Jump to content

Talk:Energy in the United States

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 99.56.122.24 (talk) at 09:01, 12 December 2011 (WP:ALL CAPS). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconEnergy Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconUnited States Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Energy flow

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Energy production

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
 Done Parsecboy (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Update tag

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Energy_in_the_United_States&oldid=465431254"