those totals are not very high, one sentence from the EIA’s analysis of Japan’s energy situation explains Japan’s importance quite clearly: “Japan is the world’s largest liquefied natural gas importer, second-largest coal importer, and third-largest net importer of crude oil and oil products.” Japan is almost completely dependent on imported fossil fuels, more so since Fukushima led them to shut down their nuclear power plants.

Like Russia, Japan is undergoing a demographic decline and it’s not clear when that will stop. And, like Russia, Japan’s GDP is pretty much stalled, albeit at a much higher level than Russia.

So the concern for Japan is not about rising energy consumption. It’s a developed country with a stable economy and a declining population. The concern is whether they can transfer to a greener fuel portfolio.

After the Fukushima tragedy, Japan made strong moves in the direction of solar power. Their terrain is not strictly suited for wind–too mountainous, or at least hilly. The average solar insolation is good in Japan, so it is a logical move for them to make. And in fact, in 2013 Japan was the world’s 2nd largest market for solar power in 2013, adding a record 6.9 GW of capacity. 2014 installations are expected to be even larger, potentially up to 11.9 GW.

Sadly, the total of solar installed in Japan was only enough to generate 1.4% of their electricity in 2013.

The EIA expects Japan’s consumption of coal, oil and natural gas to remain about the same as it is now. The extra energy consumption they expect from Japan will be provided by hydroelectric power, rising from 1.7 to 2.3 quads, nuclear (the EIA clearly expects Japan to reactivate their fleet of nuclear power plants), which will add about 0.3 quads, a dramatic rise in the use of solar power, from 6 GW to 27 GW, which will still only produce less than 0.1 quads, with wind and geothermal contributing a fraction.

So although Japan will not be making matters worse in terms of fossil fuel consumption, they will not be doing much if anything to improve conditions. They will still be major consumers of coal, oil and natural gas.

As recently as 2008, the Republican candidate for President (John McCain) supported Cap and Trade as a policy to ward off the effects of climate change. Newt Gingrich was on board with a host of green measures.

In the UK, all three major parties recently signed an agreement paper recomitting the country to an aggressive program to lower emissions. On the other hand, Australia and Canada have walked away from previous commitments and the upcoming COP in Paris promises to deliver as much as previous COPs–precious little, in other words.

How much does someone’s political beliefs affect their view on climate change? I suspect rather a lot. I think it’s probably because the major sources of information don’t limit themselves to climate change and if you don’t like what California Governor Jerry Brown (or his predecessor Arnold Schwarzenegger) say about economics, poverty and taxes you are not likely to appreciate their views on climate change.

I just wrote sort of a position paper on the companion blog to 3000 Quads, The Lukewarmer’s Way. In it I describe my personal journey to the Lukewarmer status I claim today.

Here I produce a quote from something I wrote on The Air Vent a couple of (wow–it was five years ago!)  years ago to describe my political stance. I do this both to promote what I believe is right and to give readers with firm political views a chance to get a better picture of what I believe. Because I have no doubt that what I believe affects what I write. No claims to omniscient objectivity here.

“Well. I am a progressive liberal because I believe there is a role for government that extends beyond the simple protections of civil liberty and national security. I think that the difference between an association of people who speak the same languages and share some of the same norms and a state is how the state reacts to the needs of its members, by offering support (Welfare! Food Stamps! The GI Bill, Social Security etc.). I believe a progressive liberal state offers more support than a conservative or libertarian state. If I ever printed a t-shirt with a slogan it would be ‘It is because I love my country that I want her to be just.’

I want the state to lead the push for conversion to green technology, not because I think it will be more efficient than the market, but because I don’t believe the market is capable of sending the correct signals about what consumers will want in the future. There is no way of indicating future preferences in this sector. There is no price on carbon. There is no futures market on air quality. Etc., don’t mean to bore.

I most emphatically do not believe that big government will do an efficient, laudable and forward-thinking job of this. They will get so many things wrong that we will all wonder why we let them even start. But it is only government that can get this going.

Because this is a new market (I know, only partially so), there are rents to seek and laws to evade and scams to run, and we will see them all. It is my hope that big government will be able to minimize this and allow the market to come to fruition more efficiently. But even if it doesn’t, it is IMO only a big government that can kickstart this and create a framework for the construction of an energy portfolio that will enable us to transition away from oil and coal within the timeframe that is appropriate.

Anthropogenic global warming may not be the overriding problem we are trying to solve. It may only be the poster child that motivated hordes of well-meaning greenies. OTOH, it may be a serious problem that requires serious attention and commitment of resources. I don’t think we’ll know for about 30 years. But even absent AGW as a primary motivating cause for action, pollution, depletion, energy independence and the pernicious effects of natural resource corruption on governments make it clear to me that having a diversified portfolio of energy resources, a distribution system that makes energy markets more efficient, and a physical plant that does not consume twice as much energy as needed for the tasks required, are eminently worth pursuing and justify asking national governments to assist with.

It’s not as if this is the first time we’ve done this–conversion from wood to coal and from coal to oil offer plenty of case studies in policy success and failure. Maybe it’s just a bit humbling to think we have to dust off books about Rockefeller and the British Navy’s conversion to oil to remember how to get it right.

I would submit that much of what will be remembered of the past century as improvements in the human condition will be the result of progressive liberal initiatives that were bitterly opposed by conservatives arguing much as they are here. What you will tend to remember are things like the U.N. What the rest of the world will remember are things like the Civil Rights Act, Social Security, Medicare, the G.I. Bill and other measures that made a huge difference in the lives of poor Americans. Peter Drucker himself said that the GI Bill was a transformative event in the history of America.

Nobody discussing the failure of communism to spread through the industrial world has failed to note the effect of progressive measures in alleviating misery and providing hope to those who otherwise would have been candidates for support of Marxist theory. And indeed, those places with active communist movements are those without similar measures.

Like the conservative woman in a news clip who declared ‘Keep the government’s hands off my Medicare’ conservatives forget the origins of programs they now value. I’ve never met a conservative who wanted to repeal the GI Bill. All conservative fury about Social Security is about its funding, not its existence.

Progressive liberal policies were one of the best things about the 20th Century. And my personal belief is that a country that will not harness its wealth and energies in support of the poor and disadvantaged amongst its population will never deserve the title ‘great.’

There are many liberal politicians that can and should be criticized. There are liberal policies that are either wrong, misguided or have an improper emphasis. But listen carefully: This country is great–and one of the reasons is the success of progressive liberal policies.”

This is the third in a series of posts charting the energy futures of the largest emitters of CO2. Posts on India and China are here and here respectively. Most numbers here are taken from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration where they chart energy consumption and CO2 emissions through 2040.

Russia is an outlier. It is currently the third largest emitter of CO2 and the third largest consumer of energy. Nobody ever mentions that because they’re all too busy looking at the amount of fuel Russia exports in the form of oil and natural gas.

The DOE estimates that Russia’s energy consumption will rise from 30 quads in 2013 to 38 quads in 2040 and that their CO2 emissions will rise from 1,614 million metric tons to 2,018 mmts over the same time frame.

However, my calculations show Russia declining steadily, due to a drop in p0pulation and GDP–I think things will get steadily tougher for Russia going forward and their energy consumption and CO2 emissions will be just about the same in 2040 as they are today.

But that’s still a lot of energy and CO2. I wrote recently that in terms of their current fuel portfolio, Russia looks like a solid citizen, using a lot of natural gas, nuclear and hydropower, and less coal than the other large emitters. Where, for example, China uses coal for 69% of its primary energy, Russia only uses 15%. In fact, if China and India could just match Russia’s fuel portfolio percentages, the world would heave a sigh of relief.

Could (and will) Russia do more in the way of addressing emissions?

They don’t seem to have plans for increasing the use of coal. The EIA projects Russia to get about the same energy from coal in 2040 as it does today, rising from 53 quads to 57 over the next 25 years.

The EIA thinks Russia will double the energy it gets from nuclear power, from 27 GW to 55 GW. (I don’t think Russia will be able to afford it, but then I’m a pessimist.)

The EIA also has high hopes for Russian hydroelectric power, rising from 50 GW today to 71 GW in 2040.

In other words, on paper Russia looks set to maintain the same percentages across its fuel portfolio between now and 2040.

I personally don’t think it’s going to work out that way. I think major economic troubles will result in increased use of coal for Russia and that lower productivity and a declining GDP will put some of their nuclear and hydroelectric construction plans on hold. But there are a lot of smart people at the EIA and they might be right.

So, my confidence in what I write about Russia’s energy future is lower than say, for China and India.

Next up–another outlier.

