Tag Archives: data/statistics

Never Tell Me the Watts! Energy and Power Use in the Star Wars Universe

As is quickly becoming my favorite holiday season tradition, a new film in the Star Wars franchise is about to be upon us with the release of Episode VIII- The Last Jedi on December 15! Star Wars has officially been in the cultural consciousness for over 40 years, and as someone who has grown up at any point during those 4 decades, I am a huge fan. Among the many great aspects of a series so long-lasting and deep with rich canonical story-telling, be it through films, books, or video games, is the prevalence of debate it offers for the real-life implications of a fictional universe. Star Wars is the at the pinnacle of such analyses and debates– from economists calculating the cost to build the Death Star (an analysis even cited in an Official White House document) to scientists debating the reality of lightsabers— so it only seems right that this blog dives into the real-life energy implications of various notable Star Wars scenes.

Because Star Wars is so entrenched in pop culture, especially among young boys and girls who eventually become scientists, mathematicians, and engineers, many of these topics have already been explored from academic, scientifically rigorous, and painfully detailed perspective. As such, I chose to allow these crusaders of over-analysis do the digging for me and just cite their work instead of doing the number crunching on my own. Not only would it seem that the hours and immense attention to detail these people have poured into these questions would come to a much close answer to the ‘truth’ than my patience would allow me, but it also allows me to spend my anticipatory re-watch of the entire series without diligent note taking!



So strap in and take a tour of a galaxy far, far away as it relates to energy.

Preliminary notes

A couple important preliminary notes about the calculations cited and used below:

  • Certain questions have been analyzed be numerous people across various fields leading to competing answers to the Star Wars questions. For this exercise, I’m choosing to identify the conclusions that I find to use the greatest scientific rigor and attention to detail, as well as those that show their work and cite their sources. My goal was to find the closest to the ‘true’ answer as possible, but if you find a different number or calculation to be more accurate then I welcome the gloriously nerdy debate in the comment section below!

Source

  • It is also necessary to state that almost every data point going into the below calculations are estimates and approximations. Many of the numbers needed for the calculations simply aren’t provided in the source material, so these mathematical Jedi have resorted to options like determining size of equipment by comparing it to the known size of a human standing adjacent, analyzing the known energy required to melt certain earthen material and assuming the materials in the Star Wars universe are the same or similar materials, or even slowing down clips of the movies to get a frame-by-frame rate of speed.  All that’s to say that the resultant numbers are estimates– diligently arrived-at estimates– but estimates nonetheless that do as good a job as possible at determining the relative order of magnitude. So take them with a grain of salt (which is better than a grain of sand, which is course and rough and irritating, not to mention it gets everywhere).
  • And lastly, with that grain of salt comes another huge one– I know these are movies. They are fictional, the directors often care more about how cool a scene looks instead of how it might break the law of physics, and the small details we analyze were probably not overly scrutinized for adherence to reality. These things don’t matter, but who cares? They are fun to think about and talk about and add depth to one of the greatest sagas in pop culture– so don’t strain yourself thinking too hard about them!

Source

Power required for uses of the Force

Emperor Palpatine’s Force lighting

Description: A number of times throughout the saga, we see Palpatine use his Force lighting, a unique aspect of his Force abilities. In the conclusion of Episode VI- Return of the Jedi, he uses the Force lightning on Luke after Luke once again refuses to join the Emperor on the Dark side and replace Darth Vader as his apprentice (click here for a YouTube link to the scene in question).

Calculation: This calculation is a rather tough one, but we do gain several clues from the scene, as pointed out by Joshua Brown.

The first clue is Luke’s reaction while being struck with the Force lighting, as he is able to call out in a plea for help, and though he is in obvious agony the attack is not fatal. Based on the science of the effect of electricity on the human body, this reaction from Luke would suggest he was experiencing between an AC-3 or AC-4 injury from the Force lighting.  Given the evidence that the longest continuous length of time that Luke was being struck exceeded 10 seconds, the below chart would suggest the current coursing through Luke’s body likely didn’t exceed 30 milliamps (mA).

Source

With the current of the Force lighting in Luke’s body established, the other piece of data we would need is the resistance of Luke’s body– which we can assume is about 100,000 Ohms, the upper limit for the internal resistance of the human body (Luke is a trained Jedi, after all).

Referencing our high school physics textbooks, we’ll remember that power equals current squared times resistance. Plugging in a current of 30 mA and a resistance of 100,000 Ohms gives a Force lighting power of 90 Watts.

Real World Comparison: To put that power in perspective, 90 Watts is about the upper limit for power adapters for Macbook laptops. Surely you don’t want that much electricity coursing through your body, but it’s also an amount of power we routinely carry around in our backpacks.

This amount of power might not seem like much, but watch the scene again and consider whether it truly looked like the Emperor was using all his strength to kill Luke– or was he instead using just a portion of his powers to torture Luke as a message to Luke and/or Darth Vader? It also does end up being a deadly amount of power, as it serves as enough to knock out the electronics of Darth Vader’s life-supporting suit and causes his death.

Darth Vader Force choking and throwing into the ceiling a Rebel trooper

Description: Among the many aspects of Darth Vader that makes him such a menacing presence is his combination of raw power and his tendency to use that power to intimidate those weaker than him. This combination is displayed each time he uses the Force to choke a subordinate or adversary without ever laying a finger on them. This power was on display in the final scene of Rogue One, as he laid waste to a number of Rebel troopers who stood between him and the stolen plans for the Death Star, with one poor trooper being lifted and slammed against the ceiling in a fit of rage (one of the biggest on-screen payoffs in Star Wars films, in my opinion, which can be watched here).

Source

Calculation: Rhett Allain, a physics professor, analyzes this scene for Wired to determine the power of this demonstration of the Force. Allain has to make a couple of assumptions and educated guesses– namely that the Rebel trooper is the size of an average man (1.75 meters tall and 70 kilograms in mass) and that the gravity inside the ship is the same as gravity on Earth at 9.8 Newtons/kilogram.

With that information, Allain then uses a video tracker on the scene to determine that the trooper is lifted up to a height of about 1.5 meters in 0.46 seconds at a constant speed of about 3.3 meters per second.

Time once again to employ the high school physics text book to find that the total work done is calculated as the change in kinetic energy (0.5 times mass times velocity squared) plus the change in potential energy (mass times gravity times height). Plugging in the values listed gives a total work done of 1,410 Joules, which when divided by a time of 0.46 seconds gives the total power output of 3,065 Watts.

Real World Comparison:  To put the power output of 3,065 Watts, or about 3.1 kilowatts (kW), in perspective– consider that 3.1 kW equates to about 4.1 horsepower. Commonly found outboard engines for small motorboats, such as this one, are rated at 4 horsepower as well– so at a moment’s notice Darth Vader is summoning the strength of a small motorboat. While that again doesn’t sound particularly scary, the clip shows the effect that this amount of power output can have when put in the wrong (robotic) hands.

Yoda lifting an X-Wing out of the swamp

Description: In Episode V- The Empire Strikes Back, Luke visits the planet of Dagobah to train with Master Yoda. Seeing the small stature and confusing training tactics, Luke begins to doubt the power of Yoda and question whether he is benefiting at all by being there.

Source

Disappointed by Luke’s insolent attitude and lack of faith in the training process, Yoda provides one of the greatest raw feats of Force strength we’re shown in the films– lifting Luke’s crashed X-Wing ship out of the swamp and into the air using the Force alone (again, the scene in question can be found on a YouTube video).

Calculation: Randall Munroe tackles the question of how much power Yoda outputs in this scene in his ‘What If?’ series. Munroe starts with a series of important assumptions, namely that:

  • The X-Wing is about 12,000 pounds (based on the weight of an F-22 fighter jet and the relative lengths of an F-22 and an X-Wing, Munroe scales the weight of an F-22 down to the proportional weight of the X-Wing), and
  • The gravity on Dagobah is 90% the gravity on Earth (according to sources on the highly detailed, extensive, and canonically accurate website Wookiepeedia).

Munroe then also broke down the video of the scene on a frame-by-frame basis, determining that Yoda lifted the X-Wing to a height of 1.4 meters in 3.6 seconds.

By plugging all these numbers into the equation power = mass times gravity times height divided by time, we find a power output of 19,228 Watts.

Real World Comparison: Sticking with the horsepower comparison, this power of about 19.2 kW equates to about 26 horsepower. What’s the first hit on Google when looking for a vehicle that’s 26 horsepower?

Riding lawnmowers!

Sense in you much fear, do I?

Summary
Click to enlarge

Energy Associated with Star Wars Weapons

Lightsaber

Description: Lightsabers are the first and foremost among weapons you think of when you think of Star Wars, possibly of sci-fi in general. They are weapons mastered by Jedi and replicated by kids everywhere for the last 40 years. Lightsabers really don’t need any introduction, but the scene that is used to calculated the power of a lightsaber possibly does– as our best data points for lightsaber power use come from an early scene in Episode I- The Phantom Menace.

Source

In the scene in question, Qui-Gon Jinn uses his lightsaber to get through a thick, metal door– first he makes a significant cut in the door, and then he sticks his lightsaber into the door for a period of time that allows it to melt a hole in the door (here is a clip of that scene that is for some reason repeated for an entire hour). This quick scene was enough to send Star Wars sleuths to the whiteboards to calculate the power output.

Calculation: For this calculation, we again to look to Rhett Allain at Wired who uses this scene to determine the power needed for a light saber.  This calculation is the most complicated yet, so I would urge you to read the full article to learn more. But in summary, Allain uses the color that the door changes to as it heats up, the dimensions of the cut that Qui-Gon cuts initially,  an assumed set of material characteristics for what this door was likely made out of, and the total time taken to make that cut. Put them all together using equations that would require your graduate-level physics books this time, and you get a power requirement of 28 kilowatts.

Real World Comparison: Rather than looking to the power outputs of an engine, it seemed useful this time to compare this power output to as similar a type of weapon as possible. As it turns out, Lockheed Martin created a laser weapon system for the U.S. Army that is rated at a comparable 30 kW. This Advanced Test High Energy Asset (ATHENA) system has proven capable of shooting down outlaw drones and disabling a truck from a mile away.

Source

Considering the Jedi are carrying around that kind of power in a handheld weapon, you can understand the awe they inspire while expertly and effortlessly wielding lightsabers.

Blaster

Description: While lightsabers get all the buzz, Han Solo is famously quoted as saying that those “ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side.” For the non-Force sensitive players in the Star Wars universe, blasters are the go-to firearm and are thus the most commonly used weapon in the galaxy, according to Wookieeepedia.

Source

To determine the energy of a single blaster bolt, the team at Ebates analyzed an escape scene in Episode IV- A New Hope where Princess Leia takes a blaster and shoots a hole through a metal grate for her, Luke, Han, and Chewbacca to crawl through. Not only does Leia succeed in winning the audiences heart by showing that this Princess is no damsel in distress (toward the end of this YouTube clip), but she also gives us the evidence needed to estimate the destructive energy of a single blaster bolt.

Calculation: According to the numbers crunched by eBates, the shot with the blaster created a hole about 3 feet in diameter in the metal grate, seemingly by vaporizing the metal.  Estimating the dimensions and density of the metal that was vaporized (about 54 kilograms) and knowing the energy needed to vaporize a kilogram of iron (6.34 Megajoules) leads to a rough conclusion that the blaster shot yeilded about 342 Megajoules.

Real World Comparison: Because the result of the blaster bolt here appeared to be a literal ‘blast’ of energy, it would be useful to know what would be required to yield the same explosive blast in the real world. Luckily, a unit of such destructive energy is standardized by the gram of TNT and is directly convertible to and from joules (one kilogram of TNT yields 4.184 Megajoules).  Thus for our lovely Princess to have blasted through the iron gate with the same energy of the blaster, it would have required about 82 kilograms of TNT.

Star Destroyer’s turbolaser

Description: The devoted fans at StarDestroyer.net took on the question of the energy from a shot by the empire’s domineering Star Destroyers.  In terms of military might (outside of the megaweapons to be discussed next), the Star Destroyer certainly stands as one of the most intimidating shows of military force in any galactic fleet.

Source

In one particular scene of Episode V- The Empire Strikes Back, a single blast from the turbolaser of the Star Destroyer is shown to clear asteroids right from its path. This show of firepower gives us a good idea of exactly how much destructive energy is contained in these blasts (watch in action in this YouTube clip).

Calculation: This calculation is another fairly in-depth and complicated one, so I would again recommend reading their entire write-up of the topic in full. However, the basic gist is that one bolt was able to instantaneously melt an asteroid (composed of the average asteroid composition) that measured on the order of 20 meters in diameter. Knowing the science behind the melting of such an asteroid leads to the calculation that the energy in a single turbolaser blast is 30 Terajoules or 30 million Megajoules.

Real World Comparison: A single shot of the Star Destroyer’s turbolaser has the destructive energy of 30 terajoules, which for context is about half the total energy released by the bomb dropped on Hiroshima to end World War II. Given that the Star Destroyer was releasing dozens of these shots over the course of its chase of the Millenium Falcon, you would understand why those being pursued might ‘have a bad feeling about this.’

Original Death Star’s superlaser

Description: The Death Star is the Ultimate Weapon of the Empire, the presence of which alone was enough to inspire fear and garner compliance from every corner of the galaxy. That fear is well-deserved because this awe-inspiring weapon was created to have the power to completely destroy planets.

Source

That’s not some sort of hyperbole, as we saw in the scene of Episode IV- A New Hope when the Empire demonstrates the power and unleashes the Death Star to destroy Princess Leia’s home planet of Alderaan. This show of force gives us the information we need to estimate how much destructive power is unleashed with the superlaser of the Death Star (watch the clip here, trigger warning for anyone who may have had friends or family on the planet formerly known as Alderaan).

Calculation:  Our friends at StarDestroyer.net also did the analysis on how much firepower was behind this blast from the Death Star. These calculations might be the most scientifically detailed yet, so definitely check out the full analysis. In the end, they used three different methods to estimate the energy of the weapon (calculating the surface escape velocity that would be required for planetary destruction, the constant gravitational binding energy that would need to be overcome, and the variable gravitational binding energy that would need to be overcome). Each of these calculation methods resulted in a final figure betweeen 2.2 x 10^32 and 3.7 x 10^32 joules. This range is a wide one in terms of an exact answer, but they are all in the same order of magnitude and thus inspire confidence in their approximate accuracy. For the sake of argument, we’ll go right in the middle and assume the energy of the Death Star is 3 x 10^32 joules, or 3 x 10^26 Megajoules.

Real World Comparison: We’re up at a level of energy that doesn’t have any real Earthly comparisons, as the total annual world energy consumption is on the order of 10^14 Megajoules– many orders of magnitude less than a single shot from the Death Star.

Instead we have to go, rather appropriately, into space. The 3 x 10^26 Megajoules of energy used to destroy Alderaan is equivalent to the total energy output of the Sun over the course of about 9 days.

Starkiller Base’s superweapon

Description; In the first film of the latest Star Wars trilogy, Episode VII- The Force Awakens, the Death Star gets completely outclassed as a weapon. The First Order takes the idea of a planet-sized battle station capable of wiping out a planet and inspiring fear-based obedience and cranks it up to 11, as their Starkiller Base is a superweapon built into a mobile planet that is capable of wiping out an entire star system.

 Source

In this scene that shows the first ever shot from the superweapon, the massive scale of the destructive energy being unleashed is evident and is used to wipe out five planets like they were never there– something never before seen in the Star Wars universe. The energy needed for this weapon is literally siphoned from the energy/plasma of a nearby star and then unleashing it in one blast. As you can imagine, this amount of energy is almost unthinkable.

Calculation: Jason Haraldsen, a physics professor, tackles the science behind Starkiller Base in a piece he wrote from the Huffington Post. Despite his conclusions that there are a number of aspects of Starkiller base that would be scientifically impossible (for one, Starkiller Base and its weapon are hosted on an ice planet– yet the harvesting of energy directly from a star does not end up overheating the planet or even melting the snow on it?) Haraldsen calculates the amount of energy that is needed to charge up the superweapon by converting the mass of the nearby star into pure energy. Keeping things way oversimplified, just converting the mass of the star to energy using E = mc^2 results in an energy output of 2 x 10^41 Megajoules.

Real World Comparison: If the Death Star’s energy required us to go from the Earth to the Solar System, Starkiller Base forces us to go on a galactic scale to find an energy equivalent. The 2 x 10^41 Megajoules of Starkiller Base’s superweapon is equivalent to the energy released by 1,000 supernovas. Talk about unlimited power!

Summary

Click to enlarge

Conclusion

Do the filmmakers put as much attention into the minute details as we fans do in splicing apart and analyzing those details? Probably not. But that’s fine because the debate can be fun and educational and open up our eyes a bit about the comparable calculations in the real world. While thankfully it seems unlikely that any ill-intended human will create a sinister weapon as destructive as the Death Star or Starkiller Base, let us not forget that sci-fi can and has influenced the imaginations in the real world– from President Reagan’s Star Wars missile defense initiative to the ever-increasing presence of droid-like robots in our life.  So pay attention to any new inventions while you’re watching The Last Jedi, and let me know in the comments if you have any other Star Wars (or pop culture in general) energy-related questions you’d like to read about next!

