Talk:World energy supply and consumption

Fixing the layout etc.

@Rwbest and Ita140188: Would you have time to implement your very good ideas now I have done a basic merge? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for doing this merger, Chidgk1! EMsmile (talk) 23:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Chidgk1: I'll try to help to clean up the mess, but I asked to merge only after consensus is reached about the layout and after updating and expressing in common units the energy amounts in World energy consumption. Don't expect me to do that, please note that my age is 85, so I hope that the update etc is done by others. If that does not occur then I suggest to simply remove those energy amounts. Rwbest (talk) 08:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I understand - thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 14:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Section 6 By source consists of excerpts etc of other articles about energy sources. I propose to remove section 6. Rwbest (talk) 15:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I've reorganized the article and want to remove the template message. Please comment. Rwbest (talk) 07:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

removed - thanks very much Chidgk1 (talk) 10:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned references in World energy supply and 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 supply and 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 Economic inequality: [1], UNDP (1990) Human Deuelopment Report, Oxford University Press, New York
• 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.

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⚡ 21:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Original research?

I don't have a view but as this article has been tagged I copied this from the article which was merged Chidgk1 (talk) 08:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Worldwide_energy_supply#Trend

In Worldwide_energy_supply#Trend the sources does not back up what there is stated. In fact, you have to compare or look up things yourself, making it6 WP:OR. "Sources" like that are not suitable, as the sources must back up the claims. The Banner talk 15:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

You are playing a worn-out record. I don't listen anymore. Rwbest (talk) 09:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you admitting that you do not have the proper sources needed. The Banner talk 10:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Fixed - hopefully Chidgk1 (talk) 08:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

In fact, the whole Supply-article was based on dodgy sources and Synthesis of published material. Rwbest pulls his own conclusions, often not backed up by the sources. The Banner talk 08:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I deleted a fair amount of info not for OR but for being out of date. If you think there is original research in the current article please could you tag the sentences or sections so a third-party can take a look. And as noted above the layout is a mess due to the merge - if you have any time to improve it would be great too. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Rwbest is the main writer of the merged article. I did my best to get things reliable, but the copied part above makes clear how he stands in it. The Banner talk 19:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

IEA scenarios

In the section "IEA scenarios" two scenarios are presented. Unfortunately, page 132 does not offer any evidence about the second scenario. Not a clue where this is coming from. Removal is probably the best option. The Banner talk 17:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Hopefully properly cited now - if not please tag exactly where not with reason - thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Much better. I hope you now understand my worries and concerns about the other editor and his sourcing. The Banner talk 21:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Need a definition of what energy "energy consumption" includes

I live in a country with a lot of geothermal heat, which is used for example in spas. Also many houses here have solar water heaters on the roof. But this article says that world energy consumed consists of fuel (78%) and electricity (22%), but does not cite it.

So is geothermal and solar heat not included in the stats and if so is there an official definition of "energy consumption" which could be included in the article (and in Statistical study of energy data) and cited? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The way I read the article, I would say it is about commercially produced energy. Geothermal and home-produced energy seem to fall outside the scope. The Banner talk 20:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Geothermal_power_in_Turkey#Direct_use_of_heat are sometimes fair sized businesses and commercial in that they want to make money. And Geothermal heating is increasing in other countries too I think (most countries don't have the geothermal CO2 problem we have) e.g. old disused UK coal mines. If anyone has a definition of (national) "energy consumption" please could you cite it. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

AFAIK Energy consumption is not officially defined. The UN IRES https://unstats.un.org/unsd/energystats/methodology/documents/IRES-web.pdf Chapter V section C is the high level glossary for energy flow definitions. It lists Final consumption; consumption is mentioned only in context.

Geothermal and solar heat are included in IEA balances https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tables?country=WORLD&energy=Balances&year=2018 under Wind, solar, etc. Rwbest (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

About the last part (Geothermal etc.): do you have evidence of your claim? The Banner talk 21:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Good question. The IEA does not list energy sources included in etc. But look at Balances https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tables?country=WORLD&energy=Balances&year=2018 Geothermal electricity and heat must be part of Wind. solar, etc and Heat because it is not fossile, Nuclear, Hydro or Biofuel. Geothermal is included in the stats, switch to Energy Category Electricity https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tables?country=WORLD&energy=Electricity&year=2018 Geothermal production is 88956 GWh = 7649 ktoe elektricity plus 44411 TJ = 1060 ktoe heat. This is less than 1 promille of all energy production. Rwbest (talk) 09:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

So you have no clear sources for the claim? The Banner talk 09:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I found in the Renewables & waste category https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tables?country=WORLD&energy=Renewables%20%26%20waste&year=2018

• Geothermal production 3858 PJ = 92 Mtoe
• Solar thermal production 1518 PJ = 36 Mtoe
• Solar PV generation 554 TWh = 48 Mtoe
• Wind generation 1273 TWh = 109 Mtoe
• Total 285 Mtoe

almost equal to Wind, solar, etc 286 Mtoe in the Balances category. So etc is Geothermal.

For Geothermal and Solar thermal the heat production is taken to assess Primary energy, see note 1 in the World energy article. Thus Geothermal and Wind seem about equally important whereas their electricity generations differ very much, 89 vs 1273 TWh, due to the very low efficiency of geothermal power plants. Rwbest (talk) 08:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Took out further reading section

I removed the further reading section as I felt it wasn't adding value:

• Jacobson, Mark Z; Delucchi, Mark A; Cameron, Mary A; Mathiesen, Brian V (2018). "Matching demand with supply at low cost in 139 countries among 20 world regions with 100% intermittent wind, water, and sunlight (WWS) for all purposes". Renewable Energy. 123: 236–248. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2018.02.009. EMsmile (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Why the removal of so many wikilinks?

Hi User:2001:8003:9008:1301:8592:bee9:e345:6e4f it seems to me that you're taking out wikilinks without an explanation? See this edit which I have just reverted a second time. If you explain to me why you want to change all those wikilinks that would be useful. EMsmile (talk) 09:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I back up this question. Replacing lower case/upper case is useless for links, can only create links to redirects. " " (or "no back space") is a technical trick to keep text together without line break in between, like a value. The Banner talk 09:56, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Data update

To update data from 2018 to 2021 I changed the main data source, the IEA, which is very expensive, to Enerdata. See the table in Primary energy production. Such data are probably available from Eurostat but I cannot find them - too complicated. If somebody can help me please do so. Rwbest (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Refusal to give sources.

I have been adding a maintenance template to this article, requesting sources for a table. Unfortunately, user:Rwbest keeps removing these requests pointing at a source 12 somewhere in the article. For most readers, it will stay unclear what source is used for the table. The Banner talk 00:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Fixed Chidgk1 (talk) 12:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Chidgk1, could you please give the link to the edit where this was fixed? I am just trying to follow and understand what is going on with this article. I don't even know which table or section this was referring to. Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 09:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@EMsmile Ah yes sorry hard to spot as I bundled it in with another change - it was the export import table:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_energy_supply_and_consumption&type=revision&diff=1107329252&oldid=1107315357 Chidgk1 (talk) 06:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

More sources needed, essay

Tis is a continuation of earlier the discussions Talk:World_energy_supply_and_consumption#Original_research?, Talk:World_energy_supply_and_consumption#Need_a_definition_of_what_energy_"energy_consumption"_includes and Talk:World_energy_supply_and_consumption#Refusal_to_give_sources.. It is clear Rwbest claims ownership of this article and has made it into an essay, with whole parts unsourced/original research. The Banner talk 18:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

As it is clear to you, please explain and prove your points. Your proof that I claim ownership of this article must be interesting. Rwbest (talk) 07:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I can prove that. Simply by using your own edit history and your edit summaries (recent examples: "Template messages removed because talkpage discussion has not been initiated." and this edit). And other have only to read this talk page. The Banner talk 09:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

That's not proof at all. You have no points. You are playing a worn-out record. Worse, you're lying. I can't and don't claim ownership of this article, and you know it. Stop that, Trump Banner. Rwbest (talk) 10:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Ow, now you start with personal attacks? Do you mind that I take personal attacks as admitting defeat against the accusations?The Banner talk 10:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I have now request the assistance of an expert about this subject to review this article. The Banner talk 12:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Template:Essay-like, Do not use this template to tag fact-oriented pages

Template:More citations needed, Don't use this tag for articles that contain no unreferenced material

The Banner did not explain why he anyway used these templates, so I remove them. Rwbest (talk) 09:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

And again you claim ownership of this article by rejecting any criticism. Don't go down the edit war path, please. The Banner talk 09:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Rwbest and The Banner: I've been following your exchanges and I can feel both of your pain. It's horrible when one gets locked into a kind of "fight" with another editor. It's happened to me a few times and I usually long for a third and fourth person to show up! Looking at the user page of User:The Banner, this seems to be a very experienced user with a generally friendly tone (although they keep saying there is an ownership issue here which I am not sure about). Is there anything I can do to help resolve the stalemate? I think maintenance tags are usually not problematic and could stay on. However the one called "essay like" is surprising for me for this article. Where is it essay like? The one on "citations needed" might be more valid. Would it help to scatter the "citation needed" tags throughout? I see that Rwbest has sometimes removed them. Why? It might be best if you are both very specific about aspects that require improvement, can we go through them section by section rather than making broad statements about "ownership" or not? Perhaps start a separate section here on the talk page for each maintenance tag that you feel strongly about? - I am just trying to help. EMsmile (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I used "essay like" because Rwbest does not like the term "original research". The Banner talk 18:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

But as you can see, he removed the maintenance templates again. The Banner talk 22:26, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello EMsmile, I welcome your help.

I always add enough references to verify the text and The Banner always wants more. I requested him to explain and prove the point "whole parts unsourced" but he did not prove at all. I'd like to see exactly which text parts need more citation so I can add source if needed. But what is needed is controversial.

Another point is ownership. I can't own the article. Maybe you can explain why this is an issue at all. Rwbest (talk) 08:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

A lot of your sources are/were of the type do-it-yourself where you only give a link to a work but not to the actual info it is claimed to back up. The Banner talk 08:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

See Data update above. IEA data source, even when archived, poses problems. That's why I'm changing to Enerdata and other sources. Rwbest (talk) 10:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm still trying to catch up and understand what is going on. Are you, User:The Banner, saying that Enerdata is unreliable? What do you mean with "of the type do-it-yourself"? Are you saying that referring to tables is not allowed? Perhaps I misunderstood. I suggest you give say 3 specific examples (perhaps start new sections on the talk page for those). Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 08:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't claim that Enerdata or the IEA are unreliable. What I say is that there are or were sources of the type "See this report" and then you have to read the whole report to be able to check the info. And sometimes picking up the info from different parts of the report. The Banner talk 08:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

In that case, how about we add the page number of the report to the citation? This would be easy to do like this: {{rp|6}} for page 6 for example. Please point out the instances where this is needed? Maybe add hidden comments in the right places to the article saying "please add report page number"? I use page numbers a lot, see e.g. here: sustainability. I agree with you that citing a huge report without a page number makes it harder for readers. So I am all for page numbers. Or number of tables if needed. EMsmile (talk) 09:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

That is already a very long standing issue known to the author. The Banner talk 09:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, I am trying to reach a path out of this situation where you and Rwbest are "stuck". Also, there is not just one author for this Wikipedia article. If you want more Wikipedians to partake, then such hidden comments or a listing here on the talk page would be useful. EMsmile (talk) 09:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Seeing the history, it is more then likely that those hidden comments and/or new maintenance template will be removed. The Banner talk 10:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

OK, then let's check: Rwbest are you OK with adding page numbers for those instances where a source is used that is a big report with many pages? If you're not familiar with how page numbers are used, please take a look at this article where I've used page numbers on quite a few of the references: sustainability. EMsmile (talk) 08:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I'll add pagenumbers if needed. But Enerdata is just one page ... Rwbest (talk) 07:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

This is a bit problematic if Enerdata is just a website which can change dynamically and then the ref wouldn't be quite right anymore. Most websites also publish "annual reports" of sorts. Could this be a solution, e.g. this 2022 report, accessible from their website: https://www.enerdata.net/system/files/publications/global-energy-climate-trends-2022-edition.pdf . For comparison, JMP publishes data on their website for SDG 6 achievement by country but they also put out reports regularly which can then be cited with precise page numbers: https://washdata.org/ . Should we try to rather cite pdf files than a dynamic website (not sure)? EMsmile (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Would archived pages be of use? The Banner talk 23:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

An archived version of the website might be better than a "live" version, as at least there is a fixed point of reference then. I don't know how to archive a page though, I've seen "wayback machine" being used? I think a pdf file (annual report of sorts) is better but failing that then an archived version of the website might be the next best solution? EMsmile (talk) 08:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

To use both seems a good plan. The yearly PDFs are stable enough, the archived versions can be used for data not or not yet covered by the yearly reports. But this is my advice, it is up to Rwbest to implement it. The Banner talk 10:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I also don't know how to archive a reference. Seems to be done automatically. Rwbest (talk) 08:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Relevant?

Why is this considered relevant? And why is it added to the lead?

“ One of the largest organizations in this field, the International Energy Agency (IEA), sells yearly comprehensive energy data.[3] Enerdata publishes a free Yearbook.[4] ”

The Banner talk 17:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Energy_Agency#Restricting_access_to_data

Rwbest (talk) 08:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the question by User:The Banner was valid. Based on the answer by Rwbest, I've tried to modify the wording to make it more explicit: One of the largest organizations in this field, the International Energy Agency (IEA), sells yearly comprehensive energy data which makes this data paywalled and difficult to access for internet users. The organization Enerdata on the other hand publishes a free Yearbook, making the data more accessible. OK? I've also moved it to the end of the lead, rather than the first paragraph. Note that Enerdata does not have a Wikipedia article yet which is perhaps a pity. EMsmile (talk) 08:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

But is it necessary to add this to the lead or can it be states later in the article? Maybe a separate header way down the article. The Banner talk 08:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, we probably don't need this in the lead (which is meant to be a summary). But then I'd put it at the start of the article, not at the end. It seems quite crucial and important to me. EMsmile (talk) 09:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Adding a few words to the edit summary box each would be very helpful

Just a small housekeeping note: User:Rwbest I noticed that you sometimes leave the edit summary box empty when you make edits to the article. As someone who is watching this article but not deeply involved in it, I would find it really helpful if you could add a short edit summary to each edit. Even if it's just "corrected typo", "moved xx because", "removed yy because". This helps in our collaborative editing process. Thanks a lot. EMsmile (talk) 08:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Are sources still missing?

Hello @The Banner,

If there are still missing sources could you possible tag exactly where with "citation needed" please Chidgk1 (talk) 06:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

1. Energy consumption per person in North America is very high while in most of Africa it is low and more renewable. Original research.
2. Table "Largest PE producers (76%)" needs a source
3. Tables in section "Total energy supply" need sources, as does the last paragraph.
4. Table "Countries consuming most (85%) in Europe"
5. The first paragraph of "Energy for energy" is now speculation
6. Most of "Alternative scenarios" contains bad sourcing (I hope, assuming that "(p.xxviii)" is in fact a source)

The Banner talk 11:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Ad 4: Source [11][25] for the tables, IEA Data and Statistics 2018, is not public domain but I bought it some years ago and can still access it. Other users may find it in a library but that is not convenient. The tables are correct. I have not yet found an alternative and more up-to-date source for TFC. Eurostat seems to have no data for contries outside the EU.

Other points: I see no reason to add (info to) sources apart from page numbers when useful. If The Banner points out exactly where he does not understand a source then I'll look at it. Rwbest (talk) 08:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Ad 4: a source must be verifiable. As far as I know there is no rule that a source must be easy verifiable. Going to a library or buying a book is a good method for when you want to check it (bought a book some years ago for the Dutch Wikipedia while another editor got that book from the library.) But it would certainly help when you give a quotation. The Banner talk 08:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

restored maintenance template

I have restored the template "Expert needed" that was removed.

I have also questions about the addition (by User:Wikideas1) and subsequent removal (by User:Rwbest) of an (unsourced) graph about oil production. Can this be explained? The Banner talk 08:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

And again, User:Rwbest removed the expert needed template. And again, I have restored it. The questions raised by User:Chidgk1 (see his edits after the removal) make loud and clear this template is needed. The Banner talk 14:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I have tried the "expert needed" template on a couple of other articles in the past and no expert has ever turned up. Unfortunately it seems Wikiproject Energy is not very active. So I don't find this template useful. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

That is a more fair explanation that the IDONTLIKEIT-argumentation used before. The Banner talk 09:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps the editors involved in Energy return on investment could be of help. The Banner talk 10:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Search it yourself...

This edit does not make clear what table is being referred to for the 2% figure, as requested in the source request. I refrain from reverting it, but in my opinion it is in the form a useless source. The Banner talk 16:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

And dumping a sentence in the edit summary is not improving the source, so the maintenance template is restored. The Banner talk 17:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Fixed it with "One World in data" which is a good source. I don't know Enerdata Chidgk1 (talk) 06:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Page numbers need to be added properly

I see that someone (User:Rwbest?) has now added page numbers but it hasn't been done properly. Example: "In 2050 renewables can cover nearly all energy demand. Non-energy consumption will still include fossil fuels. See Fig.5 on p.xxvii" What is the reference? Figure 5 of which publication? It's better to use the {{rp|Fig. 5}} which goes after the reference and results in a superscript number. A page number of xxvii is a bit awkward so in this case it's perhaps best to provide the figure number, not the page number. Either way, it needs to go in as a superscript, not in the main text. EMsmile (talk) 11:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Looks like User:Rwbest refuses to use proper sources, as he removed the maintenance templates again and is now editwarring. The Banner talk 15:28, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Very disappointing. I agree with you (The Banner) that such maintenance templates should stay. I like to use the one called {{citation needed}}. User:Rwbest, please engage with us here on the talk page rather than using the edit summary field to try and reach consensus. Perhaps it would also help if we wrote on the talk page of WikiProject Climate to try and get more eyes and opinions for this article? EMsmile (talk) 22:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Much to my surprise, he later added the sources in a correct form. That is positive. I am now checking the sources. So far, I have question marks over the second source ([33]: xxvii Fig. 5) as I can not find the "claim" in that table. The Banner talk 23:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I have added one "failed verification"-template to the section. I look concerned to copied sentences and half sentences from the source but as it is short, a rewrite can do. I am not going to take action on that. The Banner talk 10:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I did not add sources. The section Alternative scenarios has only one source, given in the first sentence. Page and figure numbers in the text refer, of course, to the only reference given, a book. Properly! Now this book is referred to six more times in the short section. That is not more correct or positive, it's ridiculous! Expectedly, The Banner will not stop questioning clear sources which he cannot find. He must look better, I'm not going to "add sources".

I'll pause to work on this article. The working atmosphere is intolerant, compulsive. Rwbest (talk) 09:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

The negative working atmosphere is - in part - of your making. The Banner talk 10:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Total primary energy demand and the share of renewable sources in 2040 can be verified at Fig.5 on p.xxvii, look at the penultimate bar chart. That renewables can cover nearly all energy demand in 2050 is evident at the rightmost bar chart. The Banner doesn't understand and adds a "failed verification"-template, again sowing doubt about factual correctness without good reason. When I remove such an unreasonable template he restores it immediately, not looking better at the reference. When I remove the template again he accuses me of editwarring and warns me at my talk page of being blocked from editing.

The Banner's maintenance behaviour is unacceptable and spoils the working atmosphere. Is it possible to block him? Rwbest (talk) 10:16, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I know that you do not like critical readers who want proper sourcing. And sourcing that proves the statement. The Banner talk 11:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The Banner, do you understand now Fig.5 on p.xxvii looking at the indicated bar charts? Rwbest (talk) 07:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I see no reason whatsoever to block The Banner. I think he is being very reasonable here and polite. In fact, more reasonable and polite than you, Rwbest. Just leave those maintenance tags visible - they don't do any harm and help us all to improve the article, and help readers to know that there is work that remains to be done. Don't edit war. Those little tags can stay for a while and be removed later when everything has been resolved with those sources, page numbers etc. - And I'll repeat my suggestions: Perhaps it would also help if we wrote on the talk page of WikiProject Climate to try and get more eyes and opinions for this article? - I think we need to involve more people as this is an important topic. EMsmile (talk) 10:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. The Banner was very unreasonable on 31 Aug saying that I claim ownership and made it into an essay. His "failed verification"-template is unreasonable because the source can be verified, as I told him. This template does harm as it sows doubt about factual correctness. I don't accept his behaviour, so I remove the template. Rwbest (talk) 10:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Your arguments here are the best proof of you claiming ownership of the article. Everything must be to your wishes, critical views or checks are not allowed. The Banner talk 16:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

What actually is the world energy consumption?

Given the title, I'd say this info should be given in the intro. In the table below the intro it says 14800 mtoe. (*) What? I know a household light consumes about 3 W and my electric heater 2 kW. That's what it says on the product. That is something I can relate to. Mtoe? I haven't the foggiest. There is a conversion factor to TWh per year, but that's not W, so I'd still have to convert that, and know how to do that. Rough estimate 15000*10/10000 = 15 TW. Well, a bit more. Sounds about right. But that took some searching for the value, noticing there's a conversion factor, and then adding another conversion factor. And knowing how to do that. Rather a big ask for someone who just wants a quick answer (as I did).
(*) Oops, that's supply. It seems the consumption that's in the title isn't in the article at all. DirkvdM (talk) 05:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this article is of poor quality. Do you have a bit of time on your hands to help improve it? EMsmile (talk) 11:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I was looking for that information and I'm surprised that it's not here (or, if it is, it's buried). And yes, it's very annoying that the energy consumption is given in the bizarre units of "MToe". Energy should be in Watts (or, for this scale, terawatts).

I added units to the tables, and put in the conversion of the bottom line (world energy) into TW-hr and TW. (Note that I spelled out MToe in the tables, since many people will go right to the tables, and they should be comprehensible without having to look up an obscure acronym.) Geoffrey.landis (talk) 02:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Geographies of Energy and Sustainability

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 January 2024 and 15 March 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Maxwynn (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Maxwynn (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)