Talk:Energy in the United States

U.S. primary energy consumption by source and sector (2021) chart is confusing

Basically, this is one chart that combines energy sources (broken down by uses) and uses (broken down by sources). The problem is that they are put side by side so that reading across a row makes you think that the source columns are related to the use columns. Seems that this should be two charts. Just splitting it up on horizontally (2 columns each) would make it more obvious what one is looking at. Cellmaker (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I have split the table per request. The electricity section at the bottom also now indicates losses. And the consumption percentages were all changed to account for share of losses. Wizmut (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Re-arrangement of many subsections

I have moved the Renewables section up from Electricity to Production, as not all renewables make electricity. I have placed any existing paragraphs about each energy source into their own subsection, but now some of them look a bit sparse. More help is needed writing salient facts about each subtopic, which should not be difficult as each energy source already its own page.

With some more help, hopefully this article can have its bad layout sticker removed soon. Some of the large tables can be summarized with maps or graphs, and moved into their own list articles. Note that the only "Energy in X" or "Electricity in X" article that is currently labeled a 'Good Article' is Electricity sector in Turkey, which contains no tables at all, minimal graphs and lots of pