Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
California has managed to do that because of it's climate and the resistance to sprawl although that is starting to change as more and more people want out of the congestion.
Given the amount of money California spends on social welfare, that is hasn't over the last 4 decades done far more to reduce the needs to use fossil fuels, it is pretty disgraceful. California has so many advantages over other states, not because of government or society but because of where it is located that those with the influence and power to do so much but do so little can only be classified as morons.
California is #5 in lowest per capita use of energy, about 20% of Wyoming, the highest. Given the size of their economy, that is an outstanding achievement.
California is #5 in lowest per capita use of energy, about 20% of Wyoming, the highest. Given the size of their economy, that is an outstanding achievement.
Look at the winter climate difference for Wyoming compared to California, that is a huge input to energy usage.
With the newer technologies coming out, soon you will be paying by the mile driven anyways.
My other vision of the future, is that since electronic toll taking has been perfected (and camera's with LPR's) it isn't that far fetched to think all major roadways could do this, easily. Heck we do red light camera's and photo radar. Why not toll taking for road maintenance.
Then EVs and the like can pay their fair share. Not against paying my fair share as we all enjoy the benefits of good roads.
California is #5 in lowest per capita use of energy, about 20% of Wyoming, the highest. Given the size of their economy, that is an outstanding achievement.
Wyoming? Looked at a map lately? Now go back to my comment about location.
Think people in Wyoming have to heat their homes a bit more than the majority of the population living in California?
This is not a statement of fact, just some of my observations why a mostly rural state has more energy use per capita than California does.
Maybe the fact that the population is spread out in Wyoming? I didn't see a whole lot of population density in Wyoming when I drive thru the state - other than some key cities. Having to drive 100 miles each way to the store has to do with some of it. California for the most part seems a little more urbanized. Per Capita I bet Wyoming has more farmers (not total number, but as a percentage of the population) - Farms tend to use a lot of energy...
This is not a statement of fact, just some of my observations why a mostly rural state has more energy use per capita than California does.
Maybe the fact that the population is spread out in Wyoming? I didn't see a whole lot of population density in Wyoming when I drive thru the state - other than some key cities. Having to drive 100 miles each way to the store has to do with some of it. California for the most part seems a little more urbanized. Per Capita I bet Wyoming has more farmers (not total number, but as a percentage of the population) - Farms tend to use a lot of energy...
California has way more agriculture than Wyoming, maybe ten times as much. Swing and a miss.
I thought this was very interesting. A bunch of people I've shared this with find the number "amazing". But doesn't this simply display that cutting our consumption is far easier than often portrayed?
Nobody ever takes into consideration the number of people that the "fuel refinement" industry employs. These people are going to be added to the ever-growing roster of the unemployed. Not to mention the lack of revenue that a drastic reduction in fuel sales will cause, further increasing the national deficit.
Since the cost to the consumer for these "fuel efficient" vehicles is considerable, how far down the line is the "break even" point for people? Are we going to be forced to purchase vehicles that are so over priced that we end up paying MORE for them than we do for the fuel to operate regular vehicles?
Instead of doing this, America needs to fully exploit their own fossil fuel stores and reduce reliance on foreign imports. This would grow the economy and give a significant boost to employment in this country.
Cheyenne has 2 months over 80. LA has 3. When it is under 80, there is no need for AC. Some parts of Cali do get very hot, but not SF, LA, or SD, and most of the population lives along the coast. That makes sense, since the coast is providing the climate that makes California so attractive.
However, when we get to heating, that is driven by over night lows. If we want to be more precise, we would use something such as over night lows below 50 encourage the heat to kick on. In Cheyenne, that happens 10 months out of the year. In LA it happens only 3 times, and it is just barely under 50.
During the day time in Cheyenne through out the winter and early Spring/Late fall they will still need to run the heater.
So, in short, yes Cali uses more AC. No, it is not anywhere near enough on a per person basis to offset the combination of heating and AC used in Wyoming to have a moderately comparable indoor climate. I'm not arguing good or bad, I'm just restating the facts so they won't be misrepresented.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