Sources and additional reading

Ask Us: NASA

BP Statistical Review of World Energy

Death Star Firepower: StarDestroyer.net

How Many Batteries Would It Take to Power a Lightsaber? Or the Death Star? infographic journal

How strong is the Emperor’s lightning attack?

In Which We Literally Calculate the Power of the Force: Wired

Lockheed Martin’s laser weapon takes down 5 drones in live-fire demonstration: New Atlas

Power Source for a Lightsaber: Wired

Supernovae: Hyperphysics

The Physics Behind the Starkiller Base in Star Wars: The Force Awakens: Huffington Post

Turbolaser Firepower: StarDestroyer.net

US Army gets world record-setting 60-kW laser: DefenseNews

What was the yield of the Hiroshima bomb? Warbird Forum

Worker Deaths by Electrocution: NIOSH

Yoda: What if?

About the author: Matt Chester is an energy analyst in Washington DC, studied engineering and science & technology policy at the University of Virginia, and operates this blog and website to share news, insights, and advice in the fields of energy policy, energy technology, and more. For more quick hits in addition to posts on this blog, follow him on Twitter @ChesterEnergy.  

Deconstructing Units of Energy into Pizza, Fly Push Ups, and Grenades

When looking at energy use in everyday life situations, it is easy to overlook what the units used actually mean. When getting the electric bill in the mail, most people will simply compare the kilowatt-hours from last month to this month and note if their bill has gone up or down. When buying a new energy-efficient dryer, you know the fewer watts used the less energy it will be. The same mental comparisons are used all the time by people who do not have to deal with energy extensively– such as with the horsepower of a car or the calories in a sandwich.

However, it is all too common for people to forget the real significance of and differences between various units of measure related to energy and power use once they pass their high school physics class. Newscasters will constantly use kilowatts and kilowatt-hours as if they’re interchangeable (they’re not). Writers will misrepresent statistics online as if the difference between megawatts and gigawatts are not massive (they are).



For those of us that work in the energy industry, these numbers are much more tangible and easy to understand. However that does not describe a majority of citizens who are having these statistics thrown at them all the time, so this article will serve as a reference and allow you to re-up your energy statistics literacy.

The Basics

Energy vs. Power

The cardinal sin when dealing with energy units is confusing energy and power, a mistake that is unfortunately one of the most common as well. Even in mainstream news articles, it is not uncommon to see the total energy used for something to be listed in watts or vice versa (e.g., this article quotes the rate of energy use of a soccer stadium in kilowatts per hour, which you will shortly understand to be nonsensical if taken literally). So clearing up the confusion here is top priority.

The technical definitions of energy and power, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), are as follows:

Energy: The capacity for doing work as measured by the capability of doing work (potential energy) or the conversion of this capability to motion (kinetic energy)

Power: The rate of producing, transferring, or using energy, most commonly associated with electricity

Put simply, energy is the total work that is done while power is the rate at which that work is done. This concept can still be a bit tricky, so the easiest way to keep it straight is through metaphors. As one example, you can think of the relationship between energy and power as water flowing from a hose to a bucket. The volume of water that has been added to the bucket at any given point is comparable to the total energy use, while the rate that the water is flowing from the hose into the bucket can be considered the power. Another useful metaphor is to consider power to be the speed a car travels along a highway, while the total distance traveled would be the total energy. The main point is to think of power as a rate that is occurring with time (gallons of water per second, miles per hour) while the energy can then be thought of as that rate multiplied by the amount of time to get the total quantity (gallons of water per second times total seconds = total gallons of water, miles per hour times total hours = total miles driven).

To bring it to real world applications of energy and power, think of a light bulb in the lamp of your living room. The light bulb might be rated at 60 Watts, which is the power rating. 60 Watts is the rate of energy use of the bulb, and if you leave it operating for 2 hours then the total energy use is 60 Watts times 2 hours or 120 Watt-hours. Watt-hours, often divided by 1,000 to be expressed in kilowatt-hours, are the total energy use you will see come up on your monthly power bill (for more real-world applications of power and energy calculations, see the recent blog post on the energy used in various Thanksgiving turkey cooking methods).

Once you understand the difference between energy and power, you will start to see them used improperly all too often.

SI units vs. Imperial units vs. every other type of unit

To anyone who has to deal with the variety of units available to measure the same quantity, it can seem very confusing and unnecessary. Certainly it would be easier if everything and everyone used the same units and no conversion was needed. Unfortunately, that is not the world we live in for a variety of reasons– everyone has seen or heard how hard it has been to try to get the metric system adopted in the United States.

The reality is that there are many different units because these units originated at different times, by different people/industries, for different uses. The development of the metric system during the French Revolution was the first attempt to create internationally agreed upon units. Prior to that time, the world was a much larger place and it was not uncommon for units that even carried the same name to vary in actual measurement depending on where you were and who you asked. As science and trade expanded with the ever-shrinking global stage, units became more and more standardized until the International System of Units (SI) was created in the mid-20th century. These units are standard and widely accepted across the scientific landscape, no small victory for unit standardization.

Even with that success, however, many industries were already set in their way. For example, even though the automotive industry could use the widely accepted wattage to describe the power of an engine, people already understood horsepower in the context of a car. Because of the inertia and history of units like this, the implementation of the SI system did not take off in all sectors. While this may have been the easiest choice for those industries, it leaves the layperson with an alphabet soup of units and abbreviations to wrap their head around. Hopefully this article will do a small part to clearing that all up.

Prefixes

Another important part of the tangled web of units, particularly among SI and metric units, is the use of standard prefixes. Prefixes are used to take a standard unit and modify it by a power of ten. A familiar example would be the difference between a meter and a kilometer. Kilo- is the standard prefix for a multiplier of 10^3 or 1,000, which is why a kilometer equals 1,000 meters. These types of prefixes, summarized in the table below, can be applied across all sorts of units and the meaning is always the same– look at the power of ten multiplier and apply it to the unit.

The prefixes at the extreme of either end (such as yotta- and yocto-) are rarely used because they are so large/small that they are not needed to describe real, tangible energy/power quantities you’ll come across. The ones that are commonly used include giga-, mega-, kilo-, milli-, and micro-, and in fact some of the units described in the below tables will have those prefixes because the power-of-ten-adjusted units are more commonly used in certain applications than their base units.

Units to know

Energy

With all that background out of the way, we can look at 24 various units used to measure energy. Some of these are more common and will be familiar to most people, others are more niche and relate to specific industries or fields of study, while others still are rarely used but are still interesting to consider. Again keep in mind you may run across more units made up of the measures below combined with one of the prefixes above– simply use the prefix multiplier to modify the designated unit in the below table.

This first table will list these energy-measuring units, from smallest to largest, along with the manner in which they are typically used, the qualitative fundamental equivalence by definition, and the standard quantitative reference.

Table 2: Units of Energy Across Industries and Applications

UnitAbbreviationTypical useFundamental equivalenceStandard Reference
electronvolteVUsed by astronomers to measure energy of electromagnetic radiation, as well as to describe the difference in atomic/molecular energy states.

Also used by particle physicists to measure mass (based on E=mc 2 )
Amount of energy one electron acquires from accelerating through one volt1.602 x 10^ -19 Joules
RydbergRyUsed by chemists and physicists to claculate the energy levels in that are absorbed or emitted as photons as electrons move between energy levels of a hydrogen atomGround-state energy of an electron in the Bohr model for the hydrogen atom13.605693009 eV
HartreeEhUsed in calculating energy of molecular orbitsThe electic potential energy of the hydrogen atom in ground state (and thus double E h )27.211 eV
ergergNot commonly used today, but can still be found in old European scientific papersAmout of energy used when a force of one dyne is exerted over one centimeter 100 nanojoules
jouleJUsed in electricity, mechanics, thermal energy, and other basic sciences on a small scaleAmount of energy transferred to an object when a force of one newton acts on the object in the direction of its motion through a distance of one meter (i.e., one Newton-meter)As the SI unit of measurment for energy, considered the base use unit of all energy and is the common reference for other units of energy
foot-pound forceft*lbUsed to describe muzzle energy of a bullet in small arms ballistsAmount of energy transferred to an object when applying one pound of force over a distance of one foot1.35581795 Joules
thermochemical calorie**cal thUsed in chemistry to describe the energy released in a chemical reactionAmount of heat/energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water 1 o C (at 17 o C)4.8140 Joules
gram calorie**calUsed in chemistry to describe the energy released in a chemical reactionAmount of heat/energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water 1 o C (from 14.5 to 15.5 o C)4.8155 Joules
British thermal unitBTUUsed as a common unit of energy content by industry and analysts to compare energy sources or fuels on an equal basisAmount of heat/energy needed to raise the temperature of one pound of water by 1 o F1,055 Joules
Watt-hourWhUsed commonly in electrical applications Amout of energy used when one Watt of power is expended for one hour3,600 Joules
food Calorie, or kilocalorie**kcalIn common practice, nutritional calories are referring to these kilocalories (or Calorie, capitalized) as a means to measure the relative heating/metabolizing energy contained within a foodAmount of heat/energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 kilogram of water 1 o C (from 14.5 to 15.5 o C)1,000 thermochemical calories
gram of TNTg of TNTUsed to compare the relative size of explosions based on their release of energyAmout of energy in the explosive yield of one gram of Trinitrotoluene (TNT)4,184 Joules
(The real use of a gram of TNT would result in a range of energy outputs between about 2,700 and 6,700 Joules, so the actual conversion was somewhat arbitrarily defined as 4,184 Joules or exactly 1 kilocalorie)
megajoulesMJUsed to describe the energy content of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and natural gas in the context of gas heaters in buildingsOne million times the amount of energy transferred to an object when a force of one Newton acts on the object in the direction of its motion through a distance of one meter (i.e., one Newton-meter)1.0 million Joules
horse-power hourhphUsed in railroad industry to describe a performance-use basis when companies lend locomotives to others (e.g., Railroad A lent Railroad B a 4,000 horsepower locomotive to use for 2 hours, Railroad B now owes Railroad A a payback favor of 8,000 horsepower-hours)Amount of work that can be done (or energy that can be expended) by a horse over one hour2.686 x 10^6 Joules
kilowatt-hourkWhThe common unit of measure used as a billing unit for electricity delivered to consumersAmount of energy if a constant power of one kilowatt is transmitted for one hour3.6 x 10^6 Joules
kilogram of hard coalkg of hard coalUsed within the coal industry to compare the energy output of other fuel types to the output of a standard measure of coalAmount of energy emitted when burning one kilogram of coal7,000 kilocalories
ThermthmUsed by natural gas companies to convert volume of gases to its equivalent ability to heatAmount of heat energy from burning 100 cubic feet of natural gas100,000 BTU
gasoline gallon equivalentGGEUsed to compare the cost of gasoline with other fuels that are sold in different units for internal combustion enginesAmout of energy equivalent to that found in one liquid gallon of gasoline5.660 pounds of natural gas
gigajoulesGJUsed on a global scale to compare the amount of energy used by different nations over given time periodsOne billion times the amount of energy transferred to an object when a force of one Newton acts on the object in the direction of its motion through a distance of one meter (i.e., one Newton-meter)1.0 billion Joules
ton of TNTton of TNTUsed to describe the energy released in an explosionAmount of energy released in the detonation of a metric ton of TNT4.184 Gigajoules
barrels of oil equivalentBOEUsed by oil and natural gas companies (and analysts of those industries) that have access to both fuel types to describe the overall energy content of their reserves in a simple, single numberAmount of energy equivalent to that found in a barrel of crude oil (42 gallons); for natural gas, the conversion is to about 6,000 cubic feet of natural gas5.8 million BTU*
Ton of coal equivalentTCEUsed to describe very large amounts of energy output on a national or global scale with coal as the reference pointAmount of energy generated from burning one metric ton of coal0.697 tonne of oil equivalent (according to World Coal Association)
0.700 tonne of oil equivalent (according to International Energy Agency)
tonne of oil equivalentTOEUsed to describe very large amounts of oil or natural gas, either in terms of trade and transportation or natural production/consumptionAmount of energy equivalent to that found in one tonne (i.e., a metric ton, or 1,000 kilograms) of crude oil7.33 BOE (according to SPE)
41.868 GJ (according to OECD)
10.0 kcal (according to IEA)*
quadquadUsed by the Department of Energy and others in the field to discuss the total energy production and use across the globeEqual to exactly 10 15 BTU, i.e., one quadrillion BTU (quad for short)1,000,000,000,000,000 BTU

*These values are approximate because different grades of oil/gas have slightly different energy equivalents, and thus different agencies/bodies sometimes use slightly different measures of them.

**It’s important to note the difference between calories and Calories– Calories with a capital C are the nutrtional Calories everyone is familiar with counting on diets. These Calories are actually known as kilocalories and are 1000 thermonuclear calories, so do not mix up Calories and calories…

To make some more sense of this array of units, both massively large and incomprehensibly small, the following table puts the units into some more context. In this table, you’ll find a real-world example of what can be done with a single unit of that energy measurement, how many Joules it equates to for comparison’s sake, and the multiplier needed to get from the previous unit of energy to that one.

Click to enlarge

Power

The same exercise can be done for units of power (or rate of energy over time), as there are just as many different units for various industries, applications, and technical necessities. For power, we’ll focus on 17 of the more commonly used units– though remember you might come across all of them modified by the previously discussed prefixes.

Again, this first table will list all the power-measuring units, from smallest to largest, along with the manner in which they are typically used, the qualitative fundamental equivalence by definition, and the standard quantitative reference.

Table 4: Units of Power Across Industries and Applications

UnitAbbreviationTypical useFundamental equivalenceStandard Reference
erg per seconderg/sNot commonly used today, but in old scientific papers could be used to express power on an atomic scaleAmout of power used when a force of one dyne is exerted over one centimeter in one second100 nanowatts
milliwattmWUsed to measure the power needed by very small electrical components, such as small lasers to read CDsEqual to one thousandth of a Joule per second, or the work/power needed to hold an object's velocity constant at one meter per second against a constant force of one thousandth of a Newton0.001 Watts
dBmdBmUsed as a measure of power in wires in radio, microwave, and fiber-optic networksdBm is measured as the decibals relative to one milliwatt on a logarithmic scale, where the dBm of a power P in millwatts equals 10 x log(P)Not applicable because of the log-based scale. While 1 dBm is about 1.3 milliwatts, 50 dBm is 100 Watts and -50 dBm is 10 nanowatts.
Foot-pounds per minuteft*lb/minCommonly used as a mesaure of power in the foot-pound-second (FPS) unit system, which was the most common scientific unit system in English publications until the mid-1900s. The work done to apply a force of one pound-force over a linear dispalcement of one foot over the course of a minuteConsidered the base use unit for power in the FPS system, others reference the foot-pound per minute
kilowatt-hour per yearkWh/yEnergy consumption of some household appliances is often expressed based on the kilowatt-hours used over the course of a year given certain assumptions (kWh/y of a washing machine based on 180 standard cleaning cycles). While this may appear to be an energy unit and not a power unit, the time component of hour of kWh and the year cancel out to leave you with a measure of power-- which is what this measure really is, an understandable way to compare the power rating of various appliances Based on the assumptions given by the particular appliance label, each additional kWh/y is another expected kilowatt-hour to show up on your power bill over the course of an entire year with typical appliance use1 kilowatt-hour per year divided by 8,760 hours per year, or about 0.114 Watts
British Thermal Units per hourBTU/hOften used as the power rating for furnaces and other large heating systemsAmount of power needed to raise the temperature of one pound of water by 1 o F over the course of an hour1,055 BTU/hr divided by 3,600 seconds/hr, or 1055/3600 Joule/second which equals about 0.293 Watts
WattWUsed as the basic measurement of electrical power in small household-sized applicationsEqual to one Joule of energy per second, or the work/power needed to hold an object's velocity constant at one meter per second against a constant force of one NewtonAs the SI unit of measurement for power, considered the base use unit of all power and is the common reference for other units of power
kilocalories per hourkcal/hUsed to measure the metabolic rate of the human body, that is the amount of Calories your body will burn per hour doing various activities (e.g, exercising, sleeping, etc.)The amount of work needed to increase the temperature of one liter of water by 1 o C over the course of an hour1,000 calories per hour
calories per secondcal/sUsed by chemists when describing the rate of heat/energy transfer in chemical reactionsAmount of power needed to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water 1 o C (at 17 o C) over the course of 1 second4.184 Watts
Metric horsepowerPSUsed for advertising in the same applications as mechanical horsepower but in countries who use the metric system (often leading to confusion and mixing up the units, though the official horsepower ratings of engines are typically conservative enough that it's not overpromising power0Equal to the power required to raise a mass of 75 kilograms over a distance of one meter in one second75 kilogram*meters per second
Mechanical HorsepowerhpUsed to measure the output shaft of an engine, turbine, or motor in applications from cars and trucks down to chain saws and vacuum cleanersWhen invented by James Watt (inventor of the steam engine), it was derived by calculating the average work a pony at a coal mine could do in a minute and then increasing that by 50 percent33,000 foot pounds per minute
Electrical horsepowerhp(E)Used in the United States for the nameplace power output capacity of electrical motorsIntended to be equivalent in use to the mechanical horsepower, but is defined as exactly 746 Watts746 Watts
kilowattkWTypically used to describe power output of engines, motors, and other machinery. The work done to apply a force of one thousand pounds-force over a linear dispalcement of one foot over the course of a minute1,000 Watts
Tons of refrigerationTRUsed to rate the power of commercial refrigeration systemsThe power needed to freeze a short ton of water at 0 o Cover a 24 hour period12,000 BTU/hr
Boiler horsepowerhp(S)Used to denote a boiler's capacity to deliver steam to a steam engineEqual to the thermal energy rate required to evaporate 34.5 pounds of fresh water at 212 o F in one hour33,475 BTU/h
megawattMWUsed to describe the power used by very large electical equipment and vehicles, such as warships, super colliders, electric trains, or large commercial buildingsThe work done to apply a force of one million pounds-force over a linear dispalcement of one foot over the course of a minute1,000,000 Watts
gigawattGWDenotes the power output of large power plants and electrical capacity on a national scaleThe work done to apply a force of one billion pounds-force over a linear dispalcement of one foot over the course of a minute1,000,000,000 Watts

Again, a useful way to make sense of all these power units is to give them more meaningful context. The next table shows some of the real world examples of these different levels of power output, converts them all to Watts for the sake of comparison, and the multiplier between two consecutive units.