This is the question on everyone’s mind when they talk about future emissions–which way will China go?

China consumes more energy (125 quads in 2014) and emits more CO2 (9,595 million metric tons) than any other country in the world. As a rapidly developing country, they are set to use a lot more energy and emit a lot more CO2. And that’s besides a very real (and very well publicized) commitment to be as green as they can be. Within limits…

You will see below that no matter how green China wants to sound, their future development will necessarily depend on coal. Their future exploitation of nuclear, hydro, wind and solar will deliver less than 20% of their total energy needs–and that’s if they actually live up to their ambitious plans for non-emissive energy. If the economy slips or the wrong guy goes to jail, their green plans can yield a lot less.

Here’s what currently powers China’s energy consumption:

The EIA has forecast that China’s energy consumption will increase to 219 quads by 2040. (My estimate is that they will consume 255 quads). More importantly, China has said they hope to reduce their reliance on coal–from its current 69%  to… (drumroll…) 65%. That’s 142 quads if you like the EIA’s projections, or 165 quads if you prefer my numbers. Sadly, if my number is closer to the truth China will burn more coal in 2040 than the entire world (including China) did in 2014.

China is building green infrastructure, no question about it. However, they are also building a lot of coal plants. Which will win out in the end?

Nuclear

China currently has 23 nuclear reactors in 8 plants across the country. They provided 1.25 quads of energy last year. They have 26 under construction. They expect nuclear energy to triple by 2020, to 3.75 quads, which would be 3% of the total energy China is supposed to consume by that time (the EIA’s figure, not mine.) They hope to bring the total up to 15 quads by 2040, which would be a bit over 10% of the EIA numbers, less than 10% of mine. The most ambitious nuclear energy program since France went for it big time will not eliminate China’s need for coal.

Hydroelectric

China has 235 GW of hydroelectric power installed throughout the country and it produced 7.5 quads last year, 6% of the total.

About 100 dams are planned or under construction on the Yangtse River alone. China has big plans for hydroelectric power. The EIA projects they will reach 409 GW capacity in hydro by 2040, which should yield roughly 14 quads.

Wind and Solar

China managed to get about 0.45 quads from wind and solar last year, from about 90,000 wind turbines producing 133 billion kw hours. The EIA expects that to grow dramatically, to 716 billion kw hours by 2040, producing 2.4 quads.

Solar provided about a tenth the power of wind last year, 0.04 quads. The EIA expects that to grow to 10 times its current level by 2040… so it will be less than half a quad, 0.36 quads to be precise.

In 2040, wind and solar together are projected to provide 2.76 quads.

Total Non-Emissive Energy in 2040

China will get roughly 32 quads from non-emissive sources in 2040, according to EIA projections. That would indicate that China will use primarily coal to generate either 187 or 223 quads in 2040, depending on whose numbers you like more, the EIA’s or mine.

Maybe that’s why China is building 363 coal power plants now.

Yesterday we looked at what India has in the way of energy availability and how they use it currently.

We also looked at their published plans for future growth. If they build everything they say they are going to build, about 30 quads of India’s future annual energy consumption will be provided by nuclear (18), hydropower (7) and other renewables (5). Their total energy consumption last year was 32 quads.

So a world policy question becomes ‘how much energy will India consume by 2050? As I wrote yesterday, the US Department of Energy has predicted that India will consume 42.6 quads every year. If that is the case, then most of India’s energy will be clean and green. However, my prediction is that India will be consuming almost 100 quads annually by that time. If I’m correct then 70 of those 100 quads will be produced using fossil fuels, primarily coal.

It’s an interesting question with a very important answer. Guess we’ll see.

This is in the first of a series of posts looking at the 5 major consumers of energy and emitters of greenhouse gases. The purpose is to investigate if these countries have available options to them that will allow them to meet their energy needs and at the same time lessen the impact of their energy consumption on the environment.

This post is about India. India will become the world’s most populous country by 2028, according to the BBC. According to PWC, their  economy will grow from $3.375 trillion to $43.2 trillion by 2050. Although China gets a lot of attention regarding energy, pollution and emissions, India is the linchpin country for sustainable energy futures.

This analysis shows that India can potentially shift its fuel portfolio slightly in a ‘greener’ direction, but meeting the economic needs of its people will almost certainly mean continued use of large quantities of coal. The west should focus our assistance on making their coal plants cleaner and helping eliminate entirely the use of firewood and dung among the rural poor, either by rapid extension of the electricity grid or by installation of solar powered ‘micro-grids.’ Consideration should also be given to assisting India’s nuclear and hydro-electric programs.

Background

India consumed 32 quads last year. It is projected by the DOE EPA to increase its consumption to 42.6 quads by 2040. My far more dramatic projection shows India’s energy consumption growing to almost 100 quads by that time. (My model is more focused on population growth and increasing GDP, while the EIA is more focused on supply constraints. If you like, I look at demand while the EIA looks at supply.)

This is how they got their energy in 2012, according to the EIA:

India has huge reserves of coal, but they are not good at getting it out of the ground, so they are the world’s third largest importer of coal, most of it coming from Indonesia. India also imports a lot of oil, 42% of its annual consumption, most of it from the Saudis. India started importing natural gas in 2004, mostly from Qatar.

Only 2% of India’s electricity comes from nuclear, and only (I say only because the Himalayas are right there…) 16% from hydroelectricity. 59% of India’s electricity comes from burning coal.

India’s Options

Although India is home to more of the world’s poor than any other country (about 400 million people living on less than $1.25 a day), it is developing quickly. Because so much of its energy infrastructure is crude at best, India actually has more options than some countries that have already sunk costs in plant that maybe they regret today.

India has a large amount of latent demand for energy. about 167 million rural households don’t have access to electricity. Because India has to dig itself out of a big hole, it needs to think more ambitiously about its supply.

Nuclear

India has 21 reactors today providing 1% of India’s energy. It is planning to spend $1 trillion over the course of the next 35 years, to 40 reactors by 2040 and 100 by 2050. That can be expressed technically as ‘a good beginning.’  Those 100 future reactors may provide about 2% of India’s energy needs by the time they are brought online, assuming they’re all built. Very recent agreements with the United States about insurance for private companies and loosening restrictions on fuel supplies may trigger an acceleration of nuclear.

Hydropower

India is the 7th largest producer of hydropower in the world, but it could do so much more. As noted above, it only produced 3.5% of the country’s energy last year and only 17% of the nation’s electricity. It currently has a capacity of 39,788 MW at 60% load. However, studies have identified about 100,000 MW of potential hydropower installations, and another 100,000 MW of potential pumped storage. India is not blind to the potential of hydro and has about 50 projects under construction right now.

Wind and Solar

India installed 2,084 MW in wind turbine capacity in 2014, bringing its total to 22,465 MW. It expects that to increase by 10% in 2015. It is an asterisk in the energy totals of the country and will probably remain so. Wind strength is irregular throughout the country, either too little or too much too often.

Almost all of India receives enough direct solar to make solar panels an effective solution. About the same amount of solar was added to total capacity last year as wind–2,600 MW. It is still an asterisk. However, because of solar’s potential to provide micro grid solutions to rural villages, it punches above its weight at the moment, bringing electricity to people who otherwise would not have it.

Natural Gas

India has proven reserves of 1.24 trillion cubic meters. It brought 40.3 billion cm out of the ground in 2012, which provided 7% of the country’s power. Offshore gas (and oil) exploration may lift their reserve totals dramatically.

Oil

As India is a major importer of oil and as oil is expensive in India even following recent price drops, oil accounts for only 22% of energy consumption. Another brake on use of oil is poverty–not many Indians have cars. This is expected to increase as India develops further.

India has about 5.7 billion barrels in proven reserves, about 4 years worth of current consumption. It is accelerating exploration of off shore sites, but is a major importer of oil.

Coal

India has proven reserves of coal amounting to 301 billion tons. 54% of their installed electricity base is coal-fueled and 67% of planned addition to generating capacity is also to be coal-fired. Coal amounted to 44% of all energy consumption last year. Current plans foresee little change in coal’s percentage, which is bad news for India as their total energy consumption increases.

Biomass

Burning dung and firewood provides 22% of India’s energy. We’re not talking about sophisticated biofuels or wood pellet plants. It’s dung and firewood. Realistically speaking, if India set as its major goal the substitution of anything–coal, oil, anything–for this biomass, it would be a major victory for India’s energy future and the health of its population.

India’s Energy Future

Citigroup predicted in 2011 that India would become the world’s largest economy by 2050. As China’s population dips and America continues to grow at developed world rates, this may happen (although there’s quite a bit of optimism needed for such an assumption).

India is scrambling for energy, as both rich and poor want more than is available now. This has led to a schizophrenic pattern of importing oil and coal while investing in nuclear, wind and solar. The current administration under Modi sounds tech-friendly, but almost his first act as prime minister was to work towards increasing production of domestic coal.

Air pollution in India is bad–westerners don’t hear much about it because it’s worse in China. According to the NY Times, “Last month, the Yale Environmental Performance Index ranked India 174th out of 178 countries on air pollution. According to India’s Central Pollution Control Board, in 2010, particulate matter in the air of 180 Indian cities was six times higher than World Health Organization standards. More people die of asthma in India than anywhere else in the world. Indoor air pollution, mostly from cooking fires, and outdoor air pollution are the third and fifth leading causes of death in India.”

If they depend on coal for future growth in energy, the pollution will get much worse. If car ownership grows as expected, vehicle pollution will be a new and fairly dramatic source of pollution.

But India does have alternatives. Accelerated take-up of hydropower, nuclear and solar is actually feasible in this sunny country with a wealth of engineering talent and access to capital both on the private market and from multi-national institutions.

• Expand the grid as rapidly as possible. Even if plants are coal-fired, they are cleaner than home use of coal, dung, firewood and kerosene.
• Encourage use of electric scooters in areas with reliable electricity supply–there are electric three wheelers that can carry more people and groceries.
• Increase investment in nuclear, solar and hydropower. Drop local content regulations, especially for solar
• Orient all future wind projects to work in tandem with hydroelectric installations to provide pumped storage.
• Ask for help in building clean coal plants, getting solar up and running and getting the most efficient turbines for hydro facilities

Enthusiastic adoption of each of these measures will not solve all of India’s problems. They will struggle. They will burn more coal than we in the west wish they would. But it will make the next 60 years ‘survivable’ in the sense that they may avoid large scale fatalities and morbidity due to conventional pollution. It will also help bend the curve of CO2 emissions down from BAU projections.

If India does move in the direction I have suggested, they will be able to hold their heads high and say that their development path is arguably more constructive, even more civilized, than that used by western countries a century or two ago.

I’ve posted on this before. People spend a lot of time looking at the developing world and comparing their energy consumption with the OECD. I’m one of them. But it is enlightening to look at the differences within a country. Fortunately, the U.S. Department of Energy publishes statistics at the state level.

Although Canada and Iceland consume prodigious amounts of energy per person, they don’t hold a candle to Wyoming, which has a per capita energy consumption of 949 million btus annually.It’s a darn good thing they don’t have many capitas. They are joined in their profligacy by Alaska (873 mbtus), Louisiana (849 mbtus) and North Dakota (788 mbtus). Hmm. I wonder what they all have in common? Canada, another energy producing region, consumes at the 426 mbtu level.

At the other end of the scale are Rhode Island (173 mbtus), New York (179 mbtus) and California (201 mbtus). What they have in common is they’re rich. Green, green Germany clocks in at about 250 mbtu and the goal should actually be the Dutch at about 161 mbtus.

If you’re concerned about lowering energy consumption, asking yourself how we go about making Wyoming more like Rhode Island, my personal answer is don’t bother. Wyoming is an energy producing region with a small population. So are the other high burners.

What we should be looking at is how to draw down the median. Right now the 25th state is Illinois at 300 mbtus, pretty close to the U.S. average. Our goal should be to make Illinois like New York, or number 28 state Delaware like Rhode Island. We should be looking at how Texas (461 mbtus) can be like California.

I’m one of those less concerned with how much energy is consumed than I am about what is burned to provide that fuel. California for me gets extra brownie points (named after their governor) because they are the number 2 state in renewable energy (after hydro-happy Washington). That darn Delaware not only uses a lot of energy per person, it is last in renewables. Washington produced 75,905 gigawatt hours of renewable electricity in 2010, compared to Delaware’s 138. That’s right, three digits. Grow some mountains! Cry me a river!

We’ll give Illinois a bit of a break because it leads the country in nuclear power, producing more than 96,000 gigawatt hours. 19 states tie for last with zero, zip.

If I were an energy czar I would use this data to create benchmarks, telling states in the lower tier of each category to get up to at least average. I would use nudges, rewards, penalties and maybe even game shows.

That should be the point of breaking these numbers down this way.