Talk:World energy resources and consumption/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Numbers do not add up

I stumbled over the first table under "consumption/fossil fuels" depicting world energy consumption of 2004 because the sum is not 500EJ but 471EJ. So, I looked at the source table of EIA. And now I'd like to ask someone to verify this because the source table uses the Btu measure plus imperial notation. Do I read the original table by EIA correctly ("." is a comma?) that, e.g., world total petroleum consumption in 2004 was 167.500E15 Btu = 1.675E20 Btu = 1.77E23 Joule = 177 ZJ (Zeta Joule) ? If yes, then the table does not only provide an unprecise summation but also wrong orders of magnitude... thanks Madmaxx 08:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

By my reading of the EIA table, the world energy consumption in 2004 was 446.44 quadrillion BTU, which is 471 EJ, which is the sum you calculated. The error seems to be in the 500 number. Whosasking 17:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Does it make sense to quote three digits of precision if the underlying numbers have an uncertainty of as much as 10% ?

15TW for the whole world cant possibly be correct!!! One person with a ghetto air conditioner in July in Las Vegas uses 1.3MW!!! It takes a lot of power to run the ac, directv, and porno dvds. 1 AC unit requires 3500W per hour!!! Las Vegas alone has to use 15TW per year. Las Vegas, Nev. -- Nevada Power Company today set a record system peak of 5866 (MW) at 5 p.m., breaking the previous record of 5623 MW set on July 17, 2006. That is 6GW in one day in one city!!!
You are confusing kilowatt hours with watts. This is an easy mistake and you are not alone. The average global power of 15 TW is correct and this equals 0.5 ZJ/year. A watt is one joule per second. Hope this helps 1366 Technologies 20:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
If we keep it really really simple, the majority of the energy usage is fossil fuels, and of those oil reserves have been the first and most extensively plundered. The total oil reserves the planet had to begin with were 1.5 trillion barrels of oil. Of those reserves we have used about 750 billion barrels thus far, and we have another 250 billion barrels that might be recoverable after the price of oil gos over $10 a gallon and people can no longer afford to commute to work. Our world usage now is about 85 MBO/day and our production is about 84 MBO/day of which the US takes 25%. If supply and demand remained the same we would have about 16 years till its all gone but even as supply diminishes demand increases and a good portion of that demand is increasingly outside the United States. Rktect 18:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


I'm confused by this sentence: "Coal is especially abundant and by itself could sustain the current energy consumption of the entire planet for 60 years.[citation needed]" The estimate reserve is 290 ZJ of coal and current annual energy consumption of 471 EJ (i.e., .471 ZJ), Unless I'm missing something, that looks like enough coal to supply current energy consumption for about 600 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.23.169.17 (talk) 10:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Challenges

I removed the following section because it is very unclear. It mentions only some renewables, completely ignoring the other ones, like geothermal, biofuels, and hydro. It isn't clear what the cost refers to. Is it the cost to move to hydrogen, biofuels, electric cars ? It also seems very politically loaded and need to be reworded imo. I'll put it here until someone can suggest a better rewrite.

"The above percentages for solar and wind energy ignore the formidable challenges of energy distribution and storage that need to be solved to overcome the intermittent and seasonal variations of these energy sources. The numbers do, however, illustrate that it is technically possible to move away from fossil fuels, should society decide to make the necessary investment. The required investment to move away from fossil fuel sources is enormous. It is estimated that the cost to replace the global infrastructure for liquid transportation fuels alone is 3�5 trillion US dollars.[1]"

I also wonder why it mentions fossil fuels. A better wording would in my opinion be "it is theoretically possible for renewables to meet the worlds energy demand" or something to that effect. Would put it more in line with the corresponding comment on Nuclear energy. 137.205.236.51 12:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] World energy

Here are a few quick comments.

Regards and good luck, Ben MacDui (Talk) 12:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Lead: This should précis the article and refer to each major heading.

Figure 1: TW=10/12 Watt. Or 10/12 watts?

Consumption: 'the' in first sentence is redundant. 'equaled' is a typo.

You might need to explain the difference between power and energy for the general reader.

There is no source quoted for the information in the table unless it is reference 1.

I don't know what MOS says about this but there are a lot of figures relative to the volume of text.

Fossil Fuels: Check use of superscripts and style for '18th century'.

'Airplanes' looks odd to me but it may be acceptable American English

I'd expect to see links to 'electricity, nuclear, oil shocks,' etc. when they are first introduced.

'Coal and nuclear became the fuels of choice for electricity generation' I am not knowledgeable about this, but there may be a distinction to be made between generating capacity, which skews the conclusions towards western economies, and the consumption of actual individuals. I doubt that nuclear is the choice made by many African countries for example.

Coal - no references quoted at all. This applies elsewhere.

Both the United States and the European Union are supporting a moderate level of fusion-based research. - could do with a link or reference.

'As evident from the first two images of this article; BP and the EIA have a dramatically different view of the global hydroelectricity supply.' Not to me - you need to explain it. 'Is' is missing after 'as' too.

'The use of biomass fires for cooking is excluded.' - why? I can guess, but I think you should tell me.

Solar: 88 GWt - If this is not the same as GW you need to explain why in a footnote.

One metric of efficiency is energy intensity' Not sure what this means.

'Despite several voices predicting the imminent decline of oil, the mainstream view is that there are still significant reserves of all traditional fossil fuels.' These voices are quite loud, and I think you should say more e.g. by suggesting how many years supply the reserves equate to in the table and explaining (briefly) why the differences of view exist.

Solar: Data to produce this graphic was taken from a NASA publication. - which one?

'The best site for capturing tidal energy is the much studied Bay of Fundy on the eastern border of the US and Canada.' Do you mean the best, or the biggest, or perhaps simply the best in North America?

'North America's only tidal power station is a 20 MW demonstration unit at the mouth of the Annapolis river in Nova Scotia'. Irrelevant in a 'world energy' article unless you can justify why it is notable on a world scale.

'our shores' whose shores? If it's 3TW, 20% of the world consumption, is it too dispersed to capture effectively?

Alternative energy paths: 'The other side of the debate believes, equally sincerely' Re, 'equally sincerely' I don't doubt you are right, but how do you know? It may be a redundant remark.

Also, the article is not about climate change per se, but I don't believe there is much doubt amongst climate scientists about what needs to be done, and it is this perspective rather than a pro renewable energy camp per se that is driving the debate.

Links and refs: Exergy is italicized, which is inconsistent. Footnote 8 is confusing. 16 is italicised incorrectly.

[edit] Bias

I find this article biased toward renewable energy instead of being objective to the subject of energy resources and consumption. Encyclopedic entries should not have these biases when they present facts. 192.75.185.254 17:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Yang Pang

Please make your proposal how to improve the text and correct this problem.Beagel 18:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The article focuses quite a bit on renewable energy by mentioning the total amount of (for example) sunlight which reaches the earths surface daily. This is very deceptive, because while the total amount of energy which reaches the earth is extremely vast, the actual practice of converting it to usable energy (for example by solar cells) is a much more difficult issue. Given the amount of land needed and the expense of such systems it is neither economical nor reasonable to expect that such energy could fufill humanity's need for energy in the foreseeable future. The article implies that it's just ripe for the picking. It's much more complicated than that --DrBuzz0, July 16 2007


The amount of land needed to supply all the energy need of the US with solar power using 10% efficient solar cells would be 1.5% of the total land area. To put this in perspective the US use 2% of the land area for roads and around 40% for agriculture. Today’s most common solar panels is made with multi-crystalline silicon cells that have a conversion efficiency of 15 - 17%.

In July, 2007, a University of Delaware team set a new record of 42.8% efficiency. The efficiency numbers will only go up and solar costs will drop, especially with a larger market demand. I just finished reading through this article and there is a strong bias of "We have plenty of oil and it isn't going to run out, nothing to see here..." It's clear that Oil will run out or become uneconomically priced within the next 30 years. We currently use 80 million barrels of oil a day and we have between 1 and 1.5 trillion barrels of proven reserve left in the Earth. In 2020 the demand is expected to rise to 120 million barrels a day. We do NOT have plenty of oil left, it will take decades to switch over to new infrastructure and it will be all that much harder if we run out of oil before we decide to make the switch. Solar IS easy and will become easier the higher oil and gas prices become. Blissfulpain 19:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
You may want to do some more research there. The 2% figure has come up before but us not accurate because it fails to consider that solar electricity is not avaliable at all times, the energy must be stored, many areas are poorly suited for solar energy, the energy must be inverted to ac power and transmitted. Aside from that, 2% of the area of the US is a REAL REAL REAL lot of semiconductor, when you consider that roads are made of asphalt. IF it were economical and avaliable, somebody would be doing it. And oil is not exactly "running out" in the sense it is portrayed to be. It won't just go dry overnight and even if it did, it would still be possible to produce synthetic gasoline from coal or other hydrocarbons. Solar power is not powering the grid because it ain't easy and it ain't even close to cheap. "It will become easier and cheaper" well maybe... but not now. Not tomorrow... not next year... maybe next decade, hopefully, but then again, it may not --DrBuzz0, August 4 2007 (UTC)
It maybe so, it maybe not. The problem is, that right now the article consists several statements, which need correct citation. I am going to mark these with {{fact}} tag. Beagel 06:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References vandalized ?

The references on this article appear to have been vandalized; I started through them, intending to complete and expand them, and found one strange thing after another, so I stopped. I don't know if any of them are correct; someone will need to check them all. I give up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, ugh. I've cleaned up all I can on the reference formatting, and have included lots of inline notes about problems. Everything needs to be checked. In most cases, I didn't verify that the source given actually verifies the text cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the hard work. I will try to find some time to work on some of the others, but this is truly a mess.--Gregalton 16:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article contents - major problems

--power versus energy-- Good article, very well cited. [User:Dick Mills]

While very many people confuse the terminology for power and energy, it is particularly embarrassing to do it in an article with such a title. The Watt is a unit of power, the rate of consumption. Power can not be consumed. Energy, which can be consumed, is measured in watt-hours or joules.

The openening sentences which say, "In 2004, the worldwide energy consumption of the human race was estimated at 15 TW with 86.3% from burning fossil fuels.[1] This is equivalent to 0.5 ZJ (= 1021 J) per year." should be changed to "In 2004, the worldwide energy consumption of the human race was estimated at 0.5 ZJ (=1021 J) with 86.3% from burning fossil fuels.[1] The average rate of consumption is thus 15 TW."

Similarly, the labels on the the graphs should be changed.

Unfortunately, the association of consumption with power (watts) continues throughout the article. Again, "The energy used to generate 2 TW of electricity is approximately 5 TW, as the efficiency of a typical existing power plant is around 38%." is incorrect. One needs 5 TW of power (not energy) to create 2 TW of power at 38% efficiency.

Even more unfortunate, I worry that some of the numbers are wrong because of the confusion between power and energy. For things like wind, where a 100 MW generator operates at only 11% capacity factor, the difference between installed capacity and average production over a long period of time is 9:1. A dominating factor. I checked a couple of the references cited, and they too use power and energy inconsistently.

It will take a major rewrite to correct this article. Both the nomenclature and the numbers need to be checked. User:Anorlunda, March 27 2007 (Moved to this section by --Gregalton 06:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC) as per talk page custom).

I echo the comments above - throughout the article it refers to TW, GW, MW and kW whereas it should be TWh (tera-watt hours, etc). This is embarrassing - see IEA figures for example, where electricity is shown in TWh and kWh. Even the first link in the article is to an excel spreadsheet that gives figures in Quad BTU. This is a major, major error.--Gregalton 06:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for noting the concern; I attempted to verify some of the refs yesterday, and found that many of them don't seem right. Someone familiar with the topic may need to review the entire article. Isn't there a stronger tag that can be put on the article? It's not so much that it needs cleanup; it may not be accurate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, the disputed tag is indeed better. As identified above, the biggest problem seems to be the confusion between power and energy - or Watt vs watt-hours. It seems that what someone has done - including the graphs - is take TWh and divide by 24*365. So instead of total energy, you've got unitless powerdraw - ummm, average load during the year? Or if the units were right (TWh instead of TW), it would be average hourly consumption. I only found this because there are other references through wikipedia to this page.--Gregalton 12:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I’d like to do a major rewrite sometime soon, but I’m still in the process of reading introductory material on the topic (currently Brown’s World Energy Resources, which overlaps a lot with the topic of the article). Something I find confusing is the amount of different units energy people seem to use. Would it be OK to use SI units consistently, converting e. g. quad Btu into EJ or EWh even where the sources use Btu? —xyzzyn 13:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I for one don't have religion on this issue - I prefer Wh of some sort. The issue only arose because the reference was to a table that gives figures in Quads, and then did the conversion incorrectly.
My suggestion: the first time a unit is used, provide an equivalent in other common units, and particularly the one that is used in that industry. When writing about an industry, at least once convert the figures to the unit common in that industry. After that, no need to convert. So for example:
  1. World use: use whatever you prefer, but give quad equivalent (seems to be common) too.
  2. Electricity: use common unit, but also give Wh equivalent (at least once).
  3. Oil/fossil fuels: use common unit, but use barrel of oil equivalent once.
  4. Etc--Gregalton 13:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I have heard from one of the editors involved in the choice to use Watts over Watt-hours (or equivalent). Paraphrasing, it came down to reasoning that consumption "implies an energy rate". I disagree, it is defined as power times time, but grant that it's easy to let the units mess you up (e.g., we hear about barrels of oil per day, where the time unit of energy cancels out with the day). The rate is how fast, the amount consumed is average rate times relevant period of time.
To summarize in hopes editors will agree before we do massive editing: energy consumed in a given period of time is a finite amount, not a rate (whether watt-hours or some comparable measure). "We consumed a pie at lunch."
The rate of consumption is the amount consumed/work done per period of time ("one pie per day"). Also known as power.
Is this objectionable to anyone? Seems to coincide with e.g. the article power (physics).--Gregalton 05:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Greg, a lot of the data seems to be given in units of energy per year (say J/yr). If I divide by 365, 24, 3600 to get J/s isn't this the average power used per year (given as TW in the graphs - implied as TW/yr)? They are related aren't they? and then multipling TW by 3600 gives TWh. If they are all inter-related it doesn't matter what we use excepting the comment on the IEA conventions. - (still a bit confused)Ctbolt 03:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
They are of course interrelated, you're right. To say energy per year and then average power per year is the same thing, but with different time units ("pies per year" vs "pies per day" - but TW/yr is not a unit; J/yr is not a standard unit, J/s is. Standard units would clearly be preferable). It seems more accurate and less confusing to simply say "total energy consumed in 2005 was XX Joules (which is YY TWh, etc). The average rate of energy consumption was XX TW."--Gregalton 04:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Right got it. Thanks. - Ctbolt 05:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It's "watt" and "terawatt", not "Watt" and "tera-Watt". — Omegatron 21:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User that contributed to most of the figures in the article.

For your information, Mierlo, seems to have created most of the figures in the article. This person has blanked their talk page numerous times and then deleted their talk page, with the last message before deleting being "I'm too busy to answer questions" or something to that affect. Good luck in getting a response. - Ctbolt 03:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

He did respond as summarized above.--Gregalton 04:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pie charts

Can we get the pie charts converted into something else? Maybe a proportional bar thing, and then expand each bar? You could do this with easytimeline, I think:

example

Obviously this should be horizontal, and not by year.  :-) I'll see if I can learn the syntax, since I want to for another page, anyway. — Omegatron 20:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Latest version:

The same numbers can be recycled for the more detailed plots by changing the period (though they should all be in one and use LineData to show the expansion from one to the next, which I don't know how to do yet):


My data for the first three is based on the table. The data for the rest is based on the pie diagrams (PV = 0.03*0.09*0.14) — Omegatron 22:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe tables?

Oil (37%) Coal (25%) Gas (23%) N

Just an idea. — Omegatron 20:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SVG attempt

Here's my attempt. — Omegatron 03:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

While the pie charts take up a lot of space they are very readable, much better than the bars. 199.125.109.81 16:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

On another note, is there a better way to ask for and provide references than to put citation required next to each sentence and to put ref 3 next to each sentence? 199.125.109.81 16:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:V says: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." That means that all hard data and facts need an inline citation, as does anything that might sound like an opinion or be challenged. Of course, you don't have to give a source for trivia, but this is not a case here. It is preferred to put references at the end , not middle of the sentence. If the whole paragraph refers to the same source, you may put the reference only at the end of the paragraph. Also, there is a special template if whole section bases on the same source. Beagel 07:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I think what I meant was that {{cn}} should be used sparingly, no need to put it after every sentence even if you think a reference is needed for that sentence. Put {{refimprove}} at the top of the article instead. 199.125.109.81 03:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Future Consumption Projections

I think that estimates of how energy consumption will grow in the future could be added to the article, if anyone knows this information.

212.159.70.80 10:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Total energy consumption has been growing about 1.9% per year. See http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/world.pdf It really is not possible to accurately predict the future out to 2030. For example, through energy conservation and energy replacement, it is possible to double the things we are accomplishing with energy while at the same time using half as much total energy. 199.125.109.81 17:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The International Energy Agency runs projections to 2030 for several different demand and policy scenarios, and these projections are regularly used by the United Nations and other organization around the world for planning purposes. Obviously there's nothing that guarantees their accuracy, but the projections are insightful and I think they would be appropriate to include here.---- Squirmymcphee (talk) 17:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "on average"

I'd just change it myself, but I'm new to the article and maybe I misunderstand something. The intro says, In 2004, the worldwide energy consumption of the human race was on average 15 TW. Of which numbers is 15 TW an average? Isn't 15 TW a sum, and not an average? Guanxi 03:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, that sum would of course be TWh. Doh! Guanxi 04:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Huh? No it shouldn't. And it is a sum and an average. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 04:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
We use more energy certain hours of the day and certain months of the year than others. That is why the annual average is important. 199.125.109.81 03:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I would actually argue that that is the reason the average is not important....---- Squirmymcphee (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Express energy in TWh

My sleep-induced question above got me thinking: We should express energy in TWh rather than TW or Joules. It may not be the standard unit but,

  • It's equally precise.
  • Wikipedia's audience is the general public.
  • The general public is used to seeing kWh on their electric bills
  • The general public does not know that W = J/s, so grasping the meaning of TW will be difficult.

Or, second best, we should explain the relationship between TW and kWh at the top. Guanxi 05:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with you entirely - TWs is just plain wrong. I would suggest joules (in whatever appropriate ecta- or other) and TWh.--Gregalton 05:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh...

Power and energy are not the same thing. — Omegatron 02:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC) --128.61.24.50 (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, exactly the problem with an article that says world energy resources and then uses units that mean power. So it should be TWh or Joules throughout (or other energy measures that are standardly used).--Gregalton 04:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Also please note that non-renewable resources are measured as total amount of energy available, which can be used as fast or as slow as you want, but renewable resources are always actually measured as so much average power in a year - you get a new supply every year. 199.125.109.81 03:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Where "standard" units are concerned, in common tabulations of energy use, watt-hours are generally used only for electricity consumption. When you're talking primary energy -- the fuel used for electric generation as well as transportation, heating, cooking, etc. -- BTUs and barrels of oil equivalent are far more common. Joules are also used sometimes, but they're less common than the other two. Of course, conversions between any of these are possible, as well as bunch of other units (e.g., therms, which are common for certain fuels, but not generally used when talking total primary energy). If you want the article to be directly comparable to the majority (or at least plurality) of common references on the subject, use Wh for electricity and BTUs for primary energy.
And forget about this "average power" nonsense -- it's worse than unhelpful, it's confusing and utterly meaningless. Sure, there's a mathematical relationship between power and energy consumption, but expressing statistics in units of power when talking about consumption is a lot like telling someone you averaged 10 miles per hour when asked how far you drove yesterday. The only time units of power are helpful in a discussion of energy supply and consumption is when talking about the generating capacity of a power plant.---- Squirmymcphee (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
The purpose of using SI units is so that different forms of energy, barrels of oil, kWh of electricity, therms of airconditioning, Btu of heating, etc, etc can be simply and easily combined into one unit for comparison. Energy in, energy out all in one unit. However, time is an inherent factor, and the unit usually used is annual consumption. Obviously it could be per second (watts), per hour (kWh), per week, per month, per decade, and so on, but per year makes a lot of sense, because as seasons turn from winter to summer consumption goes down in the UK and up in the US, and over the course of a year it smooths out the seasonal variations to create an average consumption for the year. However, energy over time is inherently power, which is why the SI unit of Watts is used. Big numbers rarely mean anything in tangible terms. No one can envision, for example, a Billion dollars or a Billion tons. The units TW are simply a way of writing down total annual consumption of energy, where 1 W = 1 J/Second. And yes, it is inherently average consumption that we talking about, averaged over a one year period. Minute by minute consumption is higher or lower than the 15 TW average indicated in the article. Saying 473 EJ/Year is the same as saying 15 TW, but unnecessarily taking more words to say it. Obviously the 473 wasn't used all in the first month, or all in the last month, it is the average used over the course of the year. It is, however necessary to point out that the 15 TW is an annual average, and not a constant usage. 199.125.109.81 (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I work with these statistics every day and very well understand the desireability to convert to a common unit (though SI units are not required for that -- the official US statistics for total primary energy consumption are reported in BTU) for summing different forms of energy consumption. I was merely pointing out the most commonly used units that one would encounter if one were to attempt an independent verification of the numbers in the article.
As for energy consumption over the course of a given year (or hour, or decade, or whatever), I'll go a step further and say that it must be expressed in units of energy -- otherwise it is, by definition, not energy that we're talking about. Be careful with your reasoning that because we're talking about a quantity accumulated over time, a time-averaged figure is just as useful as an integrated total -- I can produce counter-examples all day long. Did you know that Americans drove 330 million miles per hour in 2004? Or that the British drank 656,000 liters per hour of milk in 1991? Or that the speed limit on I-75 is 64 per hour? (There are also sound statistical theoretical reasons not to do it, but the counter-examples are easier to write out.) Also, notice that your electric company bills you in units of kWh and not kW (or N-m/sec, or Pa-m^3/sec).
In short, I see no reason to express energy consumption in terms of average power consumption just because a mathematical equivalence exists. Scientists, engineers, and statisticians almost always use the units with the most tangible meaning for a particular purpose, even if those units can be reduced to something else that is mathematically equivalent. Specific heat capacity, for example, is expressed in J/(kg-K) when it could just as easily be expressed in m^2/(K-s^2). Heat transfer coefficients are expressed in W/(m^2-K) instead of the equivalent kg/(K-s^3). The conventional units have a tangible meaning while the equivalent units do not. On a global scale over a period of a year, average power consumption simply has no tangible meaning -- actual power consumption will never match it, except by coincidence -- but total energy consumption does.--Squirmymcphee (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
See you say it must be stated as energy, but at the same time said "over the course of a given year", so you are not talking about energy, but power, which is in watts. You are on thin ice when you bring up scientists, engineers and statisticians, none of whom are known for writing a single intelligible sentence. Conventional units lose any sense of being tangible when you multiply them times world population. The article needs to be readable and meaningful, which it is. Total energy consumption of 473 EJ/year has nothing total about it. What about next year, and the year after, and the ten minutes after that? Saying 15 TW is both meaningful and accurate, despite the fact that some lasers put out over 50 times that all by themselves, but not for very long (see Orders of magnitude (power)), which is why I want to clarify that it is an average annual consumption of 15 TW. 199.125.109.123 (talk) 02:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm talking about the amount of energy used in a given year. I'm not talking about power in any way, shape, or form. Your "thin ice" statement is both preposterous and insulting, and it makes you appear exceedingly ignorant. I don't wish to get ugly, but with an asnine comment like that you're inviting it (not to mention that it completely and utterly misses the point). As for the remainder of your comment, saying that total energy consumption is 473 EJ/year is meaningless unless total energy consumption is the same year after year after year. Saying that total energy consumption was 473 EJ in, say, 2005, is meaningful if it is, in fact, the amount of energy consumed in 2005. As you rightly point out, what about the year after that, and the year after that? As for ten minutes after that, well, that's precisely why talking about energy consumption in terms of average power is idiotic -- power consumption at a particular time reveals nothing about overall trends in energy consumption. Next, how can you possibly say the article is meaningful and accurate if the only way anybody can reconcile it with other sources of information is to break out a calculator and do unit conversions? If you were to quote any of the average power figures in this article to an energy industry professional you would be laughed out of the room. Not a single reputable source of energy statistics on the planet states energy consumption in terms of average power consumption. How, exactly, do you think saying "average power consumption in 2005 was 15 TW" is clearer and more meaningful than saying "energy consumption in 2005 was 473 EJ"? You're using units that nobody else in the world uses!--Squirmymcphee (talk) 05:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
By definiion, you're "talking about power," whenever you're "talking about the amout of energy used in a given year." By definition, "power" is the rate at which energy is consumed, i.e., amount of energy consumed per unit of time --- and a year is a unit of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.23.169.17 (talk) 10:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, just because a mathematical conversion is possible does not make it useful or meaningful. After all, why not express energy consumption in N-m or J-fortnight/sec? They're mathematically equivalent to joules. The answer, as I said above, is that units are selected to closely match the concepts they are meant to represent. Just to drive the point home, let me provide another example: Torque is expressed in N-m, not J, because N-m are representative of the force applied to a lever and torque is not equivalent to energy, the units notwithstanding. Just for fun, though, I suggest you go to the torque discussion page and insist that it should be expressed in J. Or how about battery capacities? Those are typically specified in A-h, not C, because it makes it easy to estimate how long it will take to charge a battery. Why don't you go to the battery page and insist they use C instead of A-h? That is essentially what you are doing here -- insisting that the standard way expressing energy consumption all over the world is wrong because it is mathematically equivalent to some other less meaningful and convenient unit. If you had been exposed to even a small amount of science or engineering you would know that mathematical equivelance is generally exploited to express quantities in more convenient units, not less convenient ones. This is precisely why your electric company bills you in kWh, physicists studying electronic charges work with C-V, and materials scientists express quantities in eV, even though all three of those units are equivalent to joules.
So when it comes to annual energy consumption, the real question is whether readers will be interested in total energy consumption or average power consumption. If Wikipedia's readers are remotely representative of the global population the answer is almost universally total energy consumption -- for a variety of reasons both practical and theoretical -- which renders average power consumption irrelevant and uninteresting regardless of any mathematical equivalence. If this page is going to provide answers in a form that is useful to the vast majority of its readers, it will express energy consumption in units of energy, not power. Still, because I am curious, I ask again: How is it you think saying "average power consumption in 2005 was 15 TW" is clearer and more meaningful than saying "energy consumption in 2005 was 473 EJ"? What information do you think the average rate conveys that the total does not?--Squirmymcphee 19:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Listing each resource the way "other sources" list them, therms, bbe, Mtu, Btu, is horribly confusing and makes a direct comparison impossible, which is why SI units are used throughout the article. There is no reason to make Wikipedia horribly confusing just because everyone else is. If you are talking about energy without time associated with it you can use energy, such as oil reserves; as soon as you bring in time you really mean power, even if the unit of time is a year. 199.125.109.83 18:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
You misunderstand me. This thread began with a discussion of the appropriate units of energy to use, and I merely stated the units in which these statistics are found in most sources for the sake of completeness. As I have already said, I have no qualms with expressing everything in a common unit, SI or otherwise, nor do any of the major sources of world energy statistics. Furthermore, my suggestion to use W-h for electricity and BTU for primary energy has no effect whatsoever on direct comparison, since primary energy encompasses, by definition, electricity. Finally, judging from your IP address we are already discussing the energy/power issue above, so I see no reason to rehash it in a second subthread.--Squirmymcphee 19:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Primary energy does not mean "electricity". It means where you get the energy from; coal, oil, natural gas are all primary energy sources. 199.125.109.123 (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Precisely. Hence, primary energy necessarily (i.e., "by definition") encompasses electricity.--Squirmymcphee (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Squirmymcphee here. He makes valid points, and instead of responding to them you just keep repeating yourself. It gives the impression you're only arguing because you dont want to lose, not because you know what youre talking about. Its pretty funny that you argue nonstop that using power is best in an article titled "World ENERGY resources and consumption," then say "there is no reason to make Wikipedia horribly confusing." Which is it, you can't have it both ways? If the article is about energy then it should talk about energy. The world has enough people that don't know the difference between power and energy, they dont need any reinforcement.--128.61.24.50 (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The rate of using energy resources is measured in units of power, power = energy/time. World energy resources (the non-renewable ones) get used up. How fast they get used up is fundamental to the article. 199.125.109.83 (talk) 17:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 4 billion dollars. No, wait, Watts.

What is the purpose of stating that the sun's total output is 4 billion times 120 PW? This would only be useful to people if we had a dyson sphere ;). Perhaps "The energy output of the sun is approximately 4.8x10^8PW, however as the earth only subtends an angle of blah, the earth only receives 120PW total, not all of which is convertable due to thermodynamic constraints." Or somesuch. Thoughts? User A1 08:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

On a second note, the diagram seems to show that we only have 89PW available, which appears inconsistent, as this is absorbed energy which should be larger than the usable energy o_O? User A1 08:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to mention the total output of the sun at all. It's completely irrelevant to this article.

The total power hitting the Earth might be relevant, but seems to be a drastic oversimplification. (I would imagine that most of that energy is already in use by things like "weather" and "forests". It's not really available for us to use.) Also it conflicts with the values in Orders_of_magnitude_(power) and Solar_power#Energy_from_the_Sun

It seems to be a biased oversimplification, too. Everywhere in the article you see "solar could replace fossil fuels and nuclear power". So these are inherently in need of replacing, but hydro is not? — Omegatron 18:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The sentence at the end of the third paragraph about the sun's total output is not needed. 199.125.109.81 03:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page numbers

How about some page numbers for book references? Tester is an 846 page book. No one should have to read the whole book to verify a reference. Page numbers are given for three times it is used, but not for the other four. 199.125.109.81 03:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Energy consumption vs. GDP per capita

The chart displaying energy consumption per capita as a function of GDP per capita does not actually display energy consumption per capita on its x-axis. Rather, it displays something with units of electric power (as opposed to energy) and a scale that appears consistent with electricity (not total energy) consumption in MWh per capita. If this is intended to represent electricity consumption per capita then the x-axis should be changed to display the correct units and scale (e.g., the USA should be around 11,500 kWh per capita, not 11.5 kW per capita) and the chart should be retitled "Electricity consumption per capita vs. GDP per capita". If it's intended to show primary energy consumption then I think the chart's creator might have used the wrong dataset, though I'm only spot-checking so I won't claim I'm 100% sure of that. At any rate, the labels on the x-axis are definitely incorrect and the chart's title might be incorrect.---- Squirmymcphee (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I posted too soon -- after reviewing more of the article and some of the comments above, I see this article has a lot more problems than just this one chart. I'm actually in a pretty good position to rewrite the thing (I'm a professional in an area that requires me to be quite familiar with these statistics), but unfortunately I won't have anywhere near the time to do it until sometime in early 2008....---- Squirmymcphee (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Solar heating vs. human contribution

Am I missing something, or does the following not make sense (for the point being made): "By comparing this contribution by the sun to that contributed by human energy consumption, it can be readily understood that the direct human contribution to earth's heating is a very small fraction: the ratio of 1.5×1013 watts / 1.740×1017 watts is less than 1/10,000th (0.01%). Direct heating of the earth by humans is thus negligible. The earth has been warming recently, however, and mankind's contribution is understandably under close review." Yes. The sun heats the earth far more than humanity. However, isn't the sun's contribution over time fairly constant? If so, than any "un-natural" increase due to humanity should have an affect because it disrupts the equilibrium. Very small changes in the global mean temperature (~+/-1.0 C) can have a major affect on climate. If my assumptions are correct, then comparing the contribution of the sun to that of humanity's is misleading and does not address the problem correctly (and/or from the correct perspective). --Thorwald (talk) 09:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources and consumption should be better connected

We are all used to connected working with IP addresses and the like. All electricity production can have a meter with such an address, as well as all electricity consumption. The smart meter can handle this quite well, so we can - if we like to - connect the energy produced and the energy consumed with an 'energy balancing account' for each user. With such an account, the specific ownership from specific sources can thus be economically transferred from A to B, to specific consumption, if so wished by the general public. And we may assume this is wished since green or renewable energy tends to be an attractive product. Now the trouble is in the power part of the matter. In the handling of this matter the time-aspect is playing a role. One can imagine quite well that the character of wind is not so practical in the every day situation at work or at home. And all the electrical power in the grid connected systems is transferred with the speed of light. One could say, in comparison with the energy, that the power is time connected. So, to transfer the power of renewable sources from A to B, a smart meter can be playing a new role. This role can be either as a hub, or as a remote switch, since smart meters have three functions: they measure, switch and communicate. This role is an important element in present scientific study. Smart meters for customers can be developed with peripheral (sub)smart meters in a sort of neural networks. One can imagine that this could help storage of renewable electricity in smart batteries - e.g. for electrical transport. I would welcome your help, I would like to learn how I can help to address this aspect better, and where this aspect would fit in the whole of topics in Wiki regarding electricity and energy. Bouwhuise (talk) 00:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this an idea of your own creation? If so, I don't think it has a place in Wikipedia at all -- I'm pretty sure that one of the rules here is that Wikipedia is not a place for developing or discussing new ideas. At any rate, I don't see anything especially useful in your description that isn't already done by existing switching technology.--Squirmymcphee (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear energy

I think this article is not the right place to list and describe countries by their nuclear policy, as we have for this more appropriate articles like Nuclear energy policy and Nuclear power by country. Beagel (talk) 08:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

In this article, the sections on wind, solar, hydro, and biomass also list specific countries. But you don't object to those mentions. You only object to the nuclear mentions. Why is that? Grundle2600 (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, what you mean? I explained my edit removing incomplete list of countries planning construction of nuclear reactors. There are currently 25 new potential nuclear countries, and you can't list these all in this article. And yes, you may have some countries mentioned as examples to describe energy resources or consumption, but this is not the place to discuss their policies.Beagel (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
That wasn't me who had put that list of countries in the nuclear section. It just seems odd to me that you are criticizing the nuclear section for listing specific countries, but you aren't criticizing the wind, solar, hydro, and biomass sections for listing specific countries. Perhaps I misinterprted your comment on this talk page? Grundle2600 (talk) 01:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that probably my comment wasn't very clear, so I'm sorry for any misinterpredation. My comment was about removing sentence:"Among the nations not currently using nuclear power, Iran, North Korea, Turkey, Indonesia, Vietnam, Egypt and Poland are building them, or are proposing to do so." This is not the full list (and out of date about North Korea) as there are actually 25 countries who plans to introduce nuclear energy. There is no rational reason to pick only these seven countries, so you have to list or remove all of 25. As this article is not the right place to have that kind of list, and at the same time this information is already provides in Nuclear energy policy and Nuclear power by country, I removed this sentence. At the same time I have nothing against for addition of examples like countries with the biggest nuclear energy production or countries with the biggest share of nuclear energy in their energy consumption. Beagel (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining that. Your explanation makes a lot of sense. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)