|
|
State of Environment Reporting
Linking
Economy and Environment in British Columbia
|
Conventional
Energy Consumption and Intensity
|
|
Year
|
B.C.
Energy Consumption (Petajoules)
|
Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) at Market Prices (millions of 1992
constant dollars)
|
Intensity
of Conventional Energy Use* (Index = 1.00 in 1981)
|
|
-
|
Petroleum
|
Natural
Gas
|
Coal
and Coke
|
Hydro-electricity
|
Nuclear
|
Total
Energy Consumed
|
-
|
-
|
| 1981 |
421.4
|
170.2
|
5.1
|
149.7
|
0
|
736.9
|
68,194
|
1
|
| 1982 |
385.7
|
181.1
|
2.9
|
150.6
|
0
|
720.2
|
64,238
|
1.04
|
| 1983 |
342.1
|
179.4
|
2.9
|
152.1
|
0
|
676.4
|
65,059
|
0.96
|
| 1984 |
334.4
|
191.3
|
4.1
|
156.6
|
0
|
686.5
|
65,743
|
0.97
|
| 1985 |
336.5
|
211.7
|
5.3
|
169.5
|
0
|
723.0
|
70,812
|
0.94
|
| 1986 |
342.6
|
186.1
|
9.1
|
171.2
|
0
|
708.9
|
71,849
|
0.91
|
| 1987 |
353.9
|
202
|
7
|
177.2
|
0
|
740.2
|
76,275
|
0.9
|
| 1988 |
364.6
|
225.9
|
8.7
|
186.3
|
0
|
785.5
|
80,800
|
0.9
|
| 1989 |
385.2
|
272.7
|
8.3
|
176.6
|
0
|
842.6
|
83,785
|
0.93
|
| 1990 |
473.9
|
229.5
|
7.9
|
193.7
|
0
|
905.0
|
85,020
|
0.99
|
| 1991 |
448.4
|
240.8
|
9.7
|
196.3
|
0
|
895.2
|
85,289
|
0.97
|
| 1992 |
427.4
|
245.4
|
10.1
|
193.9
|
0
|
876.7
|
87,066
|
0.93
|
| 1993 |
399.9
|
287.1
|
11.2
|
191.3
|
0
|
889.5
|
90,543
|
0.91
|
| 1994 |
407.3
|
290.8
|
11.2
|
190.2
|
0
|
899.6
|
93,355
|
0.89
|
| 1995 |
431.6
|
319.4
|
13.7
|
189.3
|
0
|
954.0
|
95,370
|
0.93
|
| 1996 |
433.7
|
321.2
|
12.4
|
217.6
|
0
|
984.8
|
98,052
|
0.93
|
| 1997 |
434.1
|
302.5
|
10.6
|
199.8
|
0
|
947.1
|
101,277
|
0.87
|
| 1998 |
439.8
|
284.6
|
8.2
|
198.7
|
0
|
931.3
|
102,217
|
0.84
|
| 1999 |
414.7
|
302.1
|
11
|
201.1
|
0
|
929.0
|
104,323
|
0.82
|
SOURCES:
Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, 2001; Statistics Canada
(CANSIM - Canadian Socio-economic Information Database), 2001; and
BC Stats (BC Economic Accounts), 2001. NOTES: The indicator is based
on economy-wide energy consumption and GDP data. The estimates of
conventional energy intensity must be interpreted carefully because
terms such as "conventional", "alternative"
and "green" energy are not consistently defined. In addition,
no adjustment has been made to account for factors that are not
related to energy intensity that affect the estimates. The link
between energy intensity and the associated environmental impacts
must also be interpreted carefully because different types of energy
have different environmental impacts.
|
