Talk:World energy resources and consumption

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Energy
Energy Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, which collaborates on articles related to energy.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article is on a subject of top importance within energy.

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Environment
Portal		 This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
World energy resources and consumption is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Information from World energy resources and consumption (or a previous version of it) is being actively used in the pool of 'Did you know?' facts on the Energy Portal.
Archive
Archives
  1. Dec. 2006 – Feb. 2007
  2. March 2007 – Dec. 2007

Contents

[edit] SI UNITS

If SI units are declared then it is improper to use greek language terms such as Exo, peta etc to describe the figures. SI units means all figures must be given using exponential terms using 3 significant figures, or if greater accuracy is required 5 or 7 SF. Alternating between this system and the greek method is confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.130.175.129 (talk) 12:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

This is an important "database" of information and seems to need a bit of a clean up. For instance, there are comments relating to solar energy (available solar energy) that are at variance. The intro shows incident solar radiation (total NOT necessarily available for use)as 1.740×1017 W (or 5.49x1024 joules per annum, whereas later the claim is that the AVAILABle solar energy is 3.8x1024 joules. There are obviously margins of error but it would be good if the facts used were coordinated in some way.

LookingGlass (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Little or No Info on CONSUMPTION

While covering production in great detail, this article barely touches the subject of energy consumption.

It would be very useful to know the breakdown of global energy use by:

  • Transportation
  • Buildings (further broken down by Heating/Cooling, Lighting, Appliances, etc.)
  • Industry (broken down by industry)
  • Transmission & Distribution (energy lost in transmission and distribution)

I would also be helpful to know the percentage conversion of energy rich substances (wood, oil, sawdust, paper pulp) into items that don't release the energy (carbon sinks):

  • Plastics
  • Particle Board
  • Wood products and buildings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.27.92.134 (talk) 19:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


I agree. Can anyone help with this?

LookingGlass (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] some problems with resources : nuclear fission

Reference 46 talks about a scenario where the resource could last 85 years and be extended to 2500 years with breeding. Nowhere does the article in question talk about 2500 ZJ.

It is also conflicting with reference 47 where the IPCC talks about 17 ZJ from a recoverable resource base of 29 Mt but the article there talks about only 1000 ZJ with reprocessing and breeding. This latter 17 ZJ to 1000 ZJ referrence corresponds well to the common 60 times magnification figure given by nuclear breeding. The 85 year to 2500 year figure corresponds to the (ref 46) article's own reference to reactor designs being tested able to extract 30 times more energy.

In either case, the paragraph contains self conflicting data and should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.184.189 (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tidal Energy Claim

As a new WP editor, I already know that I am conflicted on introducing anything from www.gewp.org into this article. Could another editor take a look at the calculations on that webpage and see if there is anything significant to reference here? Nukeh (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with your request for references to confirm the (in)accuracy of the estimates on available tidal energy I put in the article. So I added some fact requests to the article. I put these estimates there, because the source of tidal energy and the resulting estimate on available tidal energy resources, which were given beforehand, were not correct.
The source of the energy in the ocean tides is the Earth's rotation. The oscillating tidal forcing by the Moon and Sun (at fixed locations on Earth) results in a resonant response of the water in the ocean basins, influenced by their shape and bathymetry. Since the resonant amplification is influenced strongly by the amount of dissipation, I estimated that an additional dissipation of 20% by tidal energy production would not change the global tides too much. Of course tidal power plants may have a large effect on the local tides, of which the consequences have to be taken into account when designing such devices. Crowsnest (talk) 09:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry - We have a misunderstanding. I was not questioning anything in the article. What I would like to do is add a statement: Preliminary calculations show that well distributed buoyant vessels (totaling approximately 200 x 200 miles x 10 feet in displacement volume) tethered to the ocean floor have been proposed as a potential energy source for the generation of 1014 W of electricity from tidal / wave energy. Two confirming calculations are now on www.gewp.org, but I am the author and inventor, thus I am conflicted for WP. If you feel confortable about these calculations, perhaps you could reference this new information into the main article in your own words. Alternatively, we could work on a better summary of this finding here on Talk, and then another editor or you could make the appropriate entry into the main article. I have been unable to Google any work that is similar, except for bottom-based pistons. Thanks.Nukeh (talk) 13:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you take a look at wave power: the Archimedes Wave Swing (AWS) also extracts energy from vertical motion from submerged gas-filled buoys. They extensively studied the possible power generation of such heaving devices. Crowsnest (talk) 13:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, great reference; I ended up here: http://www.awsocean.com/technology.html Nukeh (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I am conflicted, but if all we can do in this article is to cite a single page in Tester et al: "Waves are derived from wind, which is in turn derived from solar energy, and at each conversion there is a drop of about two orders of magnitude in available energy. The energy fluxes of waves that wash against our shores add up to 3 TW. [54]" ... we are misleading readers by omission of referencing the energy held in ocean waves at some distance from shore. Can another editor fix this? 100TWdoug (talk) 01:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Biomass

It is pretty sad to see all the effort being put into biofuel, as a solution to global warming, when it does nothing to help with global warming. Think about it - if you cut down a tree and make it into furniture you are helping global warming (provided you replace the tree with a new one) - if you burn it you are putting the same CO2 into the air as if you were burning coal or oil. The solution to global warming is to stop putting CO2 into the air, not to change where you get the Carbon from. 199.125.109.36 (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. Yes, when you burn a tree it releases carbon dioxide. However, if you replace the tree with a new one it removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as it grows, fixing the carbon and releasing oxygen. Provided you actually do replace the biomass you harvest, the amount of carbon dioxide released by burning or rotting will remain in equilibrium with the amount absorbed by growth of new biomass. Thus, the only way biomass will contribute to global warming is through deforestation or other failure to replace harvested biomass with new growth. The biomass page contains some references for this. I'm undoing your edit to the main page.--Squirmymcphee (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
You are making a big mistake. Here is what it says on the biomass page: "Though biomass is a renewable fuel, and is sometimes called a "carbon neutral" fuel, its use can still contribute to global warming." So far so good. However the following is oversimplified: "This happens when the natural carbon equilibrium is disturbed; for example by deforestation or urbanization of green sites." What it should say is "this happens when more carbon is cycled through the atmosphere than would be in the natural cycle". 199.125.109.37 (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Your reference states that changes in land use patterns may be responsible for additional carbon emissions due to biomass, but I can't see how it says that it is "not a solution to global warming," as you have written in the main article. I can see how it says that changes in land use patterns might cause it to increase greenhouse gas emissions, and I can even see that it claims (or, more accurately, that the studies it is reporting on claim) that these changes in land use patterns are what has been observed in reality thus far. I can't see anywhere that your reference claims biomass cannot be a solution to global warming, however.--Squirmymcphee (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The headline "Biofuels Deemed a Greenhouse Threat" doesn't give you a clue? There are many other references that say the same thing. The studies in Science are just the two most important. It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that burning carbon isn't a mechanism for reducing greenhouse gases. 199.125.109.37 (talk) 03:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you seriously suggesting that I should get my science from inflammatory newspaper headlines? No thanks, that's a prime reason for the scientific illiteracy in the world today. Did you read the actual article in the New York Times? More importantly, did you read the studies published in Science? Niether of them says that biofuels are "not a solution to global warming" as you assert they do.
The article by Farigone, et al. says, "Biofuels are a potential low-carbon energy source, but whether biofuels offer carbon savings depends on how they are produced." See, right there in one sentence the study's authors explicitly contradict you. It goes on to say, "biofuels made from waste biomass or from biomass grown on degraded and abandoned agricultural lands planted with perennials incur little or no carbon debt and can offer immediate and sustained GHG advantages." Both of these statements are right in the abstract, so you don't even need to have a subscription or make a trip to the library to read them. In the body of the article the authors state, "If biofuels are to help mitigate global climate change, our results suggest that they need to be produced with little reduction of the storehouses of organic carbon in the soils and vegetation of natural and managed ecosystems." That not only is a far cry from your statement that biofuels are "not a solution to global warming," it is essentially what I told you above -- that with proper management, biofuels are carbon-neutral.
The other article, by Searchinger, et al., starts off by acknowledging, "Most prior studies have found that substituting biofuels for gasoline will reduce greenhouse gases because biofuels sequester carbon through the growth of the feedstock." It goes on to say that "because growing biofuel feedstocks removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, biofuels can in theory reduce GHGs relative to fossil fuels.... [T]o generate greenhouse benefits, the carbon generated on land to displace fossil fuels ... must exceed the carbon storage and sequestration given up directly or indirectly by changing land uses." In other words, it is most certainly possible for biofuels to have global warming benefits, but whether they actually do depends on how they are grown.
So I ask you again, where in these studies do you see the claim that biofuels are "not a solution to global warming"? The scientists who performed these studies are not only not making that claim, they are mapping out the agricultural practices that must be adopted so biofuels can be a solution to global warming.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that headlines are designed to sell papers, not communicate sound scientific ideas.--Squirmymcphee (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There are other references that show that biodiesel adds three times the CO2 to the air that petroleum diesel does. The point to me is not do you take out more than you put in, but do you put any CO2 into the air? It's like if there is an oil spill and you show up in a leaky ship that dumps thousands of gallons a day of oil into the sea and you say oh but I'm cleaning up more than I'm putting in - except that what they are putting in gets cleaned up 200 years later, for example if it is being exhausted out the back of the ship and they are cleaning the ocean from the front and they take one pass around the bay every 200 years. That is what biofuel is like. It uses the atmosphere as a part of the fuel cycle. I'm more concerned about that part of the equation than the net effect on the atmosphere. My conjecture is that if you converted all vehicles to biofuel you would still have 750 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere. The only difference is that it would be a sustainable 750 ppm, and not go even higher. Shall I say la di da? The question is how do we get down to a more reasonable 250 ppm, not how can we maintain 750 ppm. That is why I am saying that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that biofuel is not "a solution to global warming", i.e. "how do we get from 380 ppm back down to 250 ppm", which is just as important as "how do we avoid going from 380 to 750 ppm?" 199.125.109.36 (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be assuming that CO2 cannot be removed from the atmosphere as quickly as it is added, but if biofuels are to be remotely sustainable in any sense of the word they will have to remove CO2 from the atmosphere that fast -- otherwise the feedstock can't be replenished fast enough to ensure a steady supply of fuel. Futhermore, neither of the Science articles takes the position that biomass cannot remove CO2 that quickly -- they only take the position that biofuels as currently produced do not. As for using the atmosphere as part of the fuel cycle, I suspect that will be nearly impossible to avoid -- at the very least, it precludes burning anything, ever, and one might even make a case that it altogether precludes the generation of energy. --Squirmymcphee (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Solar and wind do not require burning anything, ever, and each can provide all of our energy, along with hydrostorage, which doesn't actually provide energy, it uses energy, but allows us to have energy when we need it. What we are going to find is that those three can be combined to provide almost all of our energy, and that we need get only a small percentage from biofuel, and need to restrict the percentage from biofuel to contain CO2 to an appropriate level. The alternative, which is also a solution, is to drastically reduce the use of energy, back to 1850 levels for example. It wouldn't kill anyone to have to walk anywhere they have to go, or to grow their own food. 199.125.109.36 (talk) 02:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
At any rate, in the context of Wikipedia our opinions are irrelevant. This is a controversial topic in large part because it is difficult to verify the accuracy of the assumptions that go into any of these studies (as one of the Science articles notes). Yes, there are other studies suggesting that biodiesel adds three times the CO2 to the air that petroleum diesel does, but it's a trivial task to find studies that contradict those. We can debate forever about which is correct and why, but it would be disingenuous at best for either of us to point to a handful of references on this topic and call them authoritative -- those simply don't exist yet (and probably won't for many years to come). If you want to add an even-handed discussion of the controversy and claims that have been made, be my guest (though that would probably be more appropriate for the main biomass page). However, your "not a solution to global warming" statement expresses a distinct point of view, which is inconsistent with Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view. Furthermore, since the statement appears to be an opinion based on your own interpretation of one or more sources, it arguably constitutes original thought. Your statement is most certainly not representative of scientific consensus on the issue, as amply demonstrated by the vast number of contradictory reputable sources, and is therefore not verifiable. In short, while you may be able to construct an intelligent supporting argument for your statement, it is still an opinion that does not meet standards for inclusion in Wikipedia.--Squirmymcphee (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
You might have noticed that I didn't even propose including the study about biodiesel. It is clear that we need to be able to think outside the box in order to find ways to eliminate global warming and get CO2 back down to 250 ppm. Anything that supports that objective is clearly interesting. You will notice that we live in a burning building and we are looking for ways to vacuum the rug when we are missing the most important item - the building is burning. You will notice that biofuel was presented as a silver bullet to stop global warming and now reports are surfacing that "the emperor has no clothes". I'm saying that anyone could have seen that. 199.125.109.36 (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
There's a big difference between "reports are surfacing" and "it is true." History is full of things that "anyone could see" that turned out false. This particular topic is still quite early in its scientific development. I'm not saying that biodiesel is the "silver bullet" -- in fact, I doubt such a thing exists -- but if you're willing to give up on counterintuitive ideas so easily then I find your statement about thinking outside the box a bit ironic.--Squirmymcphee (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
You do realize of course that "what I think" about a topic has nothing to do with anything. What I think we should do is look for references that can be used to support the development of the article. However I do use "what I think" as a reality check from time to time. 199.125.109.81 (talk) 01:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's quite simple, really. Biofuel's energy comes from photosynthesis of sunlight--a process that is extremely inefficient--even the well-known inefficiency of solar panels is not as dismal as photosynthesis. ThVa (talk) 09:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Find Pimentel

I tried that search on both the article and this discussion with the result text not found. Then I went to google and added a few keyword. See http://www.ethanol-gec.org/corn_eth.htm . Table 1. Someone might want to cite the Pimentel Report in the article, because it is an encyclopedic quality reference from the USDA and it is often a discussion point for funding agencies and investors. Nukeh (talk) 02:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revised GDP Figures for China, India, Etc.

Their GDP's were revised sharply downward in 2007 with little fanfare. But all derivative calculations now need to be redone, including probably those on energy intensity. If China's GDP according to the new purchasing power parity calculations is only half what it was previously believed to be, than shouldn't China's energy intensity number double? 2008, April 6

That seems interesting. GDP is Gross Domestic Product, not Gross Domestically consumed Product. 199.125.109.81 (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hydro Jargon

The jargon "small hydro" and "micro hydro" are used without any introduction or explanation here. Could someone who knows what the hell these mean please fix it? Xezlec (talk) 02:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Just as a ballpark, micro hydro would be 10 kW, small hydro 1 MW. There should be some references that can pin it down closer than that. 199.125.109.81 (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

In the Consumption/Renewable energy/Hydropower section, please make a link to micro hydro. There already is a link to small hydro. 199.125.109.37 (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Available renewable energy

The reference for the Available renewable energy picture (Sustainable Energy: Choosing Among Options) does not contain the information found in the picture. On page 412 there's a table that lists the Renewable energy fluxes but the table lists wind at 100 TW while the picture lists 370 TW. At the very highest end, The Nature and Theory of the General Circulation of the Atmosphere (Lorenz, 1976) estimates global atmospheric motion has a flux of 3.5 PW. Practical wind power estimates go down to 6 TW (Grubb and Meyer, 1993). Note: Grubb is listed as a source for the table in Sustainable Energy: Choosing Among Options. The wind power page quotes 72 TW citing the Archer and Jacobson study. [1].

The blurb could mention a range of wind power estimates from theoretical to practical, onshore, offshore etc. Whatever the solution the source should back up the information being presented.Mrshaba (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The 72 TW number (actually 7.15x10^10 kW in the paper) is "total wind power potential over land from class ≥ 3 areas". The 370 TW is well within reasonable estimates, although I do not know the exact source. The editor who wrote it has left Wikipedia. Table 9.2 on page 412 states that 100 TW is available potential over land. Since 71% of the earth is covered by ocean that would mean at least 344 TW, and since winds are stronger over the oceans than over land, it would be higher. There really is nothing wrong with the diagram or the reference. 370 is well within your above upper limit of 3,500 TW (3.5 PW). 199.125.109.37 (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The reference cited quotes 100 TW. The reference seems to use Grubb as an ultimate source but Grubb quotes 6 TW as a practical limit. The reference does not support the numbers in the diagram and I'm not convinced the numbers in the diagram are valid. Do you have a source for the numbers? Mrshaba (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
For which numbers? I just showed that the number 370 TW is plausible. No one has said that 370 is a practical limit. The paper says that we can get 100% of our energy from the wind, though, using only 20% of the 72 TW available on land. A lot of people also expect energy demand to increase, but efficiency increases actually tend to decrease energy demand in developed countries. 9 billion people each using 2 kW would only equal 18 TW. 199.125.109.37 (talk) 01:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The reference cited quotes 100 TW but the graphic shows 370 TW. Do you have a source for the 370 TW number in the graphic? Mrshaba (talk) 02:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes. The source is Wes Hermann, Global Climate and Energy Project at Stanford University[2] It has since been revised to 870 TW.[3] Both are within the same order of magnitude. 870 is not a typo, but 370 could have been, although it can be used because that is the number that was presented to the public. The current chart says it is updated from time to time. "These numbers are occasionally updated as the estimates and assumptions change." 199.125.109.37 (talk) 15:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Screwed up numbers

Where does zeta and yatta come from? The cited source (#1) for world energy consumption gives 169 quads. A quad is roughly an exajoule, so somehow you've managed to increase energy use on the planet by a few orders of magnitude. However the spreadhseet numbers are also dubious, as WEC reported world energy consumption as just shy of 450 exajoules in 1995 (as cited in "Sustainable Energy: Choosing Options"). --Belg4mit (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Doh, the goofy splitting of the spreadhseet hides the amount of data, and I only saw oil use. --Belg4mit (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)