Talk:Energy superpower

Projected superpowers

Regarding the forthcoming shift towards other energy sources, shouldn't there be appended headline pondering the 'about to rise' 'energy superpowers'? I.e. headline on countries capable of utilizing theirs wood resources with connection on renewable technologies. --213.250.13.223 (talk) 09:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Austrailian uranium

According to lots of stuff I've read (eg http://www.uic.com.au/ozuran.htm) Australia has the worlds largest uranium reserves as well as lots of coal and natural gas, wouldn't that make it a potential future 'energy superpower'? Shadoom (talk) 02:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There is some debate about this. Australia's former PM certainly used the term Energy superpower, but his government lost the election last November. It has been suggested that it is more appropriate to call Australia a Sustainable energy leader. (see [1] and Renewable energy commercialization in Australia) -- Johnfos (talk) 02:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Australian Coal, Uranium and Oil

According to various sources, from memory Australia has the uranium reserves of any country, is the largest black coal exporter and fourth largest overall coal exporter (and the coal is very clean and high-grade), and we have significant natural gas and oil reserves, as well as massive capability (but not yet capacity) for sun energy (solar and wind). If places like Canada are to be listed because they produce lots of uranium and have strong renewable energy industry, it makes sense that Australia be listed too. 210.215.140.180 (talk)

Where is the United States?

Isn't the U.S. an energy superpower also? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mumble45 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the United States is not an energy superpower. User:Saruman20 (talk 18:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The U.S is not currently independent of energy resources. The potential exists. It may take some time for the U.S to become self reliant in terms of energy requirements.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 05:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The US does have the world's largest coal reserves. Shouldn't that be taken into consideration, seeing as how we're basing the energy superpower status on a particular country's energy 'specialty?' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.134.119 (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• USA IS A DECADENT SUPERPOWER..!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.71.85.110 (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If Poland is listed and described, the U.S. should most definitely be listed as well. We are talking in sheer capacity and reserves of natural resources, are we not? And to poster above^^ I am sorry you have been led to believe this farce, please take it up with our complaint department..thanks Dillan.Murray (talk) 20:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Mineralogical superpower

The mineralogical superpower seems to be original research as there is no search results by Google Scholar for this term. Beagel (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• russia, canada, australia, saudi arabia and brazil are the most potential emergence energy powers; brazil have the biggest territory in the tropical zone of ultra-violet ray, the most potential of geration of solar energy.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.192.174 (talk) 04:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This article needs a re-write to get rid of all the OR

Two points: First, "Energy superpower" is not, as far as I can see, a proper scholarly term, akin to Superpower. It's a media meme almost always used to describe Russia, without a definitive analysis of what the phrase means. There is no definition presented here grounded in the literature. Secondly, most of this article appears to be the OR of editors trying to make sense of who would be called an energy superpower if the term were used in wider discourse. That there is a dead link to Great energy power indicates the good faith, but OR approach editors have taken.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, "энергетическая сверхдержава" (energy superpower) meme was launched to counter the "сырьевой придаток" (raw materials appendage) meme. The latter term dates back to classics of Marxism. The former one is just a piece of $100/barrel-era internal Russian PR. Gritzko (talk) 08:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Potential energy superpowers

I removed the whole potential energy superpowers section as OR. As it is already described above, the term "energy superpower" is not scholar and used mainly by media for PR purposes. The term potential energy superpowers is even more problematic as it was clear from the prose these countries were even not described by media as potential superpower but thought by Wiki editors that they might be. This is classical OR. The section was OR tagged for years; however, no improvement happened, so deleting seems the correct solution. Beagel (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

With the same conclusion we should also delete Saudi Arabia as the current citations do not cite references calling it a super power. It just has the same level of citation/conclusions which potential super power countries had.

Please either add citations to Saudi Arabia (in the form of citations you suggest is necessary above) or delete Saudi Arabia. Farmanesh (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree with this. Current references does not confirm this claim. There seems to be sources calling Saudi Arabia energy superpower, but it needs some research before adding here. However, the Saudi Arabia part needs some work. Beagel (talk) 09:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, at least in the case of Iran. The original text mentions Bear (CIA analyst) as the source.

Besides I have heard the editor in Chief of Forbes saying the same in an interview on the Charney report. I have to still to find the video (since he appears on this show quite often). Finally I don't think it is original research anyway since one does not need to be an expert to understand that Iran, with all its oil and gas reserves, is potentially an energy superpower.

Finally Saudi Arabia is an energy superpower. Just refer to the U.S. Energy Administration statistics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.216.198.99 (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

one does not need to be an expert to understand that Iran, with all its oil and gas reserves, is potentially an energy superpower is exactly what is called original research in Wikipedia. Let scholars and mainstream media called it energy superpower and re-add then. Beagel (talk) 09:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

..then it might become WP:copy. You think i am joking but someone actually made the remark in a different article (but in a similar context).... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.216.198.228 (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that you misinterpretate WP:OR and WP:COPY policies. Beagel (talk) 11:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Iran

I have some concerns related to the recent additions about Iran by anon user. He/she refers to Robert Baer and Flynt Leverett; however, there is no proof that they have called Iran energy superpower. Calling the country "conventional superpower" or "rising" power is not the same as "energy superpower. Beagel (talk) 11:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I have added many refs, including 2 calling Iran "energy superpower". I hope it helps!

not one of the web sources refernce iran as an energy superpower. The do reference iran as a regional conventional superpower but nothing on energy specifically. Further web searching also failed to turn up any reliable sources backing this up. 108.172.114.141 (talk) 07:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)