Jump to content

Talk:Energy in the United States/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

NPOV

This article has serious NPOV issues. Much of its content subtly (or not so subtly) endorses certain enviro-political agendas. In particular, the focus on CO2 emissions is simply not relevant to a discussion on energy production and consumption in their own right. Shamanix (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Energy consumption of computers in the USA section

It should be noted that the population in 2005 was almost exactly double that in 1950 (See U.S. Census data). It would be more appropriate to note that energy per capita increased by 50% rather than to say it tripled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.182.197.62 (talk) 13:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I've toned down the hyperbole in this section. Mills estimated cyberinfrastructure as 13%, not 20% of US electricity usage, and as I note in the text, even that number was immediately disputed.

Overall, I disagree that computer usage even warrants its own section in this article. Data compiled by the Dept. of Energy consistently show when you're talking electricity in the United States, you're talking lighting, air conditioning, and refrigeration. Yes, computers use electricity, and we have lots of computers, but in kwH terms, it's still a tiny slice of the energy pie. With the increasing use of LCD monitors (as opposed to energy-wasting CRT's), per-system energy use has probably declined quite a bit since 1999.

Mills' exaggerated estimates make sense when you realize he was writing for a publication created by the coal industry. It was in their interests to make extravagant claims about future electricity usage in the Internet-based "new economy", thus hyping the need for new power plants. InNuce 00:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Units

The table is unclear because the units aren't specified. The table lists "consumption", but doesn't say consumption of what. The units imply that it is power consumption which is just another way of saying "rate of energy consumption". However, as this is an article about "Energy use", it is implicit that the article discusses total energy consumption. In order to clear this up, someone should double-check the reference and confirm which unit is intended and clarify the table headng appropriately. For example, if the table really is discussing the rate of energy consumption (or power) it should clearly say "power consumption" or "rate of energy consumption" in the column headings. If a typo was made, then the units should be corrected to TWh or joules or whatever and the heading of the column should be changed to indicate that it is "energy consumption". Not just consumption. This is confusing.

Alteris (talk) 10:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a different complaint about units. This entire article uses "quadrillion BTUs" in preference to plain old EJ. Is there any particular reason such strange units are used here? If not, I'm very much tempted to switch everything to use Joules preferentially and BTUs parenthetically, if at all. Technically speaking, the metric system is the preferred system of units for US government business. Xezlec (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"entire article"? The BTU is only mentioned 3 times: the lead paragraph and in 2 graphs. It can definitely be dumped from the 1st paragraph; the total number of joules or BTU's or whatever is so high it's basically meaningless to readers anyway.
But I think the graphs should be left as-is, to be consistent with their source documents. This is U.S. Dept of Energy data, and DOE uses the BTU as their standard unit whenever they aggregate energy from different sources (their explanation is that it's "the measure of thermal energy used most frequently in the U.S."). InNuce (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that the US government or the US Department of Energy specifies scientific units. The Systeme International is used in all civilized countries (as well as some parts of the US.) Joules are preferable to the trivial units used (BTU.) The graphs are problematic, but there could be a notation: "To change from BTU to scientiic units (kilojoules) multiply by 1.05" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkerfoot (talk • contribs) 04:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Explaining regional differences

There is a fair bit of unreferenced explanations of the regional differences in energy use which I am not convinced is entirely accurate. I'm not convinced that heating and AC are the biggest factors, or building codes either. I corrected one incorrect statement that apartments use less energy than single-family houses, which is unfortunately not factual, see for instance here [1] and replaced it with the more verifiable statement that they use less energy than townhouses. Tono-bungay (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort to catch statements that seem like they ought to be true but aren't. However, I'm mystified by your citation of the EIA table to refute that apartments use less energy than SF houses. The numbers I read in that table: single-fam detached: 108. Single fam attached 100. Small apartment buildings: 78. Large apartment buildings (next page) 41. All in millions of BTU per household. Seems like apartments use less than townhouses to me.Ccrrccrr (talk) 06:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC) hello people≠

Energy flow

Possible picture from the page found on the EIA website. 2006 US Energy Flow Mrshaba (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Also... The importance of Energy use in the United States should at least be High. The basic reason for this is that many other energy, environmental and US articles reference this page or will eventually. I would think energy use in China, India, Japan and Germany should be of high importance. Mrshaba (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a new (2008) version of this image from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. I've uploaded the new version to File:USEnergyFlow08-quads.png. It doesn't have a yellow part but I still think we should replace the 2002 version since that's pretty old. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Utoks (talk • contribs) 04:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Energy production

It would be interesting an Energy production in the United States article. --Mac (talk) 13:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be better to rename this article "Energy in the United States" as it covers both use and production.--agr (talk) 11:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree, use and production should be covered in the same article. I'm placing a request on Wikipedia:Requested moves. --Hartz (talk) 09:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 Done Parsecboy (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Chart: The breakdown of energy consumption

The source sited in the reference gives energy consumption in Quadrillion Btu. Whoever made this chart has converted this to TW or terawatts. However, watts are usually understood to mean a rate of power consumption and BTU is a quantity of energy. A quantity of energy like BTUs could be expressed in watts consumed for so many hours, which are watt-hours. I think the TW in the chart should be TW-years, which would be the amount of energy consumed at the rate of X-many terawatts for 24 hours a day 365 days a year. When I multiplied the TWs given in the chart by 24 and then 365 the ansewer was equivalent to the BTUs in the reference source when I converted my result of terawatt hours into BTUs. So shouldn't the chart state TW-years or just give in quadrillion BTUs as in the original sources stated in the reference? Here is what I did for the US Total: 3.35 TW * 24 * 365 = 29,346 terawatthour = 100.13270387 quadrillion BTU. Shouldn't this change from the original source of BTU to the TW in the chart be explained? 172.162.170.247 (talk) 04:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. My first thought was, "There was no way an official report would measure energy by a unit of power." Sure enough, someone put down the wrong unit. This is an obvious error that needs to be fixed, but I think that we should use TWh. Everyone knows kWh from their electric bills. TWyear is harder to fathom. Either TWh or BTUs. --75.187.32.194 (talk) 04:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Update tag

I've added an update tag: most of the data comes from years ago. Johnfos (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Seemingly out of whack ranking

This edit adding Mexico to the assertion, "The U.S. ranks seventh in energy consumption per-capita after Canada, Mexico and a number of small countries." popped up on my watchlist. The assertion is supported by two cited sources,

It looks to me as if something is out of whack here and/or further clarification is needed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

United States' Founding

The History section notes that from "its founding till the late 1700s the US was primarily a agricultural...." I believe that unless the author actually intended the year range to be a vague ~13 years, that needs to be changed to either its original colonization date or we need an exact ending year for the agricultural period for the United States —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artemis Faust (talk • contribs) 03:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Does this article need updating?

It says here China became the worlds biggest total energy consumer: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-07-20/china-passes-u-s-as-world-s-biggest-energy-consumer.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.172.36 (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Why does this article need to be updated because of some fact in China? This article is about the United States. China is irrelevant to this article. Student7 (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

OIL CONSUMPTION

Article states >>:U.S. oil consumption is approximately 21,000,000 barrels << NO CITATION

Per Financial Times May 2 >> [US] oil demand of 19m b/d, while on the rebound, remains 2m b/d below pre-recession levels< - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3c2c1b9c-74de-11e0-a4b7-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1LGgwfedf 24.84.242.24 (talk) 06:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

resource

Could Shale Gas Reignite the U.S. Economy? "Unlocking vast reserves of shale gas could solve the energy crisis, the jobs crisis, and the deficit. Now, about fracking’s safety ..." November 03, 2011, 4:50 PM EDT by Paul M. Barrett BusinessWeek. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

See similar idea on Talk:Renewable energy in the United States. 99.190.83.243 (talk) 05:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Net fuel exporter resource

U.S. Nears Milestone: Net Fuel Exporter by Liam Pleven and Russell Gold, November 30, 2011 Wall Street Journal, excerpt ....

U.S. exports of gasoline, diesel and other oil-based fuels are soaring, putting the nation on track to be a net exporter of petroleum products in 2011 for the first time in 62 years. A combination of booming demand from emerging markets and faltering domestic activity means the U.S. is exporting more fuel than it imports, upending the historical norm. According to data released by the U.S. Energy Information Administration on Tuesday, the U.S. sent abroad 753.4 million barrels of everything from gasoline to jet fuel in the first nine months of this year, while it imported 689.4 million barrels.

97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

potential resource

It's Official: 'Age of Shale' Has Arrived October 18, 2011 by Russell Gold and Ryan Dezember from Talk:Shale oil extraction#resource 99.190.80.182 (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

BusinessWeek resource

Could Shale Gas Reignite the U.S. Economy? "Unlocking vast reserves of shale gas could solve the energy crisis, the jobs crisis, and the deficit. Now, about fracking’s safety ..." November 03, 2011, 4:50 PM EDT by Paul M. Barrett. 99.181.130.110 (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Natural gas resource

Consumption Summary Nuclear Electric Power 30%

In the Consumption Summary table the Current consumption section, there is a 30% in parentheses along with a reference to a radio talk show. The talk show doesn't name any sources for the information, so shouldn't this reference be removed, since it contradicts data from the seemingly more reliable U.S. Energy Information Administration? 69.244.160.5 (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

cleanup

This article needs pretty thorough cleanup: each table and stat should be checked for currency and references, each section needs a summary, references need to be improved where possible, and it needs a check for duplication. I will chip away at it but could use help! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 17:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

This article was edited as part of an edit-a-thon


 This article was edited as part of the San Francisco WikiWomen's Edit-a-thon. The editor who attended the event may be a new editor. In an effort to support new editor's & a healthy environment, please assume good faith to their contributions before making changes. Thank you! Sarah (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Article Issues - Stats issues and POV

Overall the article is quite good. Where the article loses me is when it attempts to rewrite facts and exits the reality of the current electricity production and what the future will look like.

I am referring specifically to:

Trends

In 2010 USA’s electrical energy usage was 8% more than in 2000. It was 1% less than the peak in 2007. For the near future, coal, natural gas, and nuclear will remain the top three fuels for electric energy generation in the USA with natural gas increasing its contribution. Hydro will hardly maintain. Petroleum will continue to decrease in importance. Wind and solar will continue to grow in importance but their combined contribution to U.S. energy output will be challenged to reach 4% by 2015 without a major policy change. Long term, wind, water, and solar are projected to be predominant. Water will be used predominantly for energy storage.[1][2]

Breakdown:

"for the near future" - 'Near future' by who's definition? The EIA estimates coal, natgas, and nuclear will be the main sources of energy until at least 2035. [3]

"Hydro will hardly maintain". Maintain what? Hydro has been a consistent source of power and helps to augment the renewables totals.

"Long term, wind, water, and solar are projected to be predominant". Where is this projected? What is the meaning of 'long term'? The EIA estimates renewables (including Hydro) will be 16% of energy generation in 2035.

"Water will be use predominantly for energy storage" - When? On what planet?

Plans

According to the 2012 Annual Energy Outlook, from 2010 to 2015 the United States summer peak electricity generation capacity is expected to increase from 1006.6 Gigawatts to 1017.4 Gigawatts, a 1% increase. Coal fueled capacity is expected to decrease by 19.4 Gigawatts; nuclear capacity is expected to increase by 2.4 Gigawatts; hydro by 0.38 Gigawatts, geothermal by 0.43 Gigawatts; wind by 12.54 Gigawatts; solar by 2.53 Gigawatts, and all together, a 16.22 Gigawatt increase in renewable generating capacity. Wind generating capacity would increase by 36%; solar, 242%. Expected 2015 energy output from wind would be 3.6% of U.S. electrical energy usage. Solar would be 0.5%. Based on the 21% growth of wind in 2011, and the 70% growth in solar, these are likely to be low estimates. A 20% annual increase in wind power over five years would increase capacity by 60 Gigawatts by 2015, and a 60% annual increase in solar power would increase solar capacity by 25 Gigawatts by 2015, almost 5 and 10 times the AEO estimates, respectively. Generation capacity (as opposed to generating capacity) is a function of the capacity factor, which is about 30-35% for wind power and about 15-20% for solar power. This means that for every 100 MW of wind power installed, on average it will generate from about 30 to 35 MW, depending on the location. For every 100 MW of solar power installed, it will generate an average of from about 15 to 20 MW, depending on the location, as well as other factors. For example, a concentrating solar array (CSP) with thermal storage can have a capacity factor of over 75%, and provide power 24 hours a day. The Bureau of Land Management has allocated over 97 million acres of land in the southwest for solar projects - enough for 4 million MW of CSP solar power, with 24 hour storage - more than enough to supply all of the energy used in the United States.[4][5]

Plans? Who's plan?

This segment attempts to minimize some forms of energy generation and over emphasize the importance of others.

"Solar would be 0.5%. Based on the 21% growth of wind in 2011, and the 70% growth in solar, these are likely to be low estimates." - Who states they are likely to be low estimates? Based on what?

The entire paragraph then spirals into a "what if" scenario of how (with compounding and statistics magic) we can then rely on renewables for all power generation. This is a noble pursuit, but no reliable source, history of the USA, etc. can justify the inclusion of these numbers under a segment entitled "Plans". — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterWesco‎ (talk • contribs) 00:25, 2 September 2012‎

I would encourage your editing the paragraphs if you disagree. The only reference given for the trends paragraph is a paper that does support the claim that water will be used primarily for storage. You may wish to change "Plans" to "Projections". It is pretty obvious that the projections from the AEO lack credibility, but that should be supported with a reliable source, no matter how obvious it is, in addition to just pointing out the inconsistencies. The United States is an anarchy of different competing companies and no one can say that the country has "plans". It is not a matter of "relying on renewables". All non-renewables are subject to depletion, and when they can no longer meet requirements, it is only renewables that can take their place. Not this year or next year, but as soon as a decade from now, and certainly within this century. In the 70s people talked about being in the cold and in the dark if nuclear power was not developed. Now we know that nuclear power is not going to play an important role other than delaying the development of wind and solar. But hind sight is always 20-20. And few people are willing to admit that they were wrong. It is kind of interesting to look at a chart of energy in the United States from 1650 to 1900, which shows that wood had been increasing by 3%/year, but then reached a peak about the same time that coal came along and took over. By 1900 petroleum was contributing about as much as wind is today. I remember a quote from a newspaper in Orange, Texas saying that the discovery of oil there in the early 20th century was not expected to have any economic significance to the area.
There are two competing projections, though, the US DOE, which is basically driven by coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear, although within the DOE there are two competing projections, the EIA and the NREL, which tends toward the second projection, which is that of the US using half as much energy in 2050 as in 2000, and using all renewable energy by 2030 if not sooner. You can take your pick between those two projections, but they are totally divergent. Delphi234 (talk) 06:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part I
  2. ^ Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part II
  3. ^ http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/executive_summary.cfm
  4. ^ Annual Energy Outlook 2012
  5. ^ Solar Energy Development PEIS

Annual power capacity

Could someone take a look at Annual Power Capacity (billion kWh)? This column was just added, and is a simple multiplication of Power Capacity (GW) times 8.76, the number of hours in a year (GW times 8760h/1000 = billion kWh). The real problem is that the capacity factor is not 100% in all cases. Wind may have 1 GW installed, but only produces electricity 30% of the time. Coal may produce electricity 80% of the time. Should the column just be deleted? Delphi234 (talk) 21:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

kWh

Comment is invited at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Proposal on the question of whether kWh (with no space and no dot) is an acceptable unit symbol for use in articles, as opposed to restricting the choices to kW·h or kW h (i.e. with either a space or a dot). EEng (talk) 22:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Brown outs and black outs

Does anyone have a source how many brown outs and blackouts did happen in the last few years? the more detailed the better, but everything would help. 212.90.151.90 (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

2013 data

2013 figures are now posted for the data in Energy_in_the_United_States#Electrical_Energy. New data includes, for instance, 1,394,919 million kWh to the residential sector [2] and 127,882,182 residential customers [3]. --LRG (talk) 01:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

97 million acres of solar arrays?

Under "Projections", we have the following:

"The Bureau of Land Management has allocated over 97 million acres of land in the southwest for solar projects"

Unless my calculator is slipping a digit or two, this is an area larger than the state of Montana! Perhaps they opened up that much land for proposals to build solar arrays, but allocated makes it sound as if the BLM expects to fill the entire 97 million acres with solar arrays. Plazak (talk) 14:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

As I suspected, the above statement about 97 million acres "allocated" was a mischaracterization, and the 97 million number is outdated. I have updated the status per the BLM website. Plazak (talk) 01:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Current consumption - outdated

Several of the consumption by source/sector charts are fairly outdated (from 2005, 2008). These should be updated, but I'm not an expert on the topic/wasn't sure the best place to find reliable updated charts. Hopefully someone can address this. -KaJunl (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Energy in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Energy in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Page to be linked

Hello, I recently created a page with some classmates called 21st Century Fossil Fuel Regulations in the United States that I think would be good linked to this page. Hmthorner (talk) 00:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Energy in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Energy_in_the_United_States/Archive_1&oldid=1147630859"