Talk:World energy consumption

Remaning Oil

The writers for this section, judging from there references and comments, have confused "oil reserves" with the amount of oil available on Earth.

Current oil reserves may indeed be equivalent to 40 or so years worth of supply at the 2005 rate of consumption. However, reserves only indicate the total quantity of oil that is ready for extraction at the current moment. It does not include untapped oil fields, un discovered fields or in the case of many countries; non liquid oil.

Reserve figures are often manipulated for economic purposes, and should not be used to form a judgement on the worlds oil supply. The best method of estimating would be the average return of oil, per square mile surveyed. Based upon fully depleted field yields and with accounting for known geological factors. Based upon this method the number of years of oil remaining are far greater than the 40 described in this article. Oil supplies are expected to outlast coal and natural gas by some margin.

Primary Energy Table

Some values are of the form 7.777 and other 7,777. It is not clear if decimal comma was used or decimal point. Could we use only one or the other in a single page? Could we use 7'777 if we want to separate thousands and smaller digits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.55.221.195 (talk) 10:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The table under "Primary Energy" uses watts, which are a unit of power. The table it references is in Btu, a unit of energy. Should the units be TWh? Also, the graphic with the cubes calls TW units of energy... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.162.225.4 (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless someone has changed it since you wrote this. It says energy consumption which the only way you can gage a consumption is by a rate eg Power. So TW seems appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.36.94.35 (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Update Renewable energy 2000-2013 (TWh) grid

The latest figures provided in this table are for 2013. There has been considerable growth in since then (I would suspect more growth from 2013-2018 than from 2000-2013). Would it be possible for the figures to be updated to 2018? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.152.193.67 (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

WEO forecasts vs. reality

I think it could be interesting to discuss who forecasts and reality constantly diverge. A researcher from the Netherland has made a comparisong of WEO forecasts and how reality turned out later. We could discuss this here, as governments tend to build their own models and decisions on such wrong data. 130.226.41.9 (talk) 10:58, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

If you can find reliable third-party sources please go ahead. Please note that Twitter is not a reliable source and Wikipedia should not include original research. --Ita140188 (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Regional coal supply (TWh), share 2010 (%) and share of change 2000–2010 table

This table is a mess. There are two footnotes which share the same symbol, an asterisk. The final column, Change 2000–2009* is supposed to be "Region's share of the world change +12,733 TWh from 2000 to 2009". First of all, wouldn't an average reader think that "change 2000-2009" would mean the change in coal supply over those years? Secondly, even if you do calculate the "share of the world change of 12,733 TWh", the result does not match the numbers listed in the table. So, how are they being calculated. Who calculated them?

Finally, 108.171.129.165 (talk · contribs) made a change in this edit and added new numbers. Until that change is explained, I reverted the edit back to the numbers which were there for a long time.

If nobody can figure out where these numbers are coming from, I propose that the entire column be deleted. BirdValiant (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I deleted the table as it was so out of date Chidgk1 (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Merger

I see a bit of overlap with these two articles and am wondering how we could reduce that: World energy resources and Worldwide energy supply. We should try to reduce that overlap, or possibly think about merging articles. EMsmile (talk) 03:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I think World energy resources is fine as a separate article, but should focus only on energy resources, such as fuel reserves etc. It seems the article is already quite well focused in this sense. As for Worldwide energy supply and World energy consumption, theoretically they are different things (we could talk about energy generation (where energy comes from) in the first one and consumption (how energy is used) in the second. But practically in my opinion is quite difficult to talk about the two separately. So maybe these two articles may be merged. If we keep them, we should make the distinction clear and remove the overlap (like section "Final consumption" in Worldwide energy supply. --Ita140188 (talk) 07:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi User:Ita140188: I like your suggestion of merging Worldwide energy supply into this article. Would the new article retain the title "World energy consumption" or should it have a different title? I think merging makes a lot of sense because we can only consume the energy that has been supplied; and we'll only supply as much as is being used (plus a little bit of excess to account for losses etc.). EMsmile (talk) 11:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe the new title could be something like World energy supply and consumption? --Ita140188 (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Ita140188 sounds good to me. I'll add the merger tags to the two pages. Then we can wait a week or two and if there are no objections we go ahead. EMsmile (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

In Worldwide energy supply clear distinction is made between production from natural sources and consumption by end-users. The latter amounts to only about 60% of the former because of losses in conversion and transport by the energy industry. The distinction is important and often lost in discussion.

World energy consumption contains many data that need updating and expressing in common units: not Mt (megatonnes weight) or bcm (billion cubic meters volume) but TWh or EJ (terawatthour or exajoule energy). I suggest to do this first before any reorganization to merge Worldwide energy supply. Is there any idea how the restructure would look like? Rwbest (talk) 09:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Rwbest, I don't have a clear image in my mind yet. Was hoping that inspiration would come when doing the merger... :-) Do you have any suggestions? And does it feel like we have consensus for a merger? I think so. EMsmile (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi EMsmile, a merger is logic since the articles are about the same subject, but only after consensus is reached about the layout of the restructure. In my opinion the layout should not deviate much from the setup of Worldwide energy supply which differentiates clearly between production, TES and consumption. These energy amounts differ much because of international trade and large losses in the supply chain. World energy consumption contains more aspects of energy supply such as the use by sector (industry, transport etc) which can be added to the restructure, after updating and expressing in common units. Rwbest (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I support the merger. The title "World energy consumption" does not describe the content of the article in "World energy consumption". The content is mostly about the source/supply instead of consumption. Star Lord - 星爵 (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone have time & energy to get this merger done? EMsmile (talk) 05:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I used the "easy merge" tool for the first time - but it does not do as much as I hoped so I had to do some stuff manually - merged article needs more work Chidgk1 (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned references in World energy consumption

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of World energy consumption's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "UNDP":

• From Renewable energy in Afghanistan: "The Power of Nature: How Renewable Energy is Changing Lives in Afghanistan". United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). September 13, 2017. Retrieved 2019-04-20.
• From Economic inequality: [1], UNDP (1990) Human Deuelopment Report, Oxford University Press, New York

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Rename title to World Energy Production

"World energy consumption" should list what we do with energy. This article, instead, lists how we produce energy. So either rename the title to "World Energy Production" or remake the entire article to be about how energy is consumed, for example sorting it into transportation, domestic, industry and so forth. Star Lord - 星爵 (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)