Shift Toward Natural Gas Outweighs Shift Toward Renewable Energy Sources

While there has been a shift toward renewable energy sources over the last 10 years, there has also been an increase in usage of natural gas as an energy source. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Michigan, California and New York all shifted away from oil and coal as sources for energy consumption and instead increased their usage of renewable energy sources. California and New York also increased their usage of natural gas as an energy source. The shift toward natural gas usage began in 2009 when the price gap between coal and natural gas production narrowed because of the increased supply of natural gas extracted from shale, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Another, secondary, reason the shift occurred on a national basis, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, is because the generation of coal-powered energy has been declining as a result of stricter regulations by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

In this post energy consumption and production between 2003 and 2013 is compared for Michigan, New York and California.

Between 2003 and 2013 New York’s consumption of coal as an energy source decreased the most of the three featured states by 217.5 trillion BTUs. This decrease was made up, and then some, by increased usage of natural gas (190.3 trillion BTUs-the highest of the three states) and renewable energy (50.9 trillion BTUs). Natural gas and renewable energy were the only two energy sources for which New York increased consumption of between 2003 and 2013. According to U.S. Census data, residents of the state of New York are increasingly relying on natural gas as a heat and electricity source. In the last 10 years that reliance on natural as a heating source has increased by about 500,000 households, according to Census data. New York also had the largest decrease in usage of oil between this time at 525.1 trillion BTUs.

In California natural gas consumption increased by 166.4 trillion BTUs between 2003 and 2013. According to the state, the increased consumption is, in part, being used as an alternative for petroleum in cars, trucks and buses as the use of alternative transportation options grow. Additionally, two-thirds of households in California use natural gas to heat their home, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

California experienced the largest increase of renewable energy usage between 2003 and 2013 at 103.8 trillion BTUs. This increase, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, can be attributed to the state’s policies that made it the first state in the country to receive 5 percent of its utility-scale electricity from solar power and partially because of its mandate to reduce green house gas emissions through various efforts.

Michigan experienced an increase of its usage of renewable energy by 98.9 trillion BTUs between 2003 and 2013. Like California, Michigan also passed a mandate for increased renewable energy usage. The Clean, Renewable, Energy Efficiency Act stated that by 2015 utility providers must obtain at least 10 percent of the energy they sell from renewable sources.

With Michigan’s increased usage of renewable energy sources, and a small amount of nuclear power, it experienced a decrease in coal, natural gas and oil consumption.

Of these three states though, Michigan was the only one to experience an increase in nuclear energy consumption (10.9 trillion BTUs) and a decrease in natural gas consumption. As can be seen in the production comparison chart, this is related how much of each energy source was produced in Michigan between 2003 and 2013. Although Michigan is consistently one of the top five states in the country to consume natural gas as an energy source, its production has been declining for the last 30 years, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

All three states also experienced a substantial overall decline in energy consumption from 2003 through 2013, probably because of conservation and the severe impacts of the Great Recession on the state and its industrial production.

Energy Consumption Change

Between 2003 and 2013 New York’s consumption of coal as an energy source decreased the most of the three featured states by 217.5 trillion BTUs. This decrease was made up, and then some, by increased usage of natural gas (190.3 trillion BTUs-the highest of the three states) and renewable energy (50.9 trillion BTUs). Natural gas and renewable energy were the only two energy sources for which New York increased consumption of between 2003 and 2013. According to U.S. Census data, residents of the state of New York are increasingly relying on natural gas as a heat and electricity source. In the last 10 years that reliance on natural as a heating source has increased by about 500,000 households, according to Census data. New York also had the largest decrease in usage of oil between this time at 525.1 trillion BTUs.

In California natural gas consumption increased by 166.4 trillion BTUs between 2003 and 2013. According to the state, the increased consumption is, in part, being used as an alternative for petroleum in cars, trucks and buses as the use of alternative transportation options grow. Additionally, two-thirds of households in California use natural gas to heat their home, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

California experienced the largest increase of renewable energy usage from 2003 and 2013 at 103.8 trillion BTUs. This increase, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, can be attributed to the state’s policies that made it the first state in the country to receive 5 percent of its utility-scale electricity from solar power partially because of its mandate to reduce green house gas emissions through various efforts.

Michigan experienced an increase of its usage of renewable energy by 98.9 trillion BTUs between 2003 and 2013. Like California, Michigan also passed a mandate for increased renewable energy usage. The Clean, Renewable, Energy Efficiency Act stated that by 2015 utility providers must obtain at least 10 percent of the energy they sell from renewable sources.

With Michigan’s increased usage of renewable energy sources, and a small amount of nuclear power, it experienced a decrease in coal, natural gas and oil consumption.

Of these three states though, Michigan was the only one to experience an increase in nuclear energy consumption (10.9 trillion BTUs) and a decrease in natural gas consumption. As can be seen in the production comparison chart, this is related to how much of each energy source was produced in Michigan between 2003 and 2013. Although Michigan is consistently one of the top five states in the country to consume natural gas as an energy source, its production has been declining for the last 30 years, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

All three states also experienced a substantial overall decline in energy consumption from 2003 through 2013, probably because of conservation and the severe impacts of the Great Recession on the states and its industrial production.

Energy Consumption Change

The below charts show the change in consumption and production of energy sources between 2003 and 2013.

In Michigan, we see there was a decrease in natural gas, oil and coal consumption between 2003 and 2013. At the same time, the amount of energy consumed through all three of these sources heavily outweighed the amount produced in both 2003 and 2013. The chart also shows how in 2003 oil was the most relied upon energy source (969.4 trillion BTUs) but in 2013 that shifted to natural gas (832.1 trillion BTUs of natural gas and 823.4 trillion BTUs of oil), despite the fact that natural gas consumption and production in the state is decreasing. The amount of which natural gas usage decreased between 2003 and 2013 was almost entirely replaced by the increased usage of renewable energy (118.6 decreased natural gas usage) and 103.8 trillion BTUs increased renewables, respectively). The decreased production of natural gas (119.5 trillion BTUs) was not entirely replaced by the production of renewable energy sources (75.7 trillion BTUs) though.

The consumption of renewable energy is increasing faster than the rate of production. As noted earlier though, wind produces ones of the largest amounts of renewable energy in Michigan (consumption of wind power energy is equivalent to the amount produced), and the number of wind farms in the state is expected to grow from 21 to 27, as six additional farms are in the process of being developed, according to the state of Michigan.

Production and consumption of nuclear energy in the state varied the least in the state between 2003 and 2013.

Energy by Source Production Change

Just as with Michigan, the chart below shows New York’s shift from oil to natural gas for consumption between 2003 and 2013. In 2003 1131.3 trillion BTUs of natural gas was consumed in New York and 1761 trillion BTUs of oil. By 2013 though, the natural gas used increased to 1321.6 trillion BTUs and, the amount of oil decreased to 1235.9 trillion BTUs.

For renewable energy, consumption increased from 359.3 trillion BTUs to 410.2 trillion BTUs. In 2003 in New York, oil, natural gas, nuclear and coal energy sources were all used more than renewable energy sources, despite the fact the amount of renewable energy sources produced in that year was higher than the amount of coal, natural gas and oil produced in the state. By 2013 coal use had declined substantially, while renewable production and use was increasing.

New York Energy Change

Although California’s consumption of oil decreased between 2003 and 2013, the state still used it more than any other source in 2013. In 2003, 3523 trillion BTUs of oil were consumed, while this declined to 3246.6 trillion BTUs by 2013. The shift toward increased use of natural gas and renewable energy sources can be seen, but those numbers still do not exceed oil consumption. The use and production of renewable energy sources in California has continuously outweighed that of coal and nuclear energy. But the increased use and production of renewable energy sources still falls short of the use and production of natural gas. Between 2003 and 2013 the use of natural gas increased by 166.4 trillion BTUs and the use of renewable energy increased by 103.8 trillion. Production of natural gas increased by 166.4 trillion BTUs and production of renewables increased by 42.9 trillion BTUs.

California Energy Change

In sum, the shift toward utilization and production of renewable energy sources is evident. With regulations on coal and oil growing stronger, and policies continuing to shift toward increased production and use of renewables, there is a definite move toward renewable energy. For now, however, the bigger move is that these states are substituting natural gas for oil and coal.

It is encouraging and fascinating, however, that there are substantial overall reductions in energy usage with New York clearly the leader.

 

 

Michigan Relies Heavily on Coal-Powered Energy

Of the 15 states featured in this energy series, only one state produced more energy than it consumed. In 2013, North Dakota produced 1,840.1 more trillion BTUs than it consumed. This surplus of energy is due to the state’s production of natural gas and oil. These instances of energy surplus production are two of only three where a featured state produced more trillion BTUs of a fossil fuel type energy source than was consumed in that state. The third instance was in Illinois where coal production trumped consumption.

Coal

Illinois

Production: 1149.6

Consumption: 1026.9

Natural Gas

North Dakota

Production: 317.9

Consumption: 83.8

Oil

North Dakota

Production: 1820.9

Consumption: 217.8

In this part of our energy series we further explore the net difference between production and consumption of energy sources. The sheer numbers show that the featured states relied upon coal, oil and natural gas as energy sources, despite their inabilities to produce the amount of energy they need to consume.

Overall, Michigan consumed 2155.5 more trillion BTUs of energy than it produced in 2013. Our production was 23.3 percent of our consumption. Only Missouri and Georgia produced a smaller percent of the energy it consumed. These states, along with Michigan, are exporting a huge share of their income to energy producers elsewhere. California had the largest absolute difference at 4,437.3 trillion BTUs, but California did produce 35 percent of its energy.. The state that came closest to North Dakota in terms of breaking even for energy consumption v production was South Dakota. Still, South Dakota consumed 114.1 more trillion BTUs than it produced.

In this post a nuclear energy chart is not included because each state produced nuclear energy as a power source consumed that same amount, meaning there was no net surplus or deficit. The amount of nuclear energy consumed and produced is included in the overall production v consumption chart below though.

The states featured in this series are:

  • Michigan
  • Illinois
  • Iowa
  • Indiana
  • Minnesota
  • Missouri
  • Nebraska
  • North Dakota
  • Ohio
  • South Dakota
  • Wisconsin
  • New York
  • Georgia
  • Oregon
  • California

Energy Comparison

There was only one state of the 15 featured in this post were more coal-powered energy was produced than consumed in that state. This state was Illinois, where 1149.6 trillion BTUs of coal-powered energy was produced and 1026.9 trillion BTUs was consumed. This net surplus of coal-powered energy is an anomaly in this post because, as the chart shows, reliance upon coal for consumption much outweighs how much is produced. In total, in the featured states, 7211.8 trillion BTUs of coal-powered energy is consumed while less than half of that (3023.8 trillion BTUs) is produced. There are also 10 different states where no coal-powered energy is produced there, yet, 2,628.1 trillion BTUs, or 36 percent of the coal-powered energy consumed by these 15 featured states, is consumed there.

Missouri had the largest difference between the amount of coal-powered energy it produced and consumed in 2013. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, there was 9.1 trillion BTUs of coal-powered energy produced in Missouri in 2013 but 806.5 trillion BTUs consumed in that same year, meaning there was a net difference of 797.4 trillion BTUs. With such a large difference, Missouri must bring in coal from elsewhere to fuel its coal powered plants. According to the U.S. Energy Administration, Wyoming was the main provider of this energy source to Missouri. Is this the right measure. Michigan had the second largest difference between the amount of coal-powered energy it produced and consumed in 2013 at 658.2 trillion BTUs. Michigan did not produce any coal-powered energy in 2013 but 658.2 trillion BTUs were consumed there in 2013. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Michigan primarily relies on Wyoming and Montana for its coal needs, although other states, such as Kentucky and West Virginia also provide this resource to the state. For about 90 years, between 1860 and 1949, Michigan did produce a substantial amount of coal through its coal mines, however they are not longer active, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, leaving Michigan to seek this resource elsewhere.

Coal Energy

Natural gas is yet another fossil fuel based energy source where consumption typically outweighs production for these states. Of the 15 states discussed in this series, North Dakota is the only one where more natural gas was produced than consumed. In 2013, 317.9 trillion BTUs of natural gas were produced in North Dakota and 83.8 trillion BTUs were consumed, meaning there was a net surplus of 234.1 trillion BTUs. The production of natural gas in North Dakota has been rising since 2007 due to the large increase in the use of shales to produce this energy source, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

California had the largest difference between natural gas production and consumption in 2013 at 2,196.2 trillion BTUs. Although California was one of the largest producers of natural gas of these featured states (287.3 trillion BTUs), those numbers still paled in comparison to the amount of natural gas it utilized (2,483.5 trillion BTUs). According to a recent LA Times article, natural gas is now the single highest source of power generation in California. Various interstate pipelines from Arizona, Nevada, Wyoming and Oregon bring natural gas into California for consumption, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

For Michigan, there was a net difference of 702.2 trillion BTUs of natural gas consumption; 129.9 trillion BTUs of natural gas were produced in Michigan in 2013 and 832.1 trillion BTUs were consumed there. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Michigan is regularly one of the top 5 users of natural gas for residential purposes. While Michigan has a large number of gas wells (about 10,000), production in the state has been declining since 1997. Due to this, much of the natural gas consumed in Michigan is obtained through pipelines that cross through the state from Ohio, Indiana and Wisconsin, with the end destination of these pipelines being the northeastern states and Canada, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Slide07

Just as with natural gas, North Dakota again was the only featured state to produce more oil than was consumed in 2013, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. In 2013, 1820.9 trillion BTUs of oil were produced there in 2013 and 217.8 trillion BTUs were consumed there. California had the largest net difference between oil consumption and production in 2013. For a net difference of 2092.6 there was 3246.6 trillion BTUs of oil consumed in California and 1153.8 trillion produced there. Despite California producing about 6 percent of the country’s crude oil, its rate of consumption of the fossil fuel outweighs the rate of production. This means, California must rely on other geographic locations to supply its needs. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, foreign countries (particularly Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Ecuador) supply more than 50 percent of the crude oil refined in the state. Additionally, North Dakota, Utah, New Mexico and Wyoming also supply crude oil for refining and consumption.

In Michigan in 2013, there was 823.4 trillion BTUs of oil consumed and 44.7 trillion BTUs produced, leaving a net difference of 778.7. The majority of the oil consumed in Michigan takes the form of gasoline. Michigan also has the highest residential consumption of liquid petroleum gasoline (LPG) in the country as a form of heating fuel. While there is a modest amount of oil produced in the state, it does not compare to the amount consumed, which is 18 times higher.

Slide09

Overall, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, it is typical of a state to consume about as much renewable energy as it produces. However, there are instances where a surplus of renewable energy is produced; this only occurs though because of additional biofuel production. In Iowa, 674.9 trillion BTUs of renewable energy were produced and only 384.7 trillion BTUs were consumed. The excess came from the biomass feedstock that was used to produce ethanol, which was then blended into motor fuel. Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wisconsin also produced more renewable energy than was consumed, although not as much as Iowa. Again, this was directly related to biofuel production used to create ethanol.

Of the 15 states featured, California both produced and consumed the highest amount of renewable energy. California produced 762.4 trillion BTUs of renewable energy and consumed 872.6 trillion BTUs. For consumption, nearly 5 percent of California’s utility electricity was produced from solar power in 2013, and other renewable sources such as wind and hydroelectric were also used for consumption. In terms of production, California produces about 8 percent of the country’s wind-powered electricity and is also home to the world’s largest complex of geothermal plants, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Michigan ranked in about the middle for the 15 states in terms of energy production and consumption. In 2013 179 trillion BTUs was produced in Michigan and 195 trillion BTUs was consumed. Aside from biofuel production, which created 95.5 trillion BTUs of energy, wind-powered energy was the largest production source for renewable energy in the state in 2013; 26.7 trillion BTUs was created. With more than 100 hydroelectric power plants, this form of renewable energy also contributed to the 13.5 trillion BTUs of renewable energy produced in the state in 2013.

Renewable Energy

In this post we saw the vast difference between a state’s consumption of energy and its production, and rarely did these states produce more than they consumed, relying upon other states and imports for their energy. A reliance on fossil fuels for energy was evident in 2013 and next week we will show how this reliance was even heavier in 2003. For the final post of this series we will show how Michigan, New York and California have changed in their reliance on certain energy sources from 2003 and 2013.

 

Michigan Relies on Natural Gas the Most as an Energy Source

Last week we saw a large variation on the amount of energy produced between 15 carefully selected states, based on information provided by the U.S. Energy Administration. This week, we look at the major energy sources the 15 featured states consume energy from. Those featured states are:

  • Michigan
  • Illinois
  • Iowa
  • Indiana
  • Minnesota
  • Missouri
  • Nebraska
  • North Dakota
  • Ohio
  • South Dakota
  • Wisconsin
  • New York
  • Georgia
  • Oregon
  • California

(If one of the above states is not colored in a map it means it produced zero energy for that source. The other 35 states are not highlighted though because they were not chosen for comparison; this does not mean they didn’t utilize a source of energy).

The sources of energy discussed in this post are: coal, natural gas, motor gasoline, biomass and other renewables (which include solar and wind power).

Last week we saw a large variation on the amount of energy produced between 15 carefully selected states, based on information provided by the U.S. Energy Administration. This week, we look at the major energy sources the 15 featured states consume energy from. Those featured states are:

  • Michigan
  • Illinois
  • Iowa
  • Indiana
  • Minnesota
  • Missouri
  • Nebraska
  • North Dakota
  • Ohio
  • South Dakota
  • Wisconsin
  • New York
  • Georgia
  • Oregon
  • California

(If one of the above states is not colored in a map it means it produced zero energy for that source. The other 35 states are not highlighted though because they were not chosen for comparison; this does not mean they didn’t utilize a source of energy).

The sources of energy discussed in this post are: coal, natural gas, motor gasoline, biomass and other renewables (which include solar and wind power).

Slide04

Michigan used more natural gas for energy consumption in the state in 2013 than any other source. In 2013 828.5 trillion BTUs of natural gas were consumed in Michigan; 129.9 trillion BTUs of natural gas were produced in the state in that same year. Of the featured states, the most amount of natural gas was consumed in California at 2,483.5 trillion BTUs. The featured state where the least amount of natural gas was consumed in 2013 was North Dakota at 83.8 trillion BTUs. South Dakota wasn’t far behind though, 84.5 trillion BTUs was consumed there in 2013.

Natural Gas Consumption

Motor gasoline is another consumption category which the U.S. Energy Administration chose to highlight in its data category breakdowns (others mentioned but not included in this post include residual fuel, liquefied petroleum gas and jet fuel). California again came out on top in terms of consumption, 1636.6 trillion BTUs of motor gasoline was consumed within the state in 2013. In Michigan, 515.5 trillion BTUs of motor gasoline were consumed in 2013; nine of the other featured states consumed less motor gasoline than Michigan in 2013. The state where the lowest amount of motor gasoline was consumed in 2013 was South Dakota at 49.8 trillion BTUs.

Gas Consumption

Nuclear power was another energy source that was not produced by all of the featured states, and, as can be seen in the map below it wasn’t an energy source that was consumed in every featured state either. Of the energy sources discussed in this post, nuclear energy was the only source not consumed by every featured state. The featured states where there was no nuclear energy utilized were Indiana and North Dakota; these states also didn’t produce any. Illinois utilized the highest amount of nuclear energy in 2013 of the featured states at 1014.9 trillion BTUs. All nuclear energy produced in these featured states was consumed there. This means Michigan not only produced 302.2 trillion BTUs of nuclear energy but also that that amount was consumed there.

Nuclear Consumption

When examining which states consumed the highest amount of renewable energy sources the western states fared better when comparing consumption of these energy sources. California consumed the most amount of biomass of the featured states in 2013 at 294.7 trillion BTUs. It also consumed the highest amount of “other renewable” energy sources (which include wind and solar) at 351.2 trillion BTUs. The amount of hydroelectricity consumed in California was 226.6 trillion BTUs. Oregon and New York were the only states where more hydroelectricity was consumed, 315.8 and 238.3, respectively. Oregon was also the only other featured state (aside from California) that consumed more biomass, “other renewable” and hydroelectricity than coal in 2013. In Oregon in 2013, 71.4 trillion BTUs of biomass, 77.3 trillion BTUs of “other renewables” and, as noted, 315.8 trillion BTUs of hydroelectricity was consumed. About 40 trillion BTUs of coal-powered energy was consumed in Oregon in 2013.

In Michigan 13.5 trillion BTUs of hydroelectricity, 148.8 trillion BTUs of biomass and 33.1 trillion BTUs of “other renewables” was consumed in 2013. Overall, Michigan consumed slightly more renewable energy than it produced, that net gain was due to biomass consumption.

Biomass Consumption

Hydroelectric Consumption

Renewable Consumption

Over the past two weeks we have presented the basics for energy consumption and production by source in a select number of states. Next week, we will begin our deeper dive into the energy production surpluses and deficits on a state-to-state basis, showing reliance on certain energy sources despite the state’s lack of or limited production of it.

 

Michigan Produces More Nuclear Energy than other Sources

Over the next four weeks we will be looking at the energy production and consumption of various states throughout the U.S. to highlight how energy is produced and our reliance on it for consumption. For this series we featured 15 different states, including Michigan. These state are:

  • Michigan
  • Illinois
  • Iowa
  • Indiana
  • Minnesota
  • Missouri
  • Nebraska
  • North Dakota
  • Ohio
  • South Dakota
  • Wisconsin
  • New York
  • Georgia
  • Oregon
  • California

(If one of the above states is not colored in a map it means it produced zero energy for that source. The other 35 states are not highlighted though because they were not chosen for comparison; this does not mean they didn’t produce a source of energy).

These states were chosen either because of their proximity to Michigan, their similarity in size or because they represent a benchmark state with higher production and consumption of renewable energy sources.

In this series we show how Michigan compared to the featured states for energy production and consumption in 2013 (the most recent data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration) and, later, how each of these state’s consumption has changed between 2003 and 2013.

In this post we show how each state’s energy production, in trillion BTUs, differs by source. The production sources shown are: coal, natural gas, biofuels and other renewables (which include solar and wind power). Just because a state produces a certain energy source does not mean all of that energy created in the state is consumed there. For example, you will see in this post that Michigan, along with Iowa, Minnesota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, New York, Georgia, Oregon and California, do not produce coal as a form of energy, but each consume it (as will be seen next week).

US Energy Production

Of the 15 states highlighted in this series Michigan was not the top energy producer for any of the sources. On a national basis Michigan ranked 26th for energy production, producing .8 percent of the country’s energy. Of the 14 other states featured in this post, seven states produced more energy than Michigan did in 2013. North Dakota produced the highest amount of energy at 2,632.3 trillion BTUs, with crude oil being its primary production source. Missouri produced the least amount at 191.8 trillion BTUs.

(On a national basis, Texas produced 19.8 percent of the nation’s energy, giving it the highest level of energy production.)

Nuclear Energy Production

At 302.2 trillion BTUs in 2013, Michigan produced more nuclear energy than any other source of energy. Michigan has three operating nuclear power plants.

The only other featured states that produced a higher amount of nuclear energy in 2013 were Illinois (1014.9), New York (467.7), and Georgia (343.8). States that did not produce nuclear energy were Indiana, North Dakota and Oregon.

Coal Energy Production

More trillion BTUs of coal powered energy were produced by the states featured in this post, and on an overall national basis, than any other source of energy. Interestingly enough though, 10 out of the 15 states featured didn’t produce coal-based energy. Of the five states that did produce coal powered energy though, Illinois produced the highest amount in 2013 at 1149.6 trillion BTUs; Indiana followed at 883.3 trillion BTUs.

Natural Gas Production

Natural gas was a key source for energy produced in Michigan, and in 2013 it produced 129.9 trillion BTUs of it; North Dakota (317.9), California (287.3) and Ohio (196.3) were the only three states featured that produced more units of natural gas than Michigan did. States that did not produce any natural gas as an energy source were Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin and Georgia. While not noted on the map, Oregon did produce a small of energy from natural gas in 2013, .8 trillion BTUs.

Crude Oil Energy Production

For crude oil production Michigan produced 44.7 trillion BTUs in 2013; North Dakota produced the most at 1,820.9. The only featured states to produce no energy from crude oil in 2013 were Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Georgia and Oregon.

Biofuel Production

Alternative Energy Production

Biofuels and other renewable forms of energy were the sources of energy production that each state featured produced in 2013. For biofuels, Michigan was more on the low end, producing 37.2 trillion BTUs; New York, Georgia and Oregon were the only other three states featured that produced less. Of the states featured, Iowa produced the highest amount of biofuel energy at 498.3 trillion BTUs.

For other renewable energy production, Michigan ranked somewhere in the middle of the featured states. In 2013 it produced 141.9 trillion BTUs of other renewable forms of energy, which include solar and wind energy (currently Michigan has 21 wind farms). California produced the most at 739.6 trillion BTUs, followed by Oregon at 452.4. Of the energy produced by Oregon, other renewables made up for 99 percent of its energy production.

 

Next week we will view how much energy each featured state consumes and by what source.

Wayne Disposal releases highest amount of mercury in the region

According to the Agency of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, exposure to mercury, a naturally occurring element, can cause gastrointestinal, developmental, neurological, ocular, and renal damage. While the most common way humans are exposed to mercury is through consumption of fish and shellfish, we are also exposed to it when coal is burned. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the largest human cause of mercury emissions comes from burning coal. With this in mind, the EPA issued a mandate for mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants to be limited by 2015. By 2016 the mandate is to be fully implemented and mercury emissions are to be reduced by 90 percent, according to the EPA.

As presented by EnvironmentMichigan.org, above the top 10 mercury emitters by state (this includes coal-fired power plants and other emitters) are shown from 2010. Michigan came in at number 10, with facilities emitting 2,253 pounds of mercury into the atmosphere. Ohio, Indiana, and Pennsylvania were the three Great Lakes States that came in above Michigan. Texas was the state with the overall highest mercury emissions at 11,127 pounds.

Unlike the previous chart, this one shows the 2010 emissions for coal-fired power plants. In parallel with the first chart, Ohio, Indiana and Pennsylvania’s coal-fired power plant emissions were higher than Michigan’s.
In 2010, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council, Michigan based coal-fired power plants emitted 1,924 pounds of mercury into the air. In comparison, the following Great Lakes states produced these emissions from coal-fired power plants: Ohio power plants emitted 2,865 pounds, Pennsylvania emitted 2,720 pounds, Indiana emitted 2,174 pounds, Illinois emitted 1,484 pounds, Wisconsin emitted 1,269 pounds, Minnesota emitted 873 pounds and New York emitted 239 pounds.

The map above displays 2012 mercury releases for the 15 facilities in southeast Michigan that are permitted to release mercury. According the EPA, a chemical release means the material is emitted into the air or water or placed in a type of landfill for disposal.
DTE, released a total of 2,127.8 pounds of mercury from its five power plants in the region. The largest contributor to mercury releases from power plants was the DTE Monroe Power Plant at 985.7 pounds. The St. Clair DTE Power Plant released 426.26 pounds of mercury and the Belle River DTE Power Plant, just a few miles south of the St. Clair location, released 364.7 pounds of mercury in 2012. The Trenton Channel DTE Power Plant released 232.91 pounds and the River Rouge location released. 138.25 pounds.
The largest mercury releaser in 2012 was not a coal-fired power plant,
but a hazardous waste landfill:  Wayne Disposal had the highest mercury releases on a single permit, 2,192.48 pounds. The second largest mercury release site in the region, The Monroe power plant released 965.7 pounds of mercury in 2012, which is higher than what the Natural Resources Defense Council reported was emitted in 2010. Although information from 2010 was presented above, this map offers information from 2012 to show the most recent emissions. This same data was not readily available for 2010 and 2011.

Washtenaw, Macomb counties import most amount of trash

From Washington to Massachusetts to Canada, garbage trucks have been bringing trash into the state of Michigan to fill landfills across the state. The data in this post shows where much of this trash comes from and what counties in the seven-county region take in the largest amount of municipal waste.

The above chart shows the overall volume, in cubic yards, of waste disposed of in Michigan since fiscal year 2004. The overall disposal of municipal solid waste decreased from 2004 (63,183,512) to 2013 (44,914,993) and with that decrease there has also been a decrease in the amount of imported trash. In 2004, 18.1 percent of all waste disposed of in Michigan was from Canada and 10.3 percent was from other states. In 2013, 17.1 percent was from Canada and 6.2 percent was from other states.

The map above further demonstrates that Canada is Michigan’s highest importer of trash. According to the DEQ, in 2012 Canada brought in  6,764,907 cubic yards of trash. In addition, Ohio, the second-highest exporter of trash to Michigan, sent 1,428,651 cubic yards to regional landfills.

When further breaking down the data, it can be seen that Wayne County, in 2012, generated and disposed of the most waste. However, it was Washtenaw County, followed by Macomb County to import the most waste. Located in Washtenaw County, Veolia ES Arbor Hills, which is now an Advanced Disposal Services landfill, had the second highest amount of waste (4,578,334 cubic yards) deposited in it. The Veolia landfill imported 1,657,156 cubic yards of Oakland County’s waste, and 1,864,878 cubic yards of Wayne County’s waste. In comparison, it imported less than 3,000 cubic yards of Canadian waste; and it disposed of 337,506 cubic yards of its own waste. Located in Macomb County, Pine Tree Acres landfill  had the largest amount of waste by volume disposed of in it in 2012, with 4,818,600 cubic yards of municipal waste deposited, according to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. Of the waste disposed there,  Canada exported 3,466,060 cubic yards. This was more than the 917,962 cubic yards of waste Macomb County residents generated, and then disposed of, into their own landfill. According to the U.S. EPA, the average American generates about 4.43 pounds of waste a day, which totals about 1,617 pounds a year. That amount contributed to the 2.6 trillion pounds of garbage generated by the world in 2012. Of that amount of waste, 46 percent of it was made up of organic matter, according to the World Bank. To read more about where the world’s trash goes to and what its made of click here.

Reported lead releases into the environment up dramatically from 2002 to 2012 in Southeast Michigan

A number of national and international environmental incidents in the early 1980s led to the federal Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) in 1986. EPCRA mandates all facilities that handle or produce at least 10,000 pounds of any of 650 chemicals known to be harmful to humans or the environment annually report any releases into the environment This information is made available to the public via the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI).

In this post we will examine releases of two of those 650 chemicals – lead and lead-based compounds. For those interested in learning the effects of lead please click here.

Below is a map showing the location of the 2012 releases of lead and lead-based compounds in the Southeast Michigan area.

In Southeast Michigan, 38 of 87 reporting facilities indicated they had no on-site releases into the land, water or air (These are 0’s on the map). The largest releases Southeast Michigan was Wayne Disposal, in Belleville, which reported more than 52,000 pounds of lead or lead-based compounds. How much of this stays in landfills versus gets released by air or water is not reported. This facility is a landfill that receives toxic waste, including being the only recipient of polychlorinated byphenols (PCBs) in the State of Michigan. In addition to skilled waste handlers, power generation is another top contributor to lead releases, with DTE and other generating plants along rivers and lakes releasing large quantities of lead and lead-based compounds, well over 60,000 pounds.

Wayne Disposal, the region’s largest reporter of releases lead and lead-based-compounds (52,318 pounds), is located in Wayne County, along with about 35 other facilities. It may be reasonable to assume that the vast majority of this went into their landfill, but no data is provided about the specifics beyond the amounts. There are a total of 36 facilities reporting in Wayne County; altogether these facilities reported releasing a total of 54,366.91 pounds in 2012, as shown on the map below. There is a concentration of facilities reporting releases of lead and lead-based-compound in and near Southwest Detroit. However, the largest reported releases in Detroit were from the GM Detroit-Hamtramck Assembly Plant, which is bisected by the southern border of Hamtramck and Detroit.

Releasing just over 455 pounds of lead-based compounds into the air in 2012, the GM Detroit-Hamtramck Assembly Plant is large, as well as near areas of dense settlement. Using software developed by the U.S. Military and adapted for use by the Environmental Protection Agency, we used dominant weather conditions to determine the approximate area in which these compounds, emitted from on-site stacks, may fall. The result is shown on the map below. The tri-color cone is the area most likely to be impacted because of dominant weather conditions (Winds 10 mph, 58oF, partly cloudy). The circle includes areas impacted by changing wind directions. Additional clouds, wind or precipitation could create a wider pattern of impact. Within the circle, live 5,963 people in 1,997 housing units (2010 Census). There are also three schools (Hanley, Holbrook and Oakland International) and one park with athletic facilities (Veterans in Hamtramck). Oakland International Academy falls under the cone of dominant exposure.

This set of estimates are based on a centroid in the northern area of the site, near cooling towers, but the results could vary depending on the specific location on the site where releases occur. There appear to be several large stacks and many small stacks on the site.  Some stacks are located further east on the site, which would yield estimates that cover more residential areas in Detroit.

Releasing just more than 455 pounds of lead-based compounds in 2012, the GM Detroit-Hamtramck Assembly Plant is large, as well as near areas of dense settlement. Using software developed by the U.S. Military and adapted for use by the Environmental Protection Agency, we used dominant weather conditions to determine the approximate area in which these compounds, emitted from on-site stacks, may fall. The result is shown on the map below. The tri-color cone is the area most likely to be impacted because of dominant weather conditions (Winds 10 mph, 58oF, partly cloudy). The circle includes areas impacted by changing wind directions. Additional clouds, wind or precipitation could create a wider pattern of impact. Within the circle, live 5,963 people in 1,997 housing units (2010 Census). There are also three schools (Hanley, Holbrook and Oakland International) and one park with athletic facilities (Veterans in Hamtramck). Oakland International Academy falls under the cone of dominant exposure.

NOTE:The software Aloha and Marplot were used to used to estimate the spread of lead pollution in the area.  In Aloha lead pollution can not be estimated so mercury was used as a proxy. The weight of lead per cubic inch is 0.39 lbs; the weight of mercury is 0.49 lbs. per cubic inch.

To better understand the increase in lead pollution, we examined how lead was released into Wayne County. TRI documents releases into all mediums of the environment, breaking them down into details. Aggregating the categories into the three major environmental mediums – air, water and land, we can see that which methods of lead pollution has changed dramatically over the decade. In 2002, air pollution was the predominant medium, accounting for 99 percent of all lead pollution (455 pounds in total from stack releases and fugitive emissions). Since 2002, this amount has increased in aggregate (1,453 pounds in 2012, a 319 percent increase); however, the proportion of reported lead releases into the air has decreased in relation to the total, from 99 percent in 2002 to 3 percent in 2012.

The dramatic increase in reported lead releases has come from land releases – or that stored in landfills or otherwise held on site. In 2012, 96 percent of the total emissions for the region came from a single facility – Wayne Disposal, a toxic waste facility located on the Wayne/Washtenaw border near Belleville. As explained earlier, a facility must report if it handles more than 10,000 pounds of a toxic chemical, whether or not the facility releases the chemical or handles it without a release. Opened in 1997, Wayne Disposal was not handling enough lead or lead-based compounds in 2002 to require TRI reporting. By 2004, Wayne Disposal was handling enough to trigger reporting requirements. Eight years later, it is the largest single reporter in the region, reporting more than 52,000 pounds of lead or lead-based compounds. In future posts we plan to investigate the sources of the lead maintained at the facility. In general, we expect to find that most of the lead is from lead-based paint that is part of demolition debris from older houses in the metropolitan area.

 

The effects of lead poisoning

What is lead poisoning?

  • Lead is a home health and safety hazard that can harm a child’s brain, causing lifelong learning and behavior problems. When lead dust is ingested or inhaled, even in miniscule amounts, it can cause significant and irreversible brain damage as well as other health problems. Lead dust equivalent of only three granules of sugar can begin to poison a child.1

What are the sources of lead in Detroit?

  • There are two main sources of lead within dwellings – paint and water pipes, though recent research has indicated a substantial portion may come from air pollution, particularly in the summer. In Detroit, most childhood lead poisoning comes from paint. Other sources of lead include soil, particularly around older buildings contaminated by flaking external paint, and adjacent to industrial facilities using (or previously having used) lead or demolished buildings.2
  • Homes built before 1978 have a good chance of containing lead-based paint. In 1978, the federal government banned consumer uses of lead-containing paint, but some states banned it even earlier. Lead from paint, including lead-contaminated dust, is one of the most common causes of lead poisoning.3 Approximately 94% of all houses in Detroit were built before 1980.4

How do kids get poisoned?

  • Deteriorating lead-based paint (peeling, chipping, chalking, cracking, damaged, or damp) is one of the key causes of lead poisoning.  It is especially hazardous when found on surfaces that children can chew or that get a lot of wear-and-tear, such as windows and window sills, doors and door frames, stairs, railings, banisters, and porches. Toddlers who crawl through dust laden floors are particularly vulnerable.3
  • Air-borne lead paint particles can also be inhaled as dust.  Lead can also be ingested through drinking water that has been contaminated as a result of lead pipework or lead-based solder. 12
  • Lead is particularly dangerous to children because their growing bodies absorb more lead than adults do and their brains and nervous systems are more sensitive to the damaging effects of lead. Babies and young children can also be more highly exposed to lead because they often put their hands and other objects that can have lead from dust or soil on them into their mouths.5

What are the impacts of lead poisoning?

In children, the main target for lead toxicity is the nervous system. Even very low levels of lead in the blood of children can result in:

  • Permanent damage to the brain and nervous system, leading to behavior and learning problems, lower IQ, and hearing problems
  • Slowed growth
  • Anemia5

In rare cases, ingestion of lead can cause seizures, coma and even death.5

Lead poisoning can also result in:

  • Inattentiveness, hyperactivity, disorganization, aggression, and increase risk of delinquency
  • Headaches, loss of appetite, agitation, clumsiness, or somnolence6

A lead poisoned child is:

  • Seven times more likely to drop out of high school7
  • For every 5 μg/dl increase in blood lead levels at six years of age, the risk of being arrested for a violent crime as a young adult increased by almost 50%.13
  • Fifty percent more likely to do poorly on the MEAP6

More than half of the students tested in Detroit Public Schools have a history of lead poisoning, which affects brain function for life, according to data compiled by city health and education officials.  About 60 percent of DPS students who performed below their grade level on 2008 standardized tests had elevated lead levels.7

Groups of children that have been followed from womb to adulthood show that higher childhood blood lead levels are consistently associated with higher adult arrest rates for violent crimes.8

Prevalence of Lead Locally and Nationally

  • Detroit is one of the worst cities in the country when it comes to lead poisoning. Although only 20% of Michigan’s children younger than 5 years lived in Detroit in 2010, childhood lead poisoning in Detroit has consistently accounted for more than 50% of the state’s total lead burden.9
  • In 1998, 15,769 children under 6 tested in Detroit had elevated levels of lead in their blood.  In 2012 this number was 2,755 children.14
  • In 2012, 7,560 children under 6 tested statewide had elevated levels of lead in their blood.10

Information Sources

  1. Olden, K., PhD. “Environmental Risks to the Health of American Children.” Preventative Medicine 22 (1993): 576-578.
  2. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control. “Healthy Home Rating System—Operating Guidance.” http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=operating_guidance_hhrs_v1.pdf
  3. United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2013). http://www2.epa.gov/lead/protect-your-family#sl-home
  4. U.S. Census Bureau Selected Housing Characteristics, 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Detroit city, Michigan (http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_11_5YR_DP04)
  5. United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2013).  http://www2.epa.gov/lead/learn-about-lead#lead
  6. Zubrzycki, J. “Lead-Exposure Problems Spotlighted in Detroit.” Education Weekly Vol. 32, Issue 5 (2012): 6-9.
  7. Lam, T. and Tanner-White, K. “High lead levels hurt learning for DPS kids.” Detroit Free Press (May 16, 2010).
  8. Drum, K. “America’s Real Criminal Element: Lead.” Mother Jones (Jan. 3, 2013).
  9. Zhang, N., PhD, Baker, H., MPH, Tufts, M., MPH, Raymond, R., MS, Salihu, H., MD, PhD, and Elliott, M., PhD. “Early Childhood Lead Exposure and Academic Achievement: Evidence From Detroit Public Schools, 2008–2010.” American Journal of Public Health 103.3 (2013): 72-77.
  10. Michigan Department of Community Health Healthy Homes and Lead Poisoning Prevention Program 2012 Data Report on Blood Lead Testing and Elevated Levels, Childhood Lead Poisoning Data Facts All Counties in Michigan — Calendar Year 2012 — Children less than Six Years of Age: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdch/2012AnnualDataReportOnBloodLeadLevels_419508_7.pdf
  11. Farfel, M., Orlova, A., Lees, P., Rohde, C., Ashley, P., and Chisolm, J. “A Study of Urban Housing Demolitions as Sources of Lead in Ambient Dust: Demolition Practices and Exterior Dust Fall.” Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 111, Issue 5 (2003): 1228-1234).
  12. United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2013). http://water.epa.gov/drink/info/lead/
  13. Wright, J., Dietrich, K., Ris, M., Hornung, R., Wessel, S., Lanphear, B., Ho, M., and Rae M. “Association of Prenatal and Childhood Blood Lead Concentrations with Criminal Arrests in Early Adulthood.” PLOS Medicine (May 27, 2008).
  14. Robert Scott, Michigan Department of Community Health (2013).

Childhood lead poisoning: Progress and accelerating risks based on budget cutbacks

Reduction of childhood lead poisoning is one of the great successes in Detroit in recent years, a product of strong collaboration by non-profit agencies, funders and the City of Detroit. In this update on lead poisoning we show the progress that has been made, explain the risks and then demonstrate how the cutbacks in funding are putting Detroit’s and the region’s children at risk.

Lead is a heavy metal that accumulates in the body when ingested, and has toxic effects on the nervous system, cognitive development, and blood production. It can be ingested through dust or paint (pica, usually in small children) can also be ingested through drinking water that has been contaminated  as a result of lead pipework or lead-based solder. Within dwellings, the main sources of lead come from paint and water pipes, though paint is almost exclusively the source of poisoning in the Detroit area.  Outside the home it can also come from soil, especially around older buildings or near thoroughfares where lead is still residual in dust from the era in which lead was used as an anti-knock agent in gasoline. Other sources include flaking external paintwork or former smelters.

The most prevalent effect from lead exposure is reduction in cognitive capacity in children – even with relatively low lead levels in blood, it negatively affects children’s IQ. The most vulnerable age group is children under 3 years old because of potential effects on neurological development, and because young children’s bodies more readily take up lead. Other risk groups include pregnant women and fetuses.

As shown below lead poisoning cases have been declining.

lead1

 

The chart above shows the number of children under age 6 who had a blood lead level greater than or equal to 10 μg/dL from declined tremendously from 1998-2012 . The decline was from 4,846 to 428 children. This occurred as a result of direct intervention by the City of Detroit Department of Health and Wellness Promotion to work with families, by the City Department of Planning and Development to abate lead paint in existing housing, by the Wayne County Prosecutor’s office to charge rental owners who rent lead poisoned property to families with young children and because of the massive numbers of demolitions of lead poisoned properties over the last decade. In addition, many families have taken the opportunity of lower prices on properties to move into better housing, abandoning many of the worst properties in the city.

Slide05

 

The second chart shows the number of children under six who had a blood lead level of 5-9 μg/dL, 10-19 μg/dL and greater than 20 μg/dL in 2012. The two higher categories sum to the total of 428 in the previous chart. Recently the Centers for Disease Control has begun counting children in the 5 to 9 ug/dl category as lead poisoned, based upon accumulating research that lead poisoning at these levels has substantial effects in reducing cognitive capacity.

The next several maps show the distribution of lead poisoned children in Detroit.

lead3

 

lead4

 

lead5

 

These first three maps show the locations of cases of the higher levels of lead poisonings—those greater than 20 ug/dl first, followed by those greater than 10-19 and 20 ug/dl and finally all those above 10 ug/dl.  There is clear concentration of these cases in the areas where older  housing still remains in the city, particularly in the closer in areas of the east side, southwest Detroit and the area between the Lodge and I-96.

lead6

 

lead7

 

These first of these two above maps show where the lower levels of lead poisoning exist among Detroit’s children.  The ssecond map shows all the lead poisoning cases. While the highest concentrations are similar to the previous maps, the important point is that lead poisoning cases are occurring in every part of the city, consistent with the fact that  older housing—homes built before 1978 when lead was banned from house paint—exist all over Detroit.

This is demonstrated by the next two maps.

Slide14

 

Slide15

 

As can be seen in the first of the two maps above, much younger housing is located in the inner core where housing demolition and replacement has been intense since the 1940s and 1950s. However, the majority of the city is covered in dark brown, which represents Census tracts where between 96 and 100 percent of the homes were built before 1980. In Detroit, 62.2 percent of housing was built before 1950, a substantially higher percentage than any other county in Michigan.

Importantly, the same risks exist in the inner suburbs of Wayne County as demonstrated by the second map above.

One crucial way of intervening early with lead poisoning is by testing of young children. The next three charts speak to this.

Slide17

Slide18

 

Slide19

The two line charts above show lead testing in Detroit and Wayne County, respectively, over 2012 and 2013 (to date). The data for 2013 are substantially below those for 2012, reflecting drastic cuts in the public provision of testing since the closure of these service by the Detroit Department of Health and Wellness Promotion as part of cuts implement in 2012. We may expect some recovery in testing as children head back to school, but the bar chart above shows that testing in Detroit has consistently declined in volume over the last several years. (The 2013 numbers are just for the year to date.) Part of this decline may be because of a decline in Detroit’s population.

In addition to cuts in testing there have been cuts in case management, elevated blood level investigations, prosecution and abatement.

Given all these cuts in services and interventions, one might reasonably expect an increase in lead poisoning cases among young children. It is likely, however, that because fewer children are tested, fewer of those with lead poisoning will be identified. Social and health problems may appear to diminish if they are not measured properly.

 

 

 

Lead and Housing: Homes built before 1980

Here we complete our examination of  the percent of housing built before 1980 in the 7-county SEMCOG region. The intent is again to shed light on the potential for lead poisoning as lead was banned from house paint after 1978.

The overall percentages across the seven counties include:

 

•Livingston 42.2%
•Macomb: 62.1% 
•Monroe: 61.8%
•Oakland: 64.0% 
•St. Clair: 61.8% 
•Washtenaw: 59.3%
•Wayne 84.4%
•Livingston County had the lowest percent of homes built before 1980 of the seven-county region with 42.2 percent, according to the American Community Survey. The overall percentage of homes built before 1980 in Monroe, St. Clair and Washtenaw counties was more in line with the overall Macomb and Oakland county percentages.

 Overall, there is about a 42.2 percent difference between the percent of homes built before 1980 in Livingston (42.2%) and Wayne (84.4%) counties. 

Image

Image

Image

Image

In both Washtenaw and St. Clair counties nearly all the municipalities had between 42.1 and 63 percent of the homes built before 1980 up through 2011.  In Washtenaw County only Ann Arbor had a percentage of homes built before 1980 that put it in the highest bracket ( 84.1-100 percent). The only municipality in the same bracket in St. Clair County is Port Huron. In Monroe County, where majority of the municipalities are in the 63.1 to 84 percent bracket, only the City of Monroe has a percentage of homes built before 1980 in the highest bracket. Livingston County has no municipalities where between 84.1 and 100 percent of the homes were built before 1980.

In general the percentage of housing built before 1980 is rather substantial, indicating a fairly high risk for lead poisoning from lead-based paint even in the out-counties of the region. The significance of this is that it implies there will be a long term necessity for careful surveillance of young children’s blood lead levels and an equally strong need to maintain code enforcement relative to older dwellings lest lead based paint deteriorates and triggers more childhood lead poisoning cases. 

Image

Finally, here is a comparison of housing age in the region compared to the state and the nation. In the above chart the percent of homes built before 1980 is shown for each of the seven counties in Southeastern Michigan region, along with the state and national percentages. As can be seen, Wayne County has the highest percentage at 88.4 and the state of Michigan comes in second at 67.2 percent. The percent of homes built before 1980 in the U.S. is 57.5%; Livingston County has the lowest percent of homes built before 1980 at 42.2.   By this measure Wayne County’s and Detroit’s housing is very old compared to the state or nation, which would not mean as much if the housing were well maintained. However, because job losses and wage cuts have reduced incomes, the amount of disposable income for housing maintenance is much reduced. Therefore there are likely increasing health and safety risks not only from lead paint, but from other housing repair issues as well.