Click to enlarge

Conclusion

Armed with the knowledge of these units of energy and power, you’ll be well prepared to tackle statistics anew– you’ll have useful context for how much energy was in the recent 5,000 barrel oil spill on the Keystone Pipeline (using the above information, we can calculate that 5,000 barrels of oil is over 30,000 Gigajoules– or equivalent to the average annual electricity consumption of over 700 American households), or you’ll also have not so useful (but fun!) context for the energy content of a gallon of gasoline (the same as over 127 slices of large cheese pizza or 30 kg of TNT).  Either way, being literate in your scientific and energy-related units will make you a more informed consumer of the news– if only everyone editing the news could do the same and stop using ‘Watts per hour’!

Sources and additional reading

A Megajoule or MJ Probably Isn’t What You Think: Elgas

Aqua-calc: Conversions and Calculations

Arkansas State Energy Profile: Energy Information Administration

Ask Trains from December 2007: Trains Magazine

Atomic Units: Nature

Barrel of Oil Equivalent: Investopedia

Blast effects of external explosions: Isabelle Sochet

Bluetooth range and Power: Electronics Stack

Brief history of the SI: National Institute of Standards and Technology

British Thermal Units (BTU): Energy Information Administration

By gum! Chewing to power your hearing aid: CNBC

Calorie: Encyclopedia Britannica

Choose the right charger and power your gadgets properly: Wired

Coal conversion statistics: World Coal

Coal equivalent: European Nuclear Society

CODATA Recommended Values of the Fundamental Physical Constraints

Conversion factors: Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries

Electron Volt: Universe Today 

Elephants: San Diego Zoo

Energies in Electron Volts: Hyper Physics

Energy Conversion Calculators: Energy Information Administration

Energy Examples: Genesis Now

Energy Units: APS Physics

Energy Units and Conversions: Dennis Silverman

erg: WhatIs.com

Eu Energy Labels: What does kWh/Annum mean?

Exploding Laptop Batteries

Foot-Pound Force Per Minute: eFunda

Frequently Asked Questions: Energy Information Administration

Glossary: Energy Information Administration

Horsepower-hour: Collins Dictionary

Horsepower: Encyclopedia Britannica

How Hard Does It Hit? Jim Taylor

How Horsepower Works

How Many Calories Are Burned By Coughing? LiveStrong

How Many Calories Do You Burn Doing Everyday Activities?

How Many Flies Would It Take To Pull A Car? Neatorama

How much electricity does a solar panel produce? Solar Power Rocks

How much energy do my household appliances use? Energy Guide

Is it really worth my time to eat that last grain of rice?

Joule: techopedia

Launching satellites: Science Learning Hub

Measuring energy: IEEE 

Metric Conversions

Nanotechnology Introduction: Nanotechnology Now

NIST Guide to the SI: National Institute of Standards and Technology

Nonconventional Source Fuel Credit

One Calorie is Equivalent to One Gram of TNT In Terms of Energy: Today I Found Out

Papa John’s Nutritional Calculator

Physical Phenomena: University of Sydney

Physlink

Projectiles, Kinetic/Muzzle Energy and Stopping Power

Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science

Rydberg: Wolfram Research

Rydberg Constant: National Institute of  Standards and Technology

Rydberg Unit of Energy: Energy Wave Theory

The Adoption of Joules as Units of Energy: FAO

Tonne of coal equivalent: Business Dictionary

Tonne of oil equivalent: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

Turning sweat into watts: IEEE

Understanding Energy Units: Green Building Advisor

Unit Conversion Factors: Society of Petroleum Engineers

Unit converter: International Energy Agency

USB Flash Drives: AnandTech

watt-hour (Wh): WhatIs.com

What’s a hartree? National Institute of Standards and Technology

What is a Joule? Universe Today

What is a GJ? Natural Resources Canada

What is a Ton of Refrigeration: Power Knot

What is a Watt, Anyway? Building Green

What is a Watt Hour? SolarLife

What is resting metabolic rate?

Why Do We Use a Dumb Unit to Measure Explosions? Gizmodo

About the author: Matt Chester is an energy analyst in Washington DC, studied engineering and science & technology policy at the University of Virginia, and operates this blog and website to share news, insights, and advice in the fields of energy policy, energy technology, and more. For more quick hits in addition to posts on this blog, follow him on Twitter @ChesterEnergy.  

Petroleum Administration for Defense Districts (PADDs): Past and Present

If you’re an energy-statistics nerd (which you probably are if you’ve found your way to this blog), you’ve no doubt seen various regional data expressed by PADD, or Petroleum Administration for Defense District. Referring to barrels of oil sent from one PADD to another or which PADD uses certain fuel types for home heating  allows for a useful shorthand for regions of the United States and their energy related statistics. Many people who come across the PADD system might already understand PADDs to be a bygone classification system from the country’s fuel rationing days, but most people’s understanding of the PADD system stops here and the history of PADDs are not explored any further.

 

That’s where this article comes in! This piece will serve to explain what the PADDs are, where they originated, how they evolved over the years, and how they are relevant today.



What are PADDs?

Petroleum Administration for Defense Districts, or PADDs, are quite simply the breaking down of the United States into different districts.
PADD 1 is referred to as the East Coast region and, because of its size, is further divided into three subdistricts:
  • PADD 1A, or New England, comprises Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont;
  • PADD 1B, or Central Atlantic, comprises Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania; and
  • PADD 1C, or Lower Atlantic, comprises Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia.

PADD 2 is referred to as the Midwest region and comprises Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Wisconsin.

PADD 3 is referred to as the Gulf Coast region and comprises Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, and Texas.

PADD4 is referred to as the Rocky Mountain region and comprises Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming.

PADD5 is referred to as the West Coast region and comprises Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.

New PADDs

There are also two additional PADDs after the original five PADDs that rarely get mentioned, likely because they are much newer and the volume of oil products going in and/or out of them are minimal compared with the rest. Despite a mention of them in the Energy Information Administration‘s (EIA) write up of the PADD system,  PADDs 6 and 7 (meant to cover U.S. territories around the world) do not have data on them included on the prominent, publicly-facing EIA data sets. However, some digging shows that PADD 6 was added in 2015 in order to properly report needed information to the International Energy Agency and comprises the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, while PADD 7 includes GuamAmerican Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands Territory. You will commonly find sources citing just five total PADDs, but don’t let that throw you off. Simply impress those you meet at energy cocktail parties by memorizing what territories are in PADDs 6 and 7.

Origin of PADDs

The federal government first established the regions that would become the five PADDs during World War II. Specifically, the Petroleum Administration for War was established as an independent agency by Executive Order 9276 in 1942 in order to organize and ration the various oil and petroleum products to ensure the military had all the fuel it needed. Part of that organization process was the establishment of these five districts as a tool for that goal. The Petroleum Administration for War ended in 1946 after the war efforts were over, but these five original districts were quickly reestablished by the successor Petroleum Administration for Defense that was created by Congress in 1950 in response to the Korean War. This Administration provided these districts with the name Petroleum Administration for Defense Districts.


Source

Changes over time

As stated, the original function of the PADDs was to ensure proper distribution of oil supplies during World War II. In fact, the Department of Defense made use of the PADD system to redirect oil resources to specific PADDs  in response to Nazi attacks on U.S. tankers. These oil distribution efforts were the largest and most intricate such efforts yet, leading to the realization that interstate pipelines would soon become necessary to connect oil refineries with distant U.S. markets. But once World War II ended, the government determined there was no more need for the Petroleum Administration for War, and gone with the Administration were the districts.

After the Petroleum Administration for Defense revived the five districts, they were then under the management of the Department of Interior’s Oil and Gas Division, with the continued function to ensure the oil needs of the military, government, industry, and civilians of the United States were met. As with the Petroleum Administration for War, the Petroleum Administration for Defense was short-lived and was abolished just four years later by the Secretary of the Interior’s Order 2755 in April of 1954. Even though the government agency was eliminated, the names and organization of the various PADDs continued to be used ever since.

One significant change over the history of PADDs that is important to note is that there are no present day ‘official’ government keepers. While the PADDs served an official function and thus had official definitions set out by government agencies during World War II and the Korean War, that is no longer the case today– but that does not mean they are no longer significant. Within the Department of Energy (DOE), EIA uses the PADDs extensively in its aggregation and dissemination of data (discussed in more detail next). Further, government agencies have defined PADDs for use within specific regulations. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) codified PADDs in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) when regulating motor vehicle diesel fuel sulfur use (though it explicitly dictates that the definition is only applicable as codified for that specific regulation) and specified total benchmarks and reductions that were to be met PADD-wide, as well as in reporting requirements regarding fuel additives so that they get published by PADD.

Use of PADDs today

With the government being out of the business rationing oil and petroleum since the end of the Korean War, the PADDs have found new purpose. The same PADDs have survived to allow analysis of data and patterns of crude oil and petroleum product movements within (and outside) the United States. Using these PADDs, government and industry players are able to ensure they are using the same regional collection of states and shorthand language to analyze and spot trends within regions instead of being confined to looking at the nation as a whole or analyzing on a more state-by-state basis.

Further, the PADDs are separated in a way that makes analysis straightforward. For example, following the crude supply in PADDs 2 and 3 are the most important to crude prices because they contain the largest number of refineries. Heating oil demand is mostly concentrated in PADD 1, making that the region to look at when investigating heating oil prices. Additionally, using the language of PADDs enable quick insights into data such as EIA noting the impact of Hurricane Harvey on flow of propane from PADD 2 to PADD 3 or detailing how PADD 1C needed to supplement its gasoline inventories with foreign imports when there was an accident that shutdown the pipeline that typically supplies the area with gasoline from PADD 2.

Examples of trends, statistics, and PADD characteristics

There are plenty of other examples of the usefulness of dealing with oil-related data within PADDs. A common example is to delineate from where different PADDs receive their oil. For example, with the knowledge that almost half of U.S. refining capacity is on the Gulf Coast (i.e., PADD 3) while less than 10% of refining capacity is on the East Coast (PADD 1) (though PADD 1 contains about one third of the U.S. population), an obvious conclusion is that there must be a lot of intra-PADD oil shipments everyday. In fact, about half of the oil consumed everyday by PADD 1 is supplied from PADD 3 over pipeline, rail, truck, and barge.

Going further, much of the commonly distributed data from EIA (click here to learn about the vast data available from EIA and how to navigate it all) utilizes PADDs. For example, EIA allows you to look at the following:

and much more.

So hopefully the next time you read a table from EIA that deals with oil movement specific to PADD 3 or read a news article citing the disruption of a pipeline that serves PADD 1, this article will come to mind and you’ll be better served to speak to it– and remember to try and win some bets with your knowledge of the seldom-mentioned PADDs 6 and 7!
Sources and additional reading:
About the author: Matt Chester is an energy analyst in Washington DC, studied engineering and science & technology policy at the University of Virginia, and operates this blog and website to share news, insights, and advice in the fields of energy policy, energy technology, and more. For more quick hits in addition to posts on this blog, follow him on Twitter @ChesterEnergy.  

Talking Turkey: Thanksgiving Dinner Energy Use and Carbon Dioxide Emissions

Thanksgiving is one of the most wonderful time of the year, when families gather and spend time together while the smell of turkey seeps in from the other room. You’ve probably never given much thought to the energy use or environmental impact behind that intoxicating turkey smell coming from the kitchen, and in fact the country’s overall energy use drops on Thanksgiving because the increase in kitchen power use is offset by the drop in energy use from office and commercial buildings that are closed for the holiday.

However it’s always interesting to look at the actual energy numbers behind various regular activities and consider if there’s a way to do it better. Especially these days when online cooking forums and the Food Network is constantly making it trendy to cook your Thanksgiving turkey in new and novel ways. Your grandmother’s recipe isn’t the only one in town anymore (though I’m sure it’s still the best). Those cooking the turkey now have deep fryers and smokers, while Turducken is being eaten by NFL players after the Thanksgiving Day games.



With so many new cooking methods for Thanksgiving dinner, it got me to wonder what the energy cost was to cook turkey using these different methods. While there were investigations on the total energy use across the country to cook Thanksgiving dinner (linked later in this article), I could not find anything about the energy cost or associated carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions of an individual turkey cooked using different methods, so I thought I’d run through them myself!

Recipes

After searching across the Internet, I settled on seven different methods to cook your Thanksgiving turkey– the traditional roasting of a turkey and six newer and trendier options that the hip or contrarian chef might utilize. These seven methods are the following:
  • Roasting;
  • Braising;
  • Deep frying;
  • Grilling;
  • Smoking;
  • Spatchcocking; and
  • Sous vide.

For each of these cooking methods, I’ve sought out a recipe either from a well-known chef of repute or directly from the manufacturer of the turkey or the cooking apparatus in question. By using these recipes, ideally these authorities will have an air of authority to them. Because each recipe offers cooking times based on various size turkeys, this analysis will normalize each recipe for a standard 15 pound (lb) turkey as the size recommended for a dinner of 12 people.

If you want to skip the details of the recipes and the calculations, click here to go straight to the results!
 
Note: For all of the below recipes, there are additional energy consuming steps that are not going to be included in the calculations. These steps include removing turkey from the oven to baste, pre-refrigeration, sauteing after the turkey is fully cooked to get crispy skin, etc. The point is the calculations below will focus on the energy needed to fully and safely cook the turkey, and any energy used before or after that process will be ignored for simplicity and uniformity. Of course you will be making side dishes and putting on finishing touches, so your mileage WILL vary compared with what is calculated here. The goal of this exercise is just to get a back-of-the-envelope approximation for how the different cooking methods affect the energy required– they are definitely not going to be exact or completely robust. You’ve been warned! 

Roasted turkey

Since this is the traditional cooking method, it seemed criminal to use a recipe other than the one championed by Julia Childs. Her traditional recipe for a 10 to 13 pound turkey calls for the oven to be preheat to 450oF and then the turkey roasted for 30 minutes before reducing the oven to 350oF and roasting for another 2 to 2 hours 30 minutes.
Normalizing for a 15 lb turkey, we’ll use the higher time estimate and add 15 minutes for the extra weight and say the turkey will be cooked in the oven for 3 hours 15 minutes.

Braised turkey

 Braised turkey is a great segue from the traditional to the more novel turkey-cooking methods, as it doesn’t stray too far from the original whole turkey roasting method. You are still cooking the turkey fully in the oven, but with the main difference that the turkey is sitting in a pan of vegetables and stock to bring in more moisture to your turkey.

For the braised turkey, we’ll stay with household names and use Bobby Flay’s recipe for herb roasted and braised turkey. This recipe calls for an oven preheated to 450oF with the 17 pound turkey and a bed of vegetables cooked for 45 minutes before the temperature is reduced to 350oF and cooked an additional 2 to 2 hours 15 minutes longer (while basting with warm chicken stock). After the whole bird is cooked, the legs are removed and braised in a roasting pan with stock for an additional 1 hour at 350oF.

To normalize to a 15 pound turkey, we’ll say the braised turkey cooks in the oven for a total estimated cook time of 3 hours 30 minutes.

Deep fried turkey

If you can manage to get it done without an explosion or trip to the hospital, deep frying turkey has become one of the more exciting and talked about cooking alternatives. Bobby Flay’s colleague at Food Network, Alton Brown, has one of the most used deep fried turkey recipes for those who love the science and Internet-trends of cooking.

For a 13 to 14 pound turkey, Alton has you heat up a 28 to 30-quart pot of oil to 250oF, add in the turkey and raise the temperature to 350oF, and once at that temperature cooking for 35 minutes.

To account for the weight of a 15 pound turkey, we’ll say this recipe cooks with a propane heater for a total of 40 minutes.

Grilled turkey

The grilled turkey recipe chosen comes straight from Butterball, the turkey supplier that accounts for 20 percent of total turkey production in the United States. Among grilling aficionados, the debate to grill by charcoal or by gas is one of the most heated. In addition to differences in taste, ease, and convenience, the choice of grill type also affects the end energy use to cook. Luckily for us, Butterball provides instructions for both a charcoal and gas grill.

Butterball’s recipe for charcoal grilling says that the 10 to 16 pound turkey will be cooked over 50 to 60 charcoal briquettes (after those initial briquettes have been burned for 30 minutes). At that point, the turkey is to be placed on the grill for 2 to 3 hours, with 12 to 16 briquettes being added every 45 minutes to 1 hour. To normalize at the 15 pound turkey, we’ll estimate that initially 60 charcoal briquettes will be used and, during the cooking process, 50 more briquettes will be added for a total cooking fuel of 110 charcoal briquettes on a charcoal grill over the course of 3 hours.

Butterball’s recipe for gas grilling says the same 10 to 16 pound turkey is cooked over indirect heat (after 10 to 15 minutes of preheating) at 350oF for 2 to 3 hours. For the 15 pound turkey we’ll assume the turkey is cooked on a gas grill at 350oF for the whole 3 hours.

Smoked turkey

Where deep frying or grilling the turkey may have once held the title as the ‘macho’ way to prepare a Thanksgiving turkey (whatever that may mean), smoking the meat might just have taken that crown. Using lower heat over longer periods of time, smoking turkey evokes the expert barbecue pit masters of the country to impart full flavor without drying out the turkey. Butterball once again provides authoritative guidance to smoking your Thanksgiving dinner, again allowing the consideration of two different fuel types.

Butterball’s recipe for preparing a turkey in a water smoker uses 10 pounds of charcoal briquettes (pre-burned for 30 minutes) to start the cooking process, adding in 12 to 14 more charcoal briquettes every 1 hour 30 minutes to ensure the temperature remains at 250oF through a total cooking time of 6 to 10 hours for a 12 to 18 pound turkey. For our 15 pound turkey, we’ll call that cooking fuel of 10 pounds plus 70 briquettes of charcoal over a cooking time of 8 hours in the water smoker.

When using an electric smoker, Butterball’s recipe calls for the smoker to be set at 225oF and the 8 to 18 pound turkey to be cooked for 8 to 12 hours. Normalizing to our 15 pound turkey, we’ll say the final cook time is 11 hours at 225oF in the electric smoker.

Spatchcocked turkey

If Julia Child was the first queen of celebrity chefs, Martha Stewart eventually took her crown, and so we have to include a recipe of Martha’s.  Martha Stewart’s magazine featured a recipe for a spatchcocked turkey, a method of cooking poultry in which bones are removed so the bird can be flattened and cooked more evenly and quickly.
Martha Stewart’s recipe has the oven preheated to 450oF, with a 12 pound and fully spatchcocked turkey roasted for 1 hour 10 minutes. For our 15 pound turkey, we’ll adjust this to be cooked in the oven at 450oF for 85 minutes.

Sous vide turkey

Sous vide cooking, or the process of cooking food that is vacuum-sealed in a plastic pouch by placing it in heated and circulating water bath, has been around for decades. The method has gained traction more recently, however, as home cooks are increasingly getting their hands on the cooking equipment necessary that was previously only available in professional kitchens. The cooking method allows meat to be cooked at lower temperatures and thus cooked more evenly, safely, and while retaining moisture.

If you are in the market for a sous vide immersion circulator, one of the first places you might go is Williams Sonoma. To aid the new owners of this equipment, they also offer up a sous vide turkey recipe by Michael Voltaggio. The water of the sous video immersion circulator is preheated to 150oF and the vacuum sealed turkey pieces then placed in and cooked for 2 hours 30 minutes.

Calculations

These recipes use a wide variety of cooking apparatuses and fuels, so the methodology of calculating the total energy use and associated CO2 emissions will vary. Much like the Halloween-themed post on the most sustainable way to light your Jack-O’-Lantern, this post will thus be calculating very rough estimates using educated choices of data and assumptions. The final numbers should be considered back-of-envelope calculations and not scientifically or rigorously tested. There are also various aspects to the cooking process that would impact the end result that will not be accounted for, as well as variables to your individual cooking efforts that would change the final result (e.g., size of oven or grill, the energy mix of your power supplier, what type of propane or charcoal you buy from the store).

All that said, if you have ideas or suggestions on how to refine any of the numbers calculated here, then please reach out and/or leave a comment! (For one, I’ve assumed an oven is using a uniform amount of power regardless of the temperature at which it is set. While the difference of power use at 350oF and 450oF is not likely that much, it is definitely measurable. However, after much digging I was still unable to find any way to estimate the power difference among different temperatures, so a uniform power consumption was chosen and used for all use of the oven.)

Regardless of fuel type, all final energy numbers are calculated in kilowatt hours (kWh) and all CO2 emissions are calculated in lbs.

If you don’t care about going through the calculations and just want to jump to the final numbers, click here to jump to the results!



Roasted turkey

We are assuming the use of an oven for 3 hours 15 minutes. The oven will also need to preheat the oven, which we’ll assume to take 15 minutes. All together, the energy use and CO2 emissions will be associated with using an oven for a total of 3 hours 30 minutes.

In the United States, ovens are commonly powered by either electricity or by natural gas (though electric stoves are almost twice as common as gas stoves). The fuel type will affect the end energy use and CO2 emissions:
Electric oven:

Electric ovens use about 2.0 kilowatts (kW) of power. Assuming this power usage for the entirety of the recipe, the energy use of roasting the turkey in an electric oven is about 2.0 kW times 3.5 hours, or 7.0 kWh.

The latest data available from the Department of Energy says that for every kWh of electricity produced in the United States, 1.096 pounds of CO2 are released. Thus for this recipe in an electric oven, the CO2 emissions are equal to 1.096 lbs/kWh times 7.0 kWh or about 7.7 pounds of CO2.

Electric ovens use about 2.0 kilowatts (kW) of power. Assuming this power usage for the entirety of the recipe, the energy use of roasting the turkey in an electric oven is about 2.0 kW times 3.5 hours, or 7.0 kWh.

The latest data available from the Department of Energy says that for every kWh of electricity produced in the United States, 1.096 pounds of CO2 are released. Thus for this recipe in an electric oven, the CO2 emissions are equal to 1.096 lbs/kWh times 7.0 kWh or about 7.7 pounds of CO2.
Gas oven:

Gas ovens use about 0.112 therms of natural gas per hour. Over the course of the 3 hours 30 minutes, this would result in the use of 0.392 therms. In order to convert this amount of natural gas to kWh for comparison’s sake, we use the energy equivalence of one therm being about 29.3 kWh, meaning the energy use of a gas oven for this recipe is 11.5 kWh.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has a handy carbon footprint calculator you can use to analyze the CO2 emissions of all sorts of household activities. Included among its assumptions is the emission factor of cooking with natural gas, at 11.7 lbs of CO2 per therm of natural gas (this is another place where your specific situation may vary– some gas stoves use propane or other flammable gases as fuels, but we’ll assume natural gas for the sake of this calculation). Based on this assumption, the roasted turkey recipe in a gas oven would result in CO2 emissions of about 4.6 lbs of CO2.

Braised turkey

The braised turkey recipe also uses a oven, but this time for 15 minutes of preheating and 3 hours 30 minutes of cooking for a total of 3 hours 45 minutes. Again, this process can be done in an electric or a gas oven using the same assumptions as the roasted turkey.

Source

Electric oven:

Using the same assumptions as above for 3 hours 45 minutes of 2.0 kW power usage, the braised turkey recipe uses 7.5 kWh. Using the same assumption of 1.096 lbs of CO2 per kWh results in the CO2 emissions of the braised turkey in an electric oven being about 8.2 lbs.

Gas oven:

Repeating the assumptions above again gives an approximate energy use of 0.420 therms, or 12.3 kWh, and would result in emissions of about 4.9 lbs of CO2.

Deep fried turkey

The deep frying recipe calls for a propane heater to preheat a pot of oil to 250oF, adding in the turkey and raising the temperature to 350oF, and then cooking for 40 minutes.
 

The assumptions we can make here are that a propane cooker uses 65,000 British thermal units (BTUs) per hour and preheating deep fryers takes about 30 minutes. That means the total energy use would be 65,000 BTU/hour times 1 hour 10 minutes for a total of 75,833 BTU. Converting the propane use in BTU to approximate energy use in kWh gives a final result of approximately 22.2 kWh.

To calculate the CO2 emissions from this cooking process, the EPA’s carbon footprint calculator again gives us the needed information of CO2 emissions for cooking by propane. With the EPA assumption that every million BTU of propane burned emits 136.05 lbs of CO2, the deep fried turkey’s 75,833 BTU emits about 10.3 lbs of CO2.

Grilled turkey

Charcoal grill:

When the grilled turkey recipe for a charcoal grill is used, 110 charcoal briquettes are used over the course of 3 hours (after 30 minutes of pre-burn of charcoal).

Experiment shows that the energy content of charcoal is 7.33 kilojoules (kJ) per gram, while a single briquette of charcoal weighs about 25.7 grams. All together, this means a charcoal grilled turkey takes 20,733 kJ, which is converted to about 5.8 kWh.

For the CO2 emissions of charcoal grilling, Oak Ridge National Laboratory has found that the amount of charcoal needed to operate a grill for an hour emits 11 pounds of CO2. For this recipe that uses the grill for a total of 3 hours 30 minutes, that amounts to 38.5 pounds of CO2.
Propane grill:

When prepared on a gas grill, propane is needed to preheat for about 15 minutes and then cook the turkey for 3 hours.

The rate of propane use in propane grills varies, but a standard gas grill is rated at about 36,000 BTU/hour. That means for the full 3 hour 15 minute operation, the Butterball grilled turkey recipe requires 117,000 BTU or approximately 34.3 kWh of energy.
 
As with the recipe for deep fried turkey, we can use EPA’s assumption that every million BTU of propane burned emits 136.05 lbs of CO2, meaning this propane grilled turkey accounts for 15.9 lbs of CO2.

Smoked turkey

For the smoked turkey recipe, we again have two options for cooking fuel– either a charcoal fueled water smoker or an all electric smoker.

Charcoal powered water smoker:
This recipe required the burning of 10 pounds plus 70 briquettes of charcoal for 8 hours (after 15 minutes of preheating).
Using the same assumptions as with the charcoal grilled turkey, we find that at 7.33 kJ/gram of charcoal and 25.7 grams of charcoal per briquette gives a total energy use of the charcoal for a turkey smoked with a water smoker of about 12.9 kWh.
For the CO2 emitted, we again assume that grilling for an hour emits 11 pounds of CO2 per hour, meaning for a total grill time of 8 hours 15 minutes we get 90.8 lbs of CO2.
Electric smoker:
The electric smoker will be set at 225oF and the turkey cooked for 11 hours. Common electric smokers are rated at about 800 Watts, meaning 11 hours of use would use 8.8 kWh.
Since this is all electric, we can reuse our assumptions from cooking in an electric oven. Assuming 1.096 lbs of CO2 are released for every kWh of electricity produced in the United States, the electric smoker would account for about 9.6 lbs of CO2.

Spatchcocked turkey

The recipe for spatchcocked turkey brings us back to the oven, but with the distinct (and intentional) advantage of a greatly reduced cooking time compared with the other methods. The 15 pound turkey will cook in the oven at 450oF for 85 minutes, after 15 minutes of preheating, for a total oven use time of 1 hour 40 minutes.
Electric oven:
Reusing our electric oven assumptions, 1 hour and 40 minutes of 2.0 kW power usage means the spatchcocked turkey will require about 3.3 kWh of energy. At 1.096 lbs of CO2 per kWh, that means the recipe accounts for about 3.6 lbs of CO2.
Gas oven:
If instead the spatchcocked turkey is cooked in a gas oven, which uses 0.112 therms of gas per hour, the energy use of this recipe would be about 5.5 kWh, while the CO2 emissions associated with this cooking process would be 2.2 lbs.

Sous vide turkey

Last but not least is the sous vide turkey, which requires the use of an immersion sous vide immersion circulator for 2 hours 30 minutes (after a 15 minute preheat time). Given that the power rating of a sous vide from Williams Sonoma (the source of our recipe) is 1,100 W and the total operating time is 2 hours 45 minutes, the electricity use comes out to about 3.0 kWh. At 1.096 lbs of CO2 per kWh, that means the sous vide turkey accounts for about 3.3 lbs of CO2.

Graphical results and conclusions

With all those calculations and assumptions out of the way, we can finally look at all the results in one table:

Click to enlarge

These numbers can also be displayed graphically to show the overall level of ‘green-ness’ of each cooking method:

Click to enlarge

Looking at these results, there are a number of points of interest and interesting conclusions to draw:
  •  In terms of the amount of CO2 emissions, the two options that use charcoal (smoked in a charcoal smoker and grilled on a charcoal grill) are by far the greatest emitters. This result shouldn’t be surprising, as charcoal (with anthracite coal as one of its ingredients) is one of the more carbon intensive fuels you can use in your homes. However it is interesting to note that, despite their higher CO2 emissions, they are in the same ballpark in terms of energy use as the other cooking methods. This result shows how charcoal is an efficient fuel source, it just happens to also be dirty.
  • In terms of the total energy use, the two options that use propane (deep fried and grilled on propane grill) require the greatest energy. The higher energy needed is likely due to the cooking source being less efficient than others, with gas/propane burners typically being only 40% efficient with the remaining 60% of energy output being lost to heating the surrounding air or as visible light.
  • The two best cooking methods in terms of both minimal energy use and CO2 emissions are the sous vide turkey and the spatchcocked turkey (in either a gas or electric oven). The reason these reign supreme is telling, and different for the two of them.
    • For the sous vide turkey, the turkey is vacuum sealed and cooked in heated water the size of a typical pot. The result is that a smaller volume has to be heated up when compared with a larger oven, deep fryer, smoker, or grill that needs to heat up and keep heated the larger surrounding area. By focusing the heat in a smaller area, the total energy use is greatly reduced. In all cooking, the smaller the area you are heating up the more energy efficient the cooking process will be, which is why it is actually advisable to cook using smaller, dedicated appliances (e.g., toaster ovens, panini press, etc.) than to use the oven or stovetop for everything.
    • For the spatchcocked turkey, the reduced energy use and associated CO2 emissions is simply attributed to the largely reduced cooking time. Outside of the deep fried recipe, which uses the aforementioned inefficient propane, the spatchcocked recipe is the only one that takes under two hours of cooking. Obviously, the less time you have to have your appliances working, the less energy you’ll use. So while spatchcocking may have become popular due to the convenience of reduced cooking time, the relative efficiency is also among its virtues.
  • When comparing the recipes that use either the gas oven or the electric oven, the final figures show that the gas ovens use more energy but emit less CO2. What is important to note about the CO2 difference, however, is that the numbers are based on the average U.S. figure for CO2 emitted per kWh. This number can vary greatly depending on your power company and where you live. For example, if you live in Vermont then your power likely comes from a greater proportion of renewable energy than in other states, which would reduce the relative CO2 emissions of your electric oven. Of course the opposite is true if your power company uses more coal in its fuel mix than the national average.
  • One last point is that the relative energy use here does not correlate to the relative cost to the consumer for preparing the turkey. Certain fuel types are much cheaper than others, which is part of the reason they are popular to use in the first place. For example, just because grilling by propane uses almost six times the energy as grilling by charcoal, the relative prices of the fuels actually results in grilling by gas being less costly per hour for a consumer.

According to the National Turkey Federation, 46 million turkeys are roasted each Thanksgiving. Various outlets have attempted to estimate the actual energy use of those turkeys cooked in aggregate, with answers ranging from 48 million kWh to 792 million kWh (quite a wide range, showing just how uncertain the true number is). Using the numbers calculated here, if all 46 million turkeys were cooked sous vide then that would be 138 million kWh, whereas if they were all grilled on a propane grill then that would be over 1.5 billion kWh. Concerning CO2 emissions, the 46 million turkeys could account for 152 million lbs (sous vide) or over 4 billion lbs (grilled on charcoal grill)– for context, a passenger vehicle emits about 10,000 lbs of CO2 per year. That’s all to say, the small decisions everybody makes individually can add up to make a large difference in total energy use or CO2 emitted– even when talking turkey.

In the end, though, there isn’t too much reason for you to stress. There are plenty of methods you can use to cut down on energy use while cooking if you choose to do so(see some examples here and here, or you can even invest in a solar cooker that uses just the sun and reflectors to cook at temperatures up to 400oF!). But again, the overall energy use on Thanksgiving is lower than the average Thursday. It’s a time to relax and be grateful, not necessarily to measure out your exact briquettes to minimize energy spent. But you can come to the Thanksgiving table with some of these fun facts handy to impress your family, just be sure to praise the cooking of the chef first– he or she spent plenty of time making that dinner!

Have a happy Thanksgiving!

Sources and additional reading

About the author: Matt Chester is an energy analyst in Washington DC, studied engineering and science & technology policy at the University of Virginia, and operates this blog and website to share news, insights, and advice in the fields of energy policy, energy technology, and more. For more quick hits in addition to posts on this blog, follow him on Twitter @ChesterEnergy.  

Solar Power and Wineries: A Match Made in Heaven…and California

As the amount of power generation from solar energy continues to rise in the United States, more and more businesses are realizing the benefits of utilizing solar energy on their own properties. This type of small-scale solar generation is rising across industrial and commercial sectors, and no where is it more prevalent than in California, home of 43% of the nation’s small-scale solar output in 2016. California also leads the nation in another crucial area– wine production! If California were its own country, it would be the fourth largest producer of wine, accounting for 90% of wine produced in the United States.

Seeing as California tops the list in solar power and wineries, it only makes sense that vineyards in the state have been rapidly adopting the renewable energy source on their properties. Exactly how much solar power is being captured on these wineries, and what wineries are doing the most to implement solar systems? This article will answer those questions. Also, I’ll be the first to admit that I’m more of a beer drinker than a wine connoisseur (see this write up on which breweries use the most renewable energy), but the last part of this article outlines a California wine road trip that hits the top 10 wineries by solar energy capacity that has me already looking at flights to the West Coast.



Why solar and why California wineries?

Many wineries across the country and the world, not just in California, have realized the benefits of solar power and installed solar systems to meet part of or all of their energy needs. For example, Lakewood Vineyards in New York,Tenuta Delleterre Nere in Sicily, and Domaine d Nidoleres in France have all installed solar power systems on their wineries.
But this article focuses just on those wineries with solar power in California, as it is the region foremost afforded with the scale, climate, and policy to really promote both the solar and wine industries.

Solar power in California

California is not the only state to be embracing solar power at breakneck speeds, but there are a number of reasons why the state was always primed to become the nation’s leader. California tops the United States as a solar energy generator  so much, in fact, that it’s had to pay other states to take the excess generated power off its hands. California’s dominance in solar power can be attributed to the following:

Wineries in California

California is obviously also not the only state in the wine business, but it completely dominates the U.S wine industry in terms of volume of wine produced, as well as reputation for quality. Not only does 90% of total U.S. wine come from California, but the quality of California wine is considered today to be at it’s highest ever stature in quality according to many experts. The modern boom of the California wine industry has a number of causes, including the following:

Putting the solar and wine industries together

When you look at the massive advantages California has when it comes to cultivating a solar power sector and a wine industry, having the two fields overlap appears to be an obvious marriage throughout the state. Fortunately, the integration of solar power into winemaking is a natural fit.

With California being such a hospitable region for both solar power and winery, the logical question becomes how can the two be combined into a symbiotic and fruitful relationship. Wineries have been installing and taking advantage of solar power for years now due to the various benefits it provides the winery business. Fetzer Vineyards has run on 100% renewable energy since 1999, while Shafer Vineyards have fulfilled all their energy needs with solar power since 2004.
In terms of why solar power works perfectly as a energy source at wineries and related facilities, there are a number of reasons. For one, solar panel technology is at its most efficient at about 77 degrees Fahrenheit and can absorb sunlight even on cloudy days— this warm/temperate climate that optimizes solar technologies also happens to be the right weather in which to grow wine grapes. Beyond that, wineries are operations that typically have a large footprint, making it easier to find area on roofs or in fields on which to place solar panels compared with non-agricultural industries. This abundant availability of solar panels at wineries means that the energy gathered from the sun can be used to power all sorts of facilities of wineries– the primary residence, workshops, tasting rooms, offices, industrial equipment, and more.
Not only does solar work better on wineries than many other industries, but it also provides some unique benefits to those wineries that go out of the way to install solar power systems. The technology itself is reliable for extended periods of time (warranties last 20 to 25 years, while the life of service is 40 to 50 years), with economics so good that wineries have the ability to earn a 20% return on investment in solar panels. In fact, the solar power haul at some wineries can sometimes be even more than is needed to run the winery, allowing these lucky business-owners to sell it back to utilities (though this type of net metering finds itself the subject of heated policy debate these days). Because of this, the technology is even being developed for on-site microgrids designed for self-consumption, load shifting, and peak shaving.
Beyond all that, those who work in the wine business have a personal stake in increasing the use of renewable energy sources in order to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing climate change. Wine grape vines are very sensitive to changes in temperature that climate change would bring, not to mention the difficulty faced by all agricultural businesses as a result of extreme weather and droughts, while the recent wildfires in California (which are more prone to happen as climate change continues) show the devastation that such fires can cause to the wine industry. It behooves the wine industry to embrace clean technologies wherever and whenever possible.

List of California wineries using solar power

Because of all these stated advantages, California wineries are absolute leaders in embracing solar technology. After extensive research and reaching out to individual wineries, I’ve put together the below list of 132 wineries across the state taking advantage of solar power. The capacity of these solar systems range from 2 kilowatts (kW) to well over 1 megawatt (MW), showing that all ranges of sizes are options depending on the level of commitment a winery is ready to make. Taken together, these wineries have a total peak solar capacity of 27.8 MW– which is a greater capacity of solar power than the total electric power industry in 15 different states as of 2015!
So if you’re like me and you have a difficult time at the wine store knowing what wine to buy because you don’t really know what to look for, you can now keep this list handy to support a winery that incorporates clean and renewable solar energy into its operations!
It’s worth noting that there are sure to be plenty of California wineries using solar power that are not included in the above table. Any winery that is listed in one of the cited resources as having an installed solar system but did not include its capacity was not included in the list, as these capacities are crucial to the later analysis of this article (this includes any wineries I reached out to but didn’t hear back from). There are also surely wineries that are using solar that don’t advertise it anywhere, or they do advertise it and my search failed to find it. If you’re aware of any wineries that should be included on this list but are not, please leave a comment below!

Quality and price of wines from California solar wineries

Beyond just finding and ranking the capacity of solar energy systems at various wineries, I thought it would be interesting to take each solar winery and compare them based on a noteworthy wine they produce. With that in mind, each solar winery in the previous list was paired up with the best wine it has (according to the top rating a wine of theirs received from Wine Enthusiast Magazine) along with that wine’s rating and price (both also according to Wine Enthusiast Magazine). That process led to the below table (note that some wineries from the first list are not included in this list because none of their wines showed up in Wine Enthusiast Magazine’s ratings).

 

It’s hard to really abstract anything by looking at that in list form. Instead, we can then take that list and look graphically at the solar capacity of a winery and the rating of it’s best wine:
The same can be done to compare the solar capacity of a winery and the cost of it’s best wine:

Looking at these graphical representations, you can see that its not just niche wineries that are embracing solar energy. Every sort of price range and a whole range of sophistication and repute of wine has a wine that comes from wineries with solar installations, both large and small in capacity. The solar capacity of the wineries does not say anything about the wine produced at that winery– the installation of solar cuts across all sorts of vineyards. This shows that there should be no reason solar power at wineries cannot continue to grow to new wineries and expand capacity at wineries already with solar.

Where are solar wineries located in California?

Another interesting data point for each of these wineries is the region of California they are in. The separation of the various areas of California into its wine regions is sometimes a bit of a tricky exercise, with some well-known regions being sub-regions to others, the existence of some gray areas, and different wine region names depending being used depending on the resource being referenced. For the sake of this exercise, I will be using the following five main wine regions of California (recognizing they can and often do get broken down even further into smaller regions):
  • North Coast
  • Sierra Foothills
  • Central Coast
  • Central Valley
  • South Coast
These five regions are found in the following maps:

Source 1 Source 2

Before analyzing each region as a whole, the below graphic shows each city/town in California where the cumulative solar capacity at wineries is above 500 kW. The size of the circles are proportional to the total capacity. Using this visualization, you can already see where the most solar capacity is concentrated, in the North Coast and Central Coast.
If you then total up the capacity for each of the five major wine regions in California, you get the following graph:
This could be a misrepresentation of how dedicated each region is to solar, however, as all the regions are not the same size. It could just be that the North Coast has the most wineries (which it does), but a lower percentage of them are utilizing solar. To test this, the total solar capacity of wineries in each region is divided by the total acreage of planted wine grape vines in that region:
The result is that the North Coast is still the region with the greatest concentration of solar capacity per acreage of winery, still followed by Central Coast (though it’s a more distant second), and then the Sierra Foothills get a boost (while still remaining in third place). In either graph, Central Valley and South Coast lag way behind in fourth and fifth, respectively.

Road Trip

The last piece of analyzing the solar wineries in California I wanted to look at was putting together an epic road trip of California wine country that enables you to hit up the wineries in the state that use the most solar power. Thanks to Google Maps, I was able to find a route that takes you across 372 miles over the course of 6 hours and 47 minutes and visits the top ten wineries in terms of solar power capacity. If you’ve always wanted to tour the best wineries and vineyards that California has to offer, but didn’t know where to start, then look no further!
The first day of the trip can take you to Meridian Vineyards, Estancia Estates Winery, and Carmel Road Monterey with only a bit over two hours of driving total, enabling you to see over 3 MW of solar powered winery. On the next day, after driving about three hours to get to the next batch of wineries, you’ll find yourself at the remaining seven wineries– total capacity exceeding 7 MW– that are within an hour and a half total drive from each other.
If you’re interested in driving this solar winery route (or maybe paying someone to drive you on this winery route– it is TEN wineries, after all), see the Google Maps route linked below.
 

Sources and additional reading

Solar Energy in the Winemaking Industry: Green Energy and Technology (Preview of book herelink to purchase book here)
About the author: Matt Chester is an energy analyst in Washington DC, studied engineering and science & technology policy at the University of Virginia, and operates this blog and website to share news, insights, and advice in the fields of energy policy, energy technology, and more. For more quick hits in addition to posts on this blog, follow him on Twitter @ChesterEnergy.  

Energy Efficiency in the NFL: Declaring a Champion

The National Football League (NFL) has been making immense strides towards implementing strategies for energy efficiency and sustainability in recent years, recognizing the money that could be saved on stadium power bills as well as the influence of being stewards of environmentally friendly practices (taking a page out of the books of the number of beers brewed with renewable energy that are served in NFL stadiums!). Whether these efforts are marked by using recycled materials or installing solar panels in stadiums, sponsoring events for the recycling of electronic waste, or using interactive digital media guides instead of printed guides, it seems that NFL teams are constantly working to one-up each other for the title of greenest, most energy-efficient team.

So why keep that hypothetical?!

What if the 2017-18 NFL season played out according to the teams who performed best on a (admittedly pretty arbitrary) ‘green scale?’ That’s exactly what I do in this article, playing out the whole 16 game schedule for all NFL teams, making my way through the playoffs, and ultimately declaring a Super-Efficient Bowl Champion!



Methodology and rankings

A note before starting—this analysis is pretty subjective, could go any number of ways depending on types of data chosen to analyze, and is merely meant to be a fun exercise praising teams who have put effort into energy efficiency. Nothing is meant to be taken overly serious, so don’t be offended if your team rates lowly or there are certain energy efficiency efforts of your team I was unaware of and thus didn’t account for. That said, if there’s additional interesting information I haven’t captured, please do let me know in the comments!

To play out the season, several pieces of data were gathered and then quantified for each team to determine which team was the most efficient. A team’s efficiency score comprised the following:

  1. The 2017 City Energy Efficiency Score of each team’s home city, as determined by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE);
  2. The level of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification achieved by a team’s home stadium, as determined by the United States Green Building Council (USGBC), or, when LEED certification was not reached, the presence (or lack thereof) of significant sustainability practices at the stadium;
  3. The total round trip distance traveled by the team during the 2017-18 season to all eight of its away games; and
  4. The distance to a team’s stadium from the geographic center of the home city.

These various factors are normalized on a scale of 0 to 100 to determine a team’s efficiency score.

To make things more interesting than just having a single list of teams ranked from 1 to 32 of most-efficient scoring to least efficient-efficient scoring (and thus making the ultimate champion obvious before the games are even played out), each team is awarded a ‘Home-Efficiency Score’ (HES) and an ‘Away-Efficiency Score’ (AES). The 2017 City Energy Efficiency Score and the LEED certification factor into both the HES and AES, however the round trip distance traveled (which pertains to teams traveling to their away games) only factors in to the AES, while the distance to a team’s stadium from the city’s geographic center  (which pertains to the average distance home-team fans are likely to travel to watch a home game) only factors into the HES.

As such, the HES is the simple average of above factors 1, 2, and 4, while the AES is the simple average of above factors 1, 2, and 3.

1. 2017 City Energy Efficiency Score

Again, these scores are on a scale of 0 to 100 and are awarded by ACEEE. In determining the City Energy Efficiency Score, ACEEE takes into account local government operations, community-wide initiatives, buildings policies, energy and water utilities, and transportation policies.

Most NFL teams either play in or clearly represent one of the cities that is scored by ACEEE in this annual list. However, there were a few notable exceptions that had to be addressed separately:

  • The Packers play and represent Green Bay, Wisconsin. Green Bay is an extremely small city compared with typical cities with professional sports teams,and wasn’t on the list. The city of Milwaukee, Wisconsin was used from the ACEEE score card due to it being the closest major metropolitan area to Green Bay and the high concentration of Packers fans throughout the state of Wisconsin.
  • The Raiders play and represent Oakland, California (though they are soon moving to Las Vegas, Nevada—but that is for another season so it won’t affect their 2017 score). With Oakland not in the ACEEE list, the next best city to use was San Francisco, California due to the proximity of these metropolitan areas.
  • The Bills play and represent Buffalo, New York. There were no representative cities in the ACEEE scorecard in the Upstate New York region. This analysis used ended up using the average of all NFL cities since it seemed fair to avoid rewarding or punishing Buffalo for the lack of data on its performance and instead award it a middle of the pack rating.

The following table summarizes the scores received for each of the 32 NFL teams based on the ACEEE score of their designated cities:

Click to enlarge.

2. Stadium LEED certification or other initiatives

While an NFL team might not have much it can do to influence its city’s ACEEE City Energy Efficiency Score, one thing they can control is how energy efficient their stadium is. Each team will typically play eight games in their home stadium during the course of an NFL season (more if you count preseason and playoffs). Football teams sometimes fall under more scrutiny for the sustainability (or lack thereof) of their stadiums compared with other sports that have dozens of home games per year, because so much land and so many resources are being used for the bigger football stadiums that get used a fraction of the time.

Such factors make the energy efficiency and general sustainability of football stadiums more crucial, and in recent years there have been a handful of stadiums that have pursued LEED certification for their stadiums. LEED is a program from the USGBC that certifies all sorts of buildings, including stadiums, based on their design, construction, operation, and maintenance. New buildings often strive to be LEED certified before blueprints are even drawn up, though existing buildings can also be retrofitted to comply and be certified as a LEED building.

Based on the points awarded (out of a possible 100), buildings can be classified as:

  • 40-49 points is LEED Certified;
  • 50-59 points is LEED Silver;
  • 60-79 points is LEED Gold; and
  • 80-100 points is LEED Platinum.

These 100 possible points are awarded based on the categories of Location & Transportation, Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Energy & Atmosphere, Materials & Resources, and Indoor Environmental Quality, and Innovation in Design. There are an additional 10 points that can be earned based on Regional Priority and Innovation.

As such, the points awarded in this analysis to NFL stadiums that are LEED certified will correlate with the minimum points necessary to reach that level of certification (e.g, a team with a LEED Silver stadium will be awarded 50 points). Additionally, many stadiums do have significant sustainability efforts in their stadiums but they have not yet pursued or achieved LEED status. To give due credit to these initial steps, stadiums who are found to have other efficiency and sustainability initiatives at their stadiums will be awarded 10 points (representing the additional 10 points LEED makes awardable outside of the base 100 points).

The following table summarizes the scores received for each of the 32 NFL teams based on the LEED certification or sustainability initiatives found for their stadiums*:

Click to enlarge.

*The sources for all of these stadium initiatives can be found in the ‘Sources and additional reading’ section at the end of the article. One stadium worth noting is the AT&T Stadium of the Dallas Cowboys. It is possible to find literature citing that they are aiming to reduce energy use by 20% per year, they were still counted without any major initiatives. The reason for this is because any concrete completed projects towards this goal could not be identified, in addition to the fact that at peak draw the energy-use starting point was using three times the amount of energy the whole nation of Liberia can produce—this idea makes it hard to award points just yet until the stated goals are realized.

3. Total round trip distance traveled to away games

Another large energy expense of every NFL team is that amount of travel required for each team to go to each of its away games. Some teams are centrally located compared with their common opponents and thus able to take buses or trains, while other teams find themselves in cross country trips several times a year that require the use of a privately chartered airplane. The traveling process varies team-by-team, but the total number of people traveling to each game ranges from 135 to 200, bringing with them up to 16,000 pounds of equipment (which will travel by 18-wheeler truck for all but the longest of trips). Most traveling is done by privately chartered planes, at a costs high enough that the Patriots found it cost-effective to become the first team to own their own team planes.

All of these factors use up a massive amount of transportation fuel, and the best proxy available for how much energy each team’s travel will account for in the 2017 season is to look at who is traveling the furthest distance to games away from their home stadium (accounting for traditional away games in other teams’ stadiums as well as any games taking place at a third location, such as a number of games taking place in England during the 2017 season).

The following table summarizes the total travel miles for each of the 32 NFL teams during the 2017 season, as well as a score normalized out of 100—where 0 represents the number of miles traveled by the team with the most road miles and 100 representing a hypothetical team that would travel zero total miles:

Click to enlarge.

4. Distance from city center to stadium

The last factor considered in this analysis examines how far fans would have to travel to get to a home game of their favorite NFL team. While the ideal data for this would be to find the average distance that fans who bought tickets, or even just season ticket holders, lived from the stadium of their team. Unfortunately, this type of data set does not seem readily available. Instead, a proxy for this distance traveled that was used in a 2014 analysis I came across was the distance from the city center of each team’s implied/representative city and its stadium. This data (which I have updated for stadiums or teams that have moved since that analysis) would give a rough idea how much (and what type of) game day travel is needed by an average fan in that city—whether they would have to use a lot of fuel drive a long distance (because their beloved San Francisco 49ers are actually 43 miles away in Santa Clara) or if they could walk or use more efficient public transportation to get to their local team (such as the New Orleans Saints who are positioned a mere half mile from city center and the typical pre-game restaurants and bars of their avid fans).

The following table summarizes the distance from city center to stadium for each of the 32 NFL teams, as well as a score normalized out of 100—where 0 represents the number of miles of the stadium that’s furthest from its implied city center and 100 representing a hypothetical team that would travel zero total miles:

Click to enlarge.

 

Putting together these four factors as described earlier the following final scores for each team’s efficiency at home (HES) and away (AES):

Click to enlarge.

Notes on methodology

Before playing out the 2017 NFL season using these Home and Away Efficiency Scores to determine the winner of all 256 regular season matchups, a couple of notes about the methodology used:

  • The average HES is 50.5 while the average AES is 37.6. This setup clearly favors the average home team in each matchup, due to the fact that the ‘city center to stadium distance’ scores are significantly higher than the ‘road miles traveled’ scores.’ This fact is seen as realistic, since in any given NFL game the home team is more likely to win (an average 3 point swing is given to the home team in an NFL game by sports odds makers).
  • There are some clear favorites heading into the season, as the HES of the several of the teams with LEED stadiums have a HES higher than the AES of every team, while a number of teams at the bottom of the AES ranking have scores so low they can’t beat the HES of any team.
  • Through it all, this is an inherently silly but fun exercise. We could instead just assign point values for all the sorts of factors an NFL team can control and declare the top 10 teams in those rankings—but isn’t it more fun to be a bit arbitrary and go through to declare a champion? Read on if you think so!

Regular season results

I used the NFL Playoff Predictor tool to plug in the results of all of the regular season matchups of the 2017 NFL schedule. This tool then uses the NFL’s rules to determine what teams make the playoffs and in what seeds.

You can see a saved version of what this played regular season would look like on a game-by-game process by following this link, but the final standings for the playoffs come out as follows:

Source

It is worth noting that after the first 7 weeks of the NFL season, the results based on this scoring system were already incorrect 52% of the time. But nonetheless, we have our twelve playoff teams in the Baltimore Ravens, New York Jets, Denver Broncos, Tennessee Titans, Pittsburgh Steelers, and New England Patriots representing the AFC, while the Atlanta Falcons, Chicago Bears, Philadelphia Eagles, Minnesota Vikings, and New York Giants represent the NFC.

By highlighting the playoff teams in the below table, we can find out what carried teams to the playoffs and what caused teams to miss the playoffs:

Click to enlarge.

A few things stick out:

  • The Tennessee Titans and Atlanta Falcons were the only team that overcame a below average ACEEE score to make the playoffs, with the Titans seeming to rely on their extremely high city center to stadium distance score and the Falcons were carried by their new stadium being the only one certified as LEED Platinum while also being so close to city center.
  • Every team that has some sort of LEED certification on their stadium had enough of a leg up to make the playoffs. Further, no teams that had zero points from the lack of any significant energy initiative ended up making the playoffs.
  • Half of the playoff teams that scored below average on the road miles traveled, while one third of the playoff teams scored below average on city center to stadium distance (including the San Francisco 49ers who’s stadium is the furthest from city center, but luckily for them was certified as LEED Gold).

Playoffs

Playing through the first three rounds of the playoffs, we’ll continue to use the NFL Playoff Predictor tool and our HES and AES figures, as teams with a higher playoff seed still host the games.

Wildcard Round

Source

The Wildcard Round finds the Broncos, Steelers, Vikings, and Eagles moving on to meet the top four seeds from the regular season.

Divisional Round

Source

The Divisional Round finds all four home teams, bolstered by their LEED certified stadiums that aren’t too far from city center, advancing to the Conference Championships.

Conference Championship

Source

The pre-season favorites in the Baltimore Ravens and the Atlanta Falcons advance to the Super-Efficient Bowl. Both of these teams are carried by the energy efficiency and the central location of their stadiums, as the ACEEE score for both Baltimore and Atlanta are average while they also have significant road miles traveled as they are both on the East Coast and find themselves traveling to the Midwest and the West Coast.

Super-Efficient Bowl

Again, the two teams left standing at this point are the ones with the highest level of LEED certification on their stadiums, and they both come into this game with compelling story lines.

For the Atlanta Falcons, this marks a return to the Super Bowl after being victims of the largest comeback in Super Bowl history last year. However, last year they had not yet opened the Mercedes-Benz Stadium—the LEED Platinum certification of which propelled them back to the big game. Is this bump in sustainability enough to overcome the ghosts of last year’s devastating loss? Was the missing ingredient to last year’s team a stadium that set the bar as far as energy-efficient stadiums go?

For the Baltimore Ravens, the last time they were in the Super Bowl was five years ago—and this was a notable game in the energy world. It was this Super Bowl where the a power outage caused a half hour stoppage in play, the cause of which was later discovered to be a recently installed relay that was actually supposed to prevent just such a blackout. This lack of energy did not derail the Ravens, as they won the game with a goal line stand towards the end of the fourth quarter. Perhaps this caused a realization that they could win it all even without energy pumping into the stadium, as it was the following season that M&T Bank Stadium, home of the Ravens, earned LEED Gold certification. But that LEED Gold Certification is no longer the gold standard in the NFL, with their opponents only this year achieving LEED Platinum.

How will this play out?!

For the Super-Efficient Bowl, since neither team is playing at its home stadium, we should determine an efficiency score without the home or away components. That means the score of the Super-Efficient Bowl will be determined by the average of ACEEE City Score and LEED Points awarded. Using that as a basis we find a champion and final score to the inaugural Super-Efficient Bowl to be….

Source

 

 

The Atlanta Falcons have received redemption and won the Super-Efficient Bowl! Despite Baltimore jumping out to an early lead with a higher ACEEE City Energy Efficiency score, but it wasn’t enough to hold back Atlanta with their state-of-the-art LEED Platinum stadium. Let the confetti rain down (but make sure it’s made of recycled paper)!

Conclusion

Because of the year-to-year volatility of several of the metrics used to determine the energy-efficient winners, anyone could come out of the pack to take the title of Super-Efficient Bowl Champion next year. As shown by Atlanta and Baltimore’s success in this inaugural season, though, the key is to get a LEED certified stadium and to locate it as close as possible to the center of your city. The number of LEED stadiums has grown to account for almost 20% of stadiums in the NFL, and that’s after the first one was certified only six years ago. More and more teams seem to be finding the value of a LEED stadium, and now maybe the Super-Efficient Bowl will prompt more to join the trend.

And best of luck to the Dallas Cowboys, who finished last in the league. Worry not, they’ll be awarded the first draft pick in next year’s draft—which maybe they can spend on the top prospect in energy-efficiency!

Sources and additional reading

Can Stadium Sports Really Be Green? Mother Jones

Chiefs Focus on Solar Energy Solution: Chiefs

Cleveland Browns Begin Initiative to Convert Food Waste Into Energy: Waste Today

Does Cowboys Stadium Use More Energy on Gameday Than Liberia? Sports Grid

Eagles & Ravens Receive LEED Certification Just in Time for Greenbuild Conference: Green Sports Alliance

Going Long and Going Green: How the NFL is Embracing Sustainability: Georgetown

Guide to LEED Certification: United States Green Building Council

How AEG Is Bringing Energy Storage To LA’s StubHub Center With Tesla Powerpacks: SportTechie

LEDs Take Over Tampa Bay’s NFL Stadium: Facilitiesnet

LEED Certified Green Building: Soldier Field

LG Electronics and Nissan Stadium Win Big in LED Lighting Overhaul: PR Newswire

Levi’s Stadium Achieves LEED Gold Certification for Operations and Maintenance of an Existing Building: Levi’s Stadium

Los Angeles Coliseum “Modernizes” With Zero Waste: Green Sports Alliance

Mercedes-Benz Stadium, Falcons’ new home, to sport state-of-the-art sustainability: USA Today

NFL Stadiums Attempt to Lower Energy Costs: 24 of the Most Energy Efficient Stadiums in the League: Electric Choice

Patriots Become 1st NFL Franchise to Buy a Team Plane: Bleacher Report

Planes, Trains and Automobiles: Truths About Traveling in the NFL: Bleacher Report

Playoff Predictors

Seahawks To Travel Sixth-Most Road Miles in NFL In 2017: Seahawks

Some NFL Teams Are Going Green: Wall Street Journal

Super Bowl LII E-Waste Recycling Rally: MN Superbowl

Team travel directors preparing as if there will be a 2011 season: NFL

The 2017 City Energy Efficiency Scorecard: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy

“Timing is everything”: Behind the scenes of an NFL team’s travel day: CBS News

U.S. Bank Stadium goes for the green: Finance & Commerce

Which NFL Stadiums Are The Most Convenient To Drive To: Deadspin

 

About the author: Matt Chester is an energy analyst in Washington DC, studied engineering and science & technology policy at the University of Virginia, and operates this blog and website to share news, insights, and advice in the fields of energy policy, energy technology, and more. For more quick hits in addition to posts on this blog, follow him on Twitter @ChesterEnergy.  

What is the most climate friendly way to light your Jack-O’-Lantern?

The truest sign to me that Autumn has arrived isn’t the changing of the leaves, the advent of sweater weather, or even the pumpkin spice lattes everywhere you look. The real sign of the Fall season in my life is when the seasonal sections of Target fills up with Halloween costumes, decorations, candy, and trinkets. On my recent trip to this holiday mecca, I was looking at the decorations– specifically the little lights that are meant to go into jack-o’-lanterns instead of candles– and realized the sustainability factor for these decorations has not become nearly as pervasive as it has for Christmas lights (which now commonly advertise how efficient they are on the front of the package). After a bit of research, it appeared that this topic had not garnered any real investigations. Being ever the energy-conscious consumer, I could not let that stand!

What follows is some ‘back of the envelope’ type number crunching to figure out the most efficient and green option for illuminating your carved pumpkins. Very specific data is not really available, so there are certainly some liberties taken. However just for the sake of finding ballpark answers, I’ll hope this slight lack of statistical rigor is found acceptable. But if the Senate and Natural Resources Committee is looking to tackle the issue, then this will be a good starting point.



Background

One of the main differences between Christmas lights and Halloween pumpkin lights that changes how the market approaches them is surely that Christmas lights get plugged into an outlet. Families with large Christmas light displays will see a noticeable bump in their monthly power bill, making the efficiency of these lights more present in the forefront of their minds. However, jack-o’-lanterns are instead lit up with either candles or lights that use portable, disposable batteries. Not only does this fact (and the relative smallness of pumpkin lights compared with full house Christmas lights) reduce the necessity of efficiency to most people, but it also makes efficiency calculations more difficult to come by. The power of the lights come either from the candle itself or from portable batteries, the comparison becomes fairly difficult.
But wait!
The choice of what to light your pumpkin up with is tied pretty strongly with a debate that arises every Earth Hour (an event organized where everyone turns off their lights for one full hour to symbolically support climate change and energy reduction efforts)– and that debate is whether candles, as a form of fossil fuels, actually end up emitting more carbon dioxide (CO2) than the electricity to power light bulbs do. Without jumping too deep into that issue, the point is that while candles do not require any electricity, they do release CO2 into the atmosphere (depending on the specific type of candle).
That being the case, it seems that comparing the CO2 emissions tied with various jack-o’-lantern lighting sources might be the easiest and most digestible exercise in determining the ‘greenest’ pumpkin lighting method.

Jack-O-‘Lantern Lighting Options

Real candles

  • Traditionally, jack-o’-lanterns were lit up exclusively by candles. The idea of candles in jack-o’-lanterns is so ingrained in people’s minds that the artificial lights often include a ‘flicker’ to mimic the actual look of candles. Because of this, the baseline lighting source is the traditional and widely-available paraffin candle. These candles are found at virtually any store that sells candles, and are created from a by-product of the refining of crude oil (hence their CO2 emissions).

  • As people became more environment- and health-conscious, alternative types of candles that did not emit the pollutants of traditional paraffin candles became more popular. So a second alternative are more the more eco-friendly soy or beeswax candles.

Artificial lights- for these I’ll find a sample of flameless artificial lights that are readily available on Amazon.com and cover a variety of options for the batteries that power them

Calculations

Again I just want to stress that what’s about to take place are rough calculations that should not be taken as 100% accurate, but rather to gain a general idea of the scale of CO2 emissions for each of these pumpkin lighting sources (wow it’s hard to try and sound scientific and serious while typing that phrase…). With that said, here’s a look at the back of the envelope on which these calculations were done:
Real Candles
For paraffin candles, considered the standard and classic candle with which to light up a jack-o’-lantern, a number of sources cite a figure of about 10 grams of CO2 released per hour of candle burn, so that is the number we will go with. For these candles, we’ll also ignore the CO2 emissions associated with the production and transportation of the candles because 1) paraffin is a by-product of various petroleum refining processes, meaning if not used then the material would go into the waste stream, 2) the low cost of the product suggests that the energy used to produce and transport them (called embodied energy) will be relatively low compared with the tangible CO2 released in burning, and 3) data for such questions is not readily available.
 
Paraffin candle CO2 emissions: 10 grams of CO2 per hour of candle burn
On the other hand, beeswax or soy candles (the touted green alternative) are often considered carbon-neutral. This assumption is made despite the fact that they do also release CO2 when they are burned, as the released CO2 was recently absorbed by plants in the atmosphere (which was transferred by a bee to the beeswax used in those candles, or was still in the soy used for soy candles). In these instances, common practice is to not count such CO2 emissions, as they used CO2 that was in the atmosphere and will cyclically release it back, as opposed to fossil fuels (such as those in paraffin) that are releasing CO2 that had long been stored in oil reserves underground. We’ll again ignore the CO2 emissions associated with the production and transportation of the candles because 1) beeswax and soy plants are both renewable sources for material, 2) the low cost of the products suggests the embodied energy, and thus associated emissions, are relatively low (especially if these candles are bought locally, as they are commonly found at farmer’s markets and the like), and 3) we don’t have such data available.
 
Beeswax/soy candle CO2 emissions: 0 grams of CO2 per hour of candle burn
Artificial Lights
Each of the three artificial light options found, their equivalent CO2 emitted per hour of use will be calculated based on the batteries required to run them. Making the comparison this way will require a number of generous assumptions (back of the envelope here, don’t forget!):
  • The associated CO2 we’ll look at is only coming from the batteries used to power the light, not the construction or transportation of the light itself. Again, the data to find the CO2 associated with producing/transporting the light is not easy to find– but moreso, we’ll assume that the lights will be used year after year, thus minimizing how much CO2 per hour would end up being.
  • The California government sponsored a study on the emissions associated with producing alkaline batteries, one of the conclusions of which was that the CO2-equivalent produced for primary batteries was about 9 kilograms (kg) per kg of battery produced. This figure assumes that batteries are single use (either thrown in the trash or recycled after use) and accounts for the energy needed to store power in the batteries that will eventually add a sparkle to the eye of your jack-o’-lantern. We’ll use this number, combined with the weight of the batteries for the lights and the lifetime of that battery, to find the CO2 per hour of use associated with the lights.
  • Assumptions will be made on how long the batteries will last in these lights, using either the product’s page or a best guess based on battery capacity and typical drain.
  • Additionally, we’re assuming the use of the typical disposable batteries– any rechargeable batteries would throw off the calculation, but this analysis won’t go there.

Combine these artificial lights with the real candle options, and the final values for the five options in terms of associated CO2 released per hour of jack-o’-lantern operation is as follows:

Or in graphical form:Click to enlarge.

Very obviously, the environmentally friendly soy or beeswax candles that account for no CO2 release in their production or burning are going to come out on top here. But what might surprise you is that the options that use batteries come out significantly ahead of the typical paraffin candle. While the industrial production of the batteries to power the artificial lights (and even if you add in a fudge factor to account for the production of the artificial light itself) seems like it would obviously be energy-intensive and account for greenhouse gases, the less obvious fact of paraffin candles outdoing that by direct emissions is not as clear until you look into the numbers specifically.

Conclusion

In the end, this might come across as a silly exercise– and maybe it is, just in the name of holiday fun. Releasing 10 grams per hour with paraffin candles compared with the significant reductions possible with the other options might seem like small potatoes in the grand scheme of things– in a world where a single cow can release up to 200 grams of methane (a greenhouse gas that contributes more strongly to climate change per gram of it released than CO2) through flatulence and belches, why even question the CO2 released due to halloween decorations?
I would agree that’s a fair point, but let’s keep the calculations going really quickly. In the United States, there are about 73 million children under the age of 18. Let’s just say that half of those kids have a jack-o’-lantern (some families might not celebrate Halloween with jack-o’-lanterns, some families might not see the need for one for each child, but on the other hand many adults such as myself might still find joy in carving and lighting up pumpkins– so 50% will be our randomly chosen number. Back of the envelope!). And let’s say that for the two weeks leading up to Halloween, those jack-o’-lanterns are lit up for 3 hours per night. All of a sudden, we’re dealing with 1,533 million total hours of jack-o’-lanterns being burnt. If all of those jack-o’-lanterns are releasing 10 grams of CO2 per hour with paraffin candles, all of a sudden that’s 15,330 metric tons of CO2– or the equivalent of the annual CO2 released in a year by over 3,000 cars.
The point of all of this to show how much of a difference small changes can make. Are you an environmental criminal for lighting your pumpkin up with a paraffin candle? Certainly not. But you can be an environmental warrior by noting all these small choices that surround you (during the holidays and in your everyday life). And if you want to add some more energy-efficient related fun to your jack-o’-lanterns, check out these stencils from the Department of Energy!

Sources and additional reading

About the author: Matt Chester is an energy analyst in Washington DC, studied engineering and science & technology policy at the University of Virginia, and operates this blog and website to share news, insights, and advice in the fields of energy policy, energy technology, and more. For more quick hits in addition to posts on this blog, follow him on Twitter @ChesterEnergy.  

Brewed with Renewable Energy- Best Beers for the Green Consumer

As microbreweries and craft beers have really blown up in recent years, it’s easy to forget that the beer brewing process goes back millennia.  Archaeologists have noted that nomads may have made beer before making bread, ancient Babylonian’s kept beer recipes on clay tablets, and European monasteries in the Middle Ages took beer brewing out of the home and into centralized production.

All of this ancient brewing was fairly unstandardized, relying on fermentation and chemical reactions and, when needed, cooking by fire.  It wasn’t until the Industrial Revolution that the production of beer scaled up massively, inventions came along to ensure the consistency of brewing, and the energy required to brew beer became substantial, powered by the revolutionary steam engine. Since that time, the energy intensity of brewing beer became substantial– today’s breweries typically use 50-66 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per barrel of beer. With a barrel of beer containing 2 kegs of beer and an average U.S. home using 10,812 kWh  per year in 2015, that means that it takes  less than 400 kegs of beer production to account for an entire household’s annual energy use– while places like Boardy Barn in Hamptons Bay, Long Island can sell up to 600 kegs in a single day!



All this lead up is to get to the question– why do you care? Well at the time that craft brewing has come out of the niche to become mainstream, so has personal responsibility to be energy and environmentally conscious. So at the intersection of these two pushes is the trend of breweries to utilize renewable energy in their production process. This post is meant to not only call out and give props to all the breweries that are incorporating green practices into their fuel mix, but to show you the best tasting beers you can buy that are ALSO incorporating the most renewable energy production.

In short– green beer appears to be a brewery cultural movement (and not just with food coloring you put in one day a year)!

Methodology

As stated in the introduction, the goal of this fun exercise is to cross-list breweries who have publicly available their power generation from renewable energy or their total renewable energy generation capacity with a rating of the most popular beer brewed at that brewery. As such, the methodology can be broken out by energy and by beer:

Energy

Many breweries today are installing renewable energy generation, and luckily for this exercise they also love to talk about it. And why shouldn’t they? Making publicly available your renewable energy generation is not only great PR for a brand, but it can also lead to other breweries making the energy conscious decisions as they follow the leaders in the industry. As such, you can usually count on breweries to advertise their use of renewable energy:

Source

With this in mind, the data collected all came from publicly available sources– a section on a brewery’s website about sustainability, a news article announcing a new solar system install, etc. Based on what data was and was not available, it made the most sense to collect and rate based on total capacity of renewable energy used at the brewery. As a result, the following factors were not considered:

  • The percentage of energy use at a brewery that is accounted for by renewable energy (apologies to the smaller breweries that have a large percentage, or even all, of their energy use come from renewable energy– obviously the larger breweries have more energy use overall and thus have a higher ceiling for total installed capacity, but this analysis is only counting the raw total capacity);
  • Commitments to switch to renewable energy in the future (though there will be a list of ‘honorable mention’ breweries with such initiatives at the end);
  • The installation of renewable energy sources without the listing of capacity or energy generated (sorry to these breweries, you’ll be in the honorable mentions as well); and
  • Energy savings, energy efficiency initiates, and sustainable practices that don’t include installation of renewable energy (these will also be included in ‘honorable mentions’ to give credit where credit is due).

Beer

After assembling the list of breweries with renewable energy capacity, it sounded fun to cross-list those capacities with the rating of the most popular beer at that brewery to find the ultimate beer to reach for at the bar or grocery story that tastes great and contributes to the world’s renewable energy supply. BeerAdvocate.com was used as the repository for information on beer ratings, as it had the most extensive and widely available information for this process.

For each brewery identified on the below list, the beer with the most ratings on BeerAdvocate.com was identified as the most popular beer. The most popular beer was chosen to ensure a high sample size of ratings and to best represent the beer made at that brewery. So while there may be beers more highly regarded at the breweries identified, the chosen most popular beer is more likely to be that brewery’s flagship beer and accounts for the highest portion of the brewery’s production energy compared with any other beer.

Results

Below is a table of the 57 breweries found with advertised renewable energy capacity, with the greatest capacity at the top.  After a quick glance at this table, a few tidbits jump out:

  • Renewable capacities found on this list starts at 10 kilowatts (kW) and goes all the way up to 3,733 kW (or 3.7 megawatts). This wide range shows how varied the efforts are to incorporate renewable energy, from a small solar system that only has minor contributions to overall operations to a massive renewable energy installation that contributes most (if not all) of a brewery’s power needs.
  • Solar power is by far the most prevalent form of renewable energy found at breweries. This may seem striking, but it actually makes sense because solar systems are the easiest and most feasible system to install on a building basis. Other forms of renewable energy (wind power, geothermal, hydroelectric, biomass) are not as well suited for individual building complexes to harness.
  • Heineken, as a parent company, appears several times towards the top of the list. Many of these breweries existed for many years before Heineken bought them, but it does appear to be a trend that breweries have become more likely to install renewable energy capacity after being brought under the Heineken umbrella.
  • There is also a clear spread of locations where these renewable energy breweries are located, on both coasts of the United States as well as three other continents. We’ll look into this more in a later graphic.

The next step is to plot these renewable capacities against the rating of the most popular beer. See the below graphs for this visual. When shown this way, a couple more conclusions can be made:

  • It turns out that the beer from the brewery with the highest renewable energy capacity (The Abyss from Deschutes Brewery) is actually the one with the highest rating on this list, making the decision at the bar that much easier!
  • However, dedication to renewable energy does not necessarily correlate with a well-received beer, as Birra Moretti (Heineken) and MillerCoors have discovered.
  • While a smattering of breweries have made the commitment to exceed a megawatt of renewable energy capacity, the majority of breweries have started smaller in the 500 kW range.

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

The last graphic put together is a map to represent where these breweries are spread across the country and the world. These maps show the top 20 breweries by capacity, with the size of the beer mug icon representing the relative size of that capacity (though note that between the U.S. map and the world map, scale of the maps are accounted for. For example, the Anheuser-Busch brewery has about half the capacity as the Namibia Breweries Limited. However because the U.S. map is about twice as big, both of these beer mug icons appear the same size).

The conclusions to be drawn from these maps include the following:

  • Within the United States, the most breweries with the most renewable energy capacity are mostly focused on the coastal regions. Specifically, the largest capacities are found on the West Coast in California and Oregon. These are two states that are known to have among the most progressive energy policies, so it’s no surprise that breweries in these states have jumped in feet first to the renewable energy revolution.
  • The United States does not have a monopoly at all when it comes to beer brewed with renewable energy. Not only are there a number of prominent breweries with renewable energy in Europe, but both the African and Asian continents are represented as well.

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Honorable Mentions

As mentioned in the methodology section, there were a number of breweries that have initiatives in energy efficiency, sustainability, or other ‘green’ practices that were unable to be captured in this exercise that purely focused on renewable energy capacity. However, it only seems appropriate to still give these breweries a shout out for the positive efforts being put forth as well.

(Updated Honorable Mentions after originally posted– please keep these suggestions coming!)

  • Yards Brewing Co. in Philadelphia became Pennsylvania’s first 100% wind-powered brewery in 2011 (though figures on the total capacity were not available, which is the only reason they’re in the honorable mentions and not the main results).
  • Sawdust City Brewing in Ontario, Canada treats their wastewater on site.
  • Cowbell Brewing Co. is North America’s first 100% carbon neutral brewery.
  • Beau’s Brewery was the first Canadian brewery to be powered by 100% ‘green electricity.’
  • Sleeping Giant Brewing Company uses a host of sustainable practices, including the increasing use of renewable energy.
  • Steam Whistle Brewing in Toronto sources its energy from 100% renewable sources (also no mention of total use/capacity, so can’t add to the main results).
  • Rock Art Brewery became Vermont’s first 100% solar powered brewery in 2017.
  • The Alchemist in Vermont also sources nearly 100% of its energy from a local solar farm.
  • Moonraker Brewing Company boasts 1,100 solar panels on site.
If you know any other breweries that should be included in either the main results or these honorable mentions, please reach out to me by commenting here or heading to the contact page to let me know. Hopefully all breweries who deserve their pat on the back can get them!

Sources and Additional Reading

Beer giant Anheuser-Busch InBev commits to 100 percent renewable energy: CNBC

Beer History Timeline: BeerHistory.com

BeerAdvocate.com

Carlsberg aims to produce beer with renewable energy: Justmeans

Deschutes Brewery 2015 Sustainability Story: Deschutes Brewery

Early History of Brewing: Michigan State University

Green Beer Not Just for St. Patrick’s Day: Power Finance & Risk

Prost! 5 Breweries Embracing Renewable Energy: Renewable Energy World

Renewable Heating and Cooling for Breweries: Environmental Protection Agency

Renewables roadshow: how the people of Newtown got behind solar-powered beer

Top 50 Solar Beer Breweries: Solar Plaza (and all sources cited therein)

What is the Combined Heat and Power System (CHP)?: Yuengling Brewery

Wind Powered Brewery: Great Lakes Brewing Co. 

 

Updated on 10/6/17 to fix units

Updated on 10/8 to include additional breweries (Yard Brewing Co., Sawdust City Brewing, Cowbell Brewing Co., Beau’s Brewery, Sleeping Giant Brewing Company, Steam Whistle Brewing, Rock Art Brewery, The Alchemist, and Moonraker Brewing Company). 

 

 

About the author: Matt Chester is an energy analyst in Washington DC, studied engineering and science & technology policy at the University of Virginia, and operates this blog and website to share news, insights, and advice in the fields of energy policy, energy technology, and more. For more quick hits in addition to posts on this blog, follow him on Twitter @ChesterEnergy.  

 

Correlating Energy Data Sets: The Right Way and the Wrong Way

Determining the correlation between multiple sets of data—a measure of whether data sets fluctuate with one another—is one of the most useful tools of statistical analysis. Correlating data sets can be the endgame itself, or it can be what cracks open the door on a full statistical investigation to determine the how and why of the correlation. No matter the reason, knowing what data correlation is, how to correlate data sets, what a confirmed correlation might mean are all necessary ideas to have in your tool belt.

 What is data correlation?

Generally speaking, correlation examines and quantifies the relationship between two variables, or sets of data. In statistics, data correlation is typically measured by the Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC), which ranges from -1 to +1. Whether the PCC is positive or negative indicates whether the relationship is a positive correlation (i.e., as one variable increases, the other variable generally increases as well) or a negative correlation (i.e., as one variable increases, the other variable generally decreases). The absolute value of the PCC indicates the strength of the relationship, where the closer it is to 1 the more strongly related the two variables are, while a PCC of 0 indicates no relationship whatsoever.

Source

 

How do you calculate data correlations?

The PCC of two variables can be easily calculated with a built-in function of Microsoft Excel (if you want to know how to calculate the PCC according to hand—first, kudos to you, scholar; second, see either this resource or this one for more detailed instructions on the calculation itself).



To start, list out your two variables in two columns of an excel sheet. For this example, we’ll pull the West Texas Intermediate (WTI) oil prices and the U.S. regular grade gasoline prices during a four-month period in the Fall of 2016 from the website for the Energy Information Administration (EIA) (for guidance on pulling data from EIA, see this previous blog post).

Link to Gasoline Price Data; Link to WTI Spot Price data

Note that the weekly prices here reflect the average price calculated for the week ending in the date listed. Also the Cushing, OK WTI spot price reflects the price of raw crude oil in Cushing, OK, a major trading hub for crude oil that is used as the price settlement point for WTI oil on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX).

Now to find the PCC, use the excel function CORREL. This function takes the form of the following:

=CORREL(ARRAY1, ARRAY2)

where ARRAY1 and ARRAY2 are the two data sets you are seeking to correlate.

Using this excel function, we get a PCC of 0.545. Remember that a positive PCC indicates that the two arrays tend to increase with each other,and that the closer the PCC is to 1 then the more closely related they are. This result of 0.545 would seem to indicate a fairly decent correlation between the price of WTI oil and the price of regular gasoline over these several months. Not only does a positive correlation between the prices of these two products make intuitive sense (because the price of crude oil is the largest factor in the retail price of gasoline), but we can confirm with a data visualization as well.

:

Note that the first graph is showing the change in the two prices over time, with the date on the x-axis and the prices on the two y-axes. Visualizing the data this way, we can see that the prices are climbing and falling somewhat step-in-step. The second graph shows the relationship in a different way, with the price of oil on a given week on the x-axis and the price of gas on the same week on the y-axis. Visualizing it this way, and including a trendline for that data, you again see that as one variable rises, generally so too does the other variable. However, clearly it isn’t a direct one-to-one relationship—hence why the calculated PCC is 0.5455 and not closer to 1.

As a second example, let’s now find the correlation between gas prices during this same time period with the quantity of finished motor gasoline supplied to the market—as basic economic principles give us a sense that there should be a relationship between quantity sold and price. Below we again pull the relevant data sets from EIA and use the CORREL function

Link to Gasoline Price Data; Link to Gasoline Supplied Data

Note that the weekly prices here reflect the average price calculated for the week ending in the date listed.

For these two variables, we get a PCC of -0.173. Now that the PCC is negative, this implies a negative correlation—i.e., as the gasoline price increases, the amount of gasoline sold decreases. This conclusion again makes a degree of intuitive economic sense, as when the price of something increases ,the expected consumer response would be to purchase less of it. However, with PCC so far from -1 we don’t necessarily see this as a very strong correlation. We can look at the data visualization for these data sets as well:

Looking at the first graph, we can again see visually what the PCC was indicating in general. As the gasoline price reaches local peaks, the amount of product supplied tends to reach local valleys, and vice versa. The second graph indicates that with a negative trend line, though again it’s overall just a slight, general trend and not very rigid—as indicated by the PCC being closer to 0 than it is to -1.

There’s a data correlation—what now?

So the key to answering what happens next is to know why you were looking for a data correlation in the first place. Let’s say I was examining the correlation between gas prices and oil prices because I wanted to identify the factors that best predicted gas prices going forward. For each of the two variables tested with gas prices over the four month period in 2016, the expected generally correlation was confirmed with the data, though the PCC wasn’t strong enough to definitively declare victory at having found a correlation. What would I do in this scenario?

More data

The first course of action would be to gather more information. I’ve only looked at 16 weeks of data, but it has been enough to give me a correlative hypothesis (increased gas prices correlate with increased WTI oil price and decreased gasoline supplied). You might take this hypothesis and expand your analysis to include more historical data and see if the same correlation holds or if it moves in a different direction. Further, you might reason out that there are more subtle interactions of between the data that should be explored. Perhaps looking at the price of gas and the price of oil during the same week is too simplistic, and rather you should be looking at the price of oil compared with the price of gas the following week, two weeks, or even month to account for the time needed to refine crude oil into gasoline? Or if your goal is to really find the most influential correlating factors, then it would go without saying to test many more variables to figure out the ones with the closest correlation. For gas prices, you might consider also looking at general economic data, import/export data, production and refining production data, drilling data, and much more.

Test further

Once you have exhausted the data you are looking at and determine what correlates well based on that data, it is important to make sure to test it as well to make sure any conclusions you make are based on sound correlation. As with any type of hypothesis, a correlation is essentially meaningless unless it gets tested.

A couple methods for testing the correlation are available. First, as mentioned previously, expand your data set and put the correlation to the test on a wider set of data—either by looking further in the past to see if the correlation persists, or by using the correlation as a predictive model for future data and seeing if the relationship holds when the new data becomes available.

If you have not already done so, creating a visual representation of data, as done for the two sets of variables above, is a great way to gain understanding of your correlation (and has numerous other advantages for taking in data). As you conduct your data detective work, be sure to always check yourself by creating graphs and other visualizations to confirm suspicions and/or catch some new insights. Whenever possible, as well, work with the data yourself instead of referencing the visualizations of others. In the worlds of data and statistics, it is notoriously easy to ‘make’ the data appear to say whatever you want to say to a lesser informed audience (stay tuned for a future post on this topic).

Another important ‘test’ of sorts is one we already implicitly did when selecting our examples in the previous section—reason out why a correlation might exist. For the prices of crude oil and finished motor gasoline, the reason behind a correlation is somewhat self-evident. But if you’re looking at variables that are less obviously linked, this is where you can do research or consult with experts to determine if there exists any logical rationale to explain the correlation. Otherwise you could be grasping at straws, despite the apparent correlation—discussed in more detail next.

Recognize limitations

Being aware of the limitations of correlating data is the best defense against falling victim to the shortcomings of the technique. This idea is best illustrated in another example.

Let’s say I was continuing the above effort to find factors that I could use in the future to predict gas prices. As discussed, the spot price of WTI oil, with a PCC of 0.545, is determined to be great candidate for correlation with a reasonable PCC, data visualizations that illuminate the relationship, and a very logical and rational reason for the two variables to be correlated. So if oil demand at a PCC of 0.545 is counted—then I should be excited when I stumble upon a mystery variable with a PCC of 0.592!

Link to Gasoline Price Data; Source of Mystery Variable (Spoiler Alert!)

Note—Mystery Variable had no available data for the week of November 7, 2016

With a PCC of 0.592, I could feel great that I have another factor to add to my model. Looking at the data visualizations below does nothing to dispel that notion, either.

The issue is, however, not realizing that if you wade through large enough sets of data you are virtually guaranteed to find coincidental correlations. In this example, I was able to find just such a coincidental correlative data set by looking through the only other vast set of data I spend as much (or sometimes, shamefully, more) time with than energy-related data—fantasy football! Yes, the mystery variable that appeared to correlate decently well with U.S. gas prices from September to December of 2016 was actually the standard fantasy points scored by Washington player, Chris Thompson (missing data for the week of November 7 was due to his bye week).

The man that correlates with gas prices

After revealing the actual source of my mystery variable, you would obviously have me pump my brakes on any correlation. There is no possible explanation for why these two variables would be correlated (unless perhaps you would like to make the argument that when the price of gas goes up, Chris Thompson drives less and walks to and from practice—thus improving his cardiovascular endurance and improving his performance that subsequent week; I unfortunately could find no information on his in-season transportation habits).

The fallacy of connecting my mystery variable to gas prices would almost certainly have been exposed were you to test the correlation through expanding the data set and logical reasoning, as previously discussed. Unfortunately, other factors will not always be so obvious to rule out—which is why having as large of data sets as possible is key. Even then, however, you are bound to stumble upon these coincidental correlations (for some thoroughly entertaining and statistically vigorous examples, check out the Spurious Correlations blog) when casting a wide enough net. That fact is just one of the quirky statistical truths with very large sets of data (if interested on this topic specifically, I’d highly recommend reading either or both of these two fabulous books: The Drunkard’s Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives & The Improbability Principle: Why Coincidences, Miracles, and Rare Events Happen Every Day)

Beyond that, even if the correlation might seem sound, keep in one of the firs things taught in introductory statistics, and also one of the first things forgotten, that correlation is not causation (credit to Thomas Sowell). So while our fantasy football to gas prices comparison is a false correlation, even a true correlation does not automatically let you leap to the conclusion that one variable must be causing the other– a topic that this section of the blog will assuredly revisit in a future post. For now, though, I’ll leave it to America’s favorite statistician to summarize:

“Most of you will have heard the maxim “correlation does not imply causation.” Just because two variables have a statistical relationship with each other does not mean that one is responsible for the other. For instance, ice cream sales and forest fires are correlated because both occur more often in the summer heat. But there is no causation; you don’t light a patch of the Montana brush on fire when you buy a pint of Haagan-Dazs.”
― Nate Silver, The Signal and the Noise: Why So Many Predictions Fail–but Some Don’t

 

About the author: Matt Chester is an energy analyst in Washington DC, studied engineering and science & technology policy at the University of Virginia, and operates this blog and website to share news, insights, and advice in the fields of energy policy, energy technology, and more. For more quick hits in addition to posts on this blog, follow him on Twitter @ChesterEnergy.  

Navigating the Vast EIA Data Sets

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) is an independent arm the Department of Energy (DOE) that is tasked with surveying, analyzing, and disseminating all forms of data regarding energy in the United States. Further, EIA is a politically isolated wing of the DOE– meaning it is there to provide independent and factual data and analysis, completely independent from the partisan decision makers in Washington or the political inclinations of those in charge of at the top of DOE. Because that is the case, you can be confident the data put out by EIA is not driven by any agenda or censored in favor of a desired conclusion.

Thus for anyone with even a passing interest in the national production and use of energy, EIA really is a treasure trove of valuable information. However, those who are unfamiliar with navigating the EIA resources can easily get overwhelmed by the vastness of the data at their fingertips. Additionally, even seasoned veterans of the federal energy landscape might find it difficult to find the exact piece of data for which they are digging within the various reports and data sets made publicly available on the EIA website. So regardless of your experience level, what follows is a brief guide to what type of information is available as well as some advice as to how to make the best use of your time surfing around EIA.gov.



Types of data available

One of the really fabulous things about the EIA data sets is that they cover every kind of energy you can imagine. The energy categories you can focus into include, but are not limited to, the following:

Within these energy categories, you can look at the trends of production, consumption, imports/exports, and carbon dioxide emissions going back years (oftentimes even decades) and also modeled as a forecast into the coming years. Most data sets will have tools to automatically manipulate the data to change between units (e.g., total barrels of oil vs. barrels of oil per day), or even manipulate data trends (e.g., go from weekly data to 4-week moving averages to 10-year seasonal averages). Depending on the type of data, these numbers are regularly updated weekly, monthly, and/or yearly. If there’s a topic of particular interest, there’s a good chance there’s a report with the data on it being released at regular intervals– some of the more prominent reports are highlighted below.

Regularly updated reports

EIA releases a regular stream of reports that serve to update the publicly available data at given intervals. Some of the more prominent reports are listed below, and they are typically used to update all of the energy categories previously mentioned:

  • The Monthly Energy Review (MER) is a fairly comprehensive report on energy statistics, both from the past month and historically back a number of decades. Published during the last week of every month, the MER includes data on national energy production, consumption, and trade across petroleum, natural gas, coal, electricity, nuclear, renewables– as well as energy prices, carbon dioxide emissions, and international petroleum.
  • The Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO) is another monthly EIA report, this one released on the first Tuesday following the first Thursday of the month. The STEO includes data on much the same topics as the MER, with the inclusion of some international energy data, and it also includes monthly and yearly projections for the rest of the current year and all of  the next year based on EIA’s predictive models. The inclusions of these forecasts makes for particularly useful data sets for anyone who might be trying to stay a step ahead of the energy markets. Also of particular interest for statistically-minded people out there is a regular comparison of numbers between the current STEO forecast and the previous month’s forecast. These comparisons show which way the model shows data to be trending, with the more significant ones called out in the report and noted with reasoning behind the changes.
  • The Annual Energy Outlook (AEO), like the STEO, provides modeled projections of energy markets– though the AEO focuses just on U.S. energy markets, models these annual forecasts long-term through the year 2050, and is released every January. The other aspect of the AEO that makes it particularly interesting is that its modeled forecasts, in addition to a reference case forecast, include different assumptions on economic, political, and technological conditions and calculate how those various assumptions might affect the outlook. For example, the 2017 AEO includes projections based on high economic growth vs. low economic growth, high oil price vs. low oil price, high investment in oil and gas resources and technology vs. low investment, and a projection that assumes a complete roll-back of the Clean Power Plan.
  • The International Energy Outlook (IEO) provides forecast energy market data consistent with the AEO, but regarding the international energy market through 2040.
    • With forecasts in both the STEO and the AEO, an understanding of exactly what is meant by the forecasts is imperative. The forecasts and projections do not necessarily reflect what a human prognosticator within EIA thinks could, should, or will happen– rather it demonstrates what the predictive models calculate given the best possible and unbiased inputs available. This difference is a subtle one, but if you ever find yourself questioning “does the person behind this report really think this is going to happen?”, recognize that some nuance exists and the reason you are skeptical might have not yet been able to be statistically included in the model.
  • The State Energy Data System (SEDS) is published once annually and breaks down national energy use, price, spending, and production by sector and by individual states. Within each of these categories, you can also break down the data by energy type (e.g., coal vs. natural gas) and by primary energy use vs. electric power generation. Having this granularity is useful to further dig into if certain energy trends are regional, restricted to certain climates, or are in response to specific state policies.

While they are not necessarily releasing new and specific data on a regular basis, two other EIA articles of note are worth pointing out because of the interesting stories and analyses they tell:

  • Today in Energy (TIE) comes out every weekday and gives a quick and readable article with energy news, analyses, and updates designed to educate the audience on the relevant energy issues. TIE frequently features graphs and charts that elegantly demonstrate the data in an easy to understand but also vastly elucidating way. One of the real advantages to reading TIE each day, though, is they often include tidbits from all the previously mentioned regularly updated reports, as well as other major releases or EIA conferences, enabling you to keep up with the newest information from EIA (click here for a post on the best TIE articles of 2017 to get you started).
  • This Week in Petroleum (TWIP) is an article that comes out every Wednesday that is very similar to the TIE articles, but focuses on the world of petroleum specifically and provides crucial insights on topics such as drilling, oil company investments, retail prices, inventories, transportation of crude and refined petroleum products, and more.

If any of these regular reports are of interest to you, you can sign up to get email alerts anytime these (or a number of other) reports are released by EIA by visiting this page. If you don’t know which reports you’d want but you want to keep an eye on what EIA is putting out, you can also simply subscribe to the “This Week at EIA” list that will once a week send you an email to notify you of ALL the new EIA productions from that week.

Finding specific data

While keeping up with all the regular reports from EIA is immensely useful, what brings many people to the EIA website is the search for a specific piece of data. You might want to see a history of average gasoline prices in a certain region of the country, find the projection of how much solar capacity is expected to be added in the next few years, track how much petroleum product is being refined in the Gulf Coast, or countless other facts and figures. Below you’ll find a few strategies you can employ to track down the information you seek.

Navigating the menus

EIA.gov has a useful menu interface through which you can usually navigate to your desired dataset easily.

Source: Homepage of EIA.gov
  • The “Sources & Uses” drop down will be where you can navigate to data sets about specific fuel sources and energy use;
  • The “Topics” drop down highlights the analysis on data by EIA as well as economic and environmental data; and
  • The “Geography” drop down is where you can navigate data by state or look at international data.
Source: Homepage of EIA.gov

Navigating from these menus is fairly self-explanatory, but let’s walk through the example of finding the recent history of gasoline prices in the Gulf Coast region of the United States. Gasoline is a petroleum product, so we would click on “Petroleum & Other Liquids” under the “Sources & Uses” menu.

Once on the “Petroleum & Other Liquids” page, the information we’re interested in would be under the data menu with the “Prices” link.

Source: Landing page for EIA.gov/petroleum

You’ll then see a listing of various regular releases of petroleum product price reports and data sets. Since we’re interested in Gulf Coast gasoline prices, we’ll click the third link for “Weekly retail gasoline and on-highway diesel prices.”

Source: EIA’s Petroleum and Other Liquids Prices

Clicking on this report will bring up the below interactive table. The default view will be to show U.S. prices averaged weekly. The time frame can be adjusted to monthly or annual prices (we’ll keep it at weekly). The location of the prices can be changed to allow viewing of data by region of the country or by select states and cities (we’ll change it to the Gulf Coast). The interactive table then displays the most recent week’s data as well as the previous five weeks (note: for ‘gas prices’ as is most often reported in the media and related to people filling up the gas tanks in their cars, we’re interested in the row titled ‘Regular’).

Source: EIA’s Weekly Retail Gasoline and Diesel Prices

If you’re interested in going further back in time then shown in the interactive table, the ‘View History’ links can be clicked to bring up an interactive table and graph going as far back as EIA has data (1992, in this case), shown below. Alternatively, if you want to have the raw data to manipulate yourself in Microsoft Excel, then click the ‘Download Series History’ link in the upper left (I’ll download and keep this data, perhaps handy for later in this post).

Source: EIA’s Weekly Gulf Coast Regular All Formulations Retail Gasoline Prices

Note in the above interactive chart there is the built-in abilities to view history by weekly/monthly/annual data, to download the source data, or the adjust the data to be a moving average or seasonal analysis.

If you find a page with the type of information you’ll want to reference regularly or check in on the data as they update, be sure to bookmark the URL for quick access!

STEO Custom Table Builder

Another useful tool is the STEO Custom Table Builder, which can be found here. The Custom Table Builder allows you to find all of the data that is included in the monthly STEO report (e.g., U.S. and international prices, production, and consumption for petroleum products, natural gas, electricity, coal, and renewable energy; CO2 emission data based on source fuel and sector; imports and exports of energy commodities; U.S. climate and economic data broken down by region; and more). This data can be tracked back to 1997 or projected forward two years on a monthly, quarterly, or annual basis. All you need to do is go to the Custom Table Builder, shown below, and select the options you wish to display.

Source: EIA’s Custom Table Builder

As an example, let’s use the STEO Custom Table Builder to determine the projected of how much solar power capacity in the near term. Solar would fall under the ‘U.S. Renewable Energy’ category, so click to expand that category, then expand the ‘Renewable Energy Capacity,’ and you’ll see the STEO has data for data for the capacity of large-scale solar for power generation, large-scale solar for other sectors, and small-scale solar for other sectors.

Source: EIA’s Custom Table Builder

Select all the data relevant to solar data, select the years you want (we’ll look at 2017 thus far through the end of 2018), and what frequency you want the data (we’ll look at monthly). Then hit submit, and the following will be the custom table built for you.

Source: EIA’s Custom Table Builder

Note: The forecast data is indicated in the Custom Table Builder with the numbers shown in italics. The above data was pulled before the September 2017 STEO was published, so the projections begin with the month of August 2017.

For this example, we’ll want to then download all the data to excel so the total solar capacity can be added up and analyzed. Click the ‘Download to Excel’ button at the upper right to get the raw data, and with a few minutes in Microsoft Excel you can get the below chart:

Source of Data: EIA.gov, pulled on September 10, 2017

This graph, made strictly from STEO Custom Table Builder data, shows the following:

  • As of July 2017, large-scale solar generation capacity was only 0.3 GW outside of the power sector and 23.7 GW, while small-scale solar generation capacity was 14.8 GW.
  • Together, solar power capacity in the United States added up to 39.1 GW as of July 2017.
  • By the end of 2018, total solar power capacity is projected to rise to 53.7 GW (an increase of 14.5 GW, or 37%), according to the EIA’s August 2017 STEO.

Search function

Using a search bar on some websites can be surprisingly frustrating, but luckily the EIA search function is very accurate and useful. So, I have found that, when in doubt, simply doing a search on EIA.gov is the best option.

Perhaps I want to track the amount of petroleum products in production on the Gulf Coast. This information is not in the STEO report, so the Custom Table Builder won’t be of use. And maybe I don’t immediately see how to navigate to this specific information on the menus. I would type into the search bar the data I’m seeking as specific as possible—‘weekly gulf coast refiner gasoline production’:

Source: Homepage of EIA.gov

Doing the above search yields the below results, of which the first one looks like just what we need.

Source: EIA.gov

Click on that first link, and ta-da! We’re taken to the weekly gasoline refinery report for the Gulf Coast (referred to as PADD 3). Again, you see the options here to look at the history back to 1994 both on a weekly and a 4-week average basis, use the chart tools to analyze moving averages or seasonal analyses, or download the data to utilize in your own way.

Source: Weekly Gulf Coast Refiner and Blender Net Production of Conventional Motor Gasoline

Contact experts

As a last resort, the EIA website offers resources to contact should you have questions or issues navigating the data. The people behind the EIA data are civil servants who are intelligent and very dedicated to their job and making sure you get the accurate and relevant information you need. So in a pinch, head to the Contact Us page and find the topic on which you need help from a subject matter expert.

If you want an alternative to going straight to the people at EIA, however, feel free to contact me as well and I’d be happy to try and help you track down information on EIA.gov as well. Use any of the contact methods mentioned in the Contact Page of this site, or leave a comment on this post.

Using the data

I have found that it is not at all an exaggeration to say that the world (of energy data, at least) is at your fingertips with EIA’s publicly available data. To demonstrate, I’ll walk through a quick example of what you can find.

If we take the previously gathered weekly data for Gulf Coast gasoline prices and gasoline production, we can plot them on the same graph:

Source of Data: EIA.gov, pulled on September 10, 2017

By taking advantage of the publicly data on EIA’s website, we can notice some trends on our own. In the above, there is a drastic increase in Gulf Coast gasoline prices, coincident with a large decrease in Gulf Coast refiner production of gasoline that bucks the month-long trend of production generally increasing. This is a curious change and would prompt investigation as to the reason why. Luckily, several of EIA’s Today in Energy articles already points out this trend and offers explanation—all related to the effects of Hurricane Harvey on the Gulf Coast petroleum systems (Article 1, Article 2, Article 3). Just goes to show that one of the best way to stay abreast of trends and information in the energy world is to follow EIA’s various reports and analyses.

 

Updated on September 28, 2017

 

 

 

About the author: Matt Chester is an energy analyst in Washington DC, studied engineering and science & technology policy at the University of Virginia, and operates this blog and website to share news, insights, and advice in the fields of energy policy, energy technology, and more. For more quick hits in addition to posts on this blog, follow him on Twitter @ChesterEnergy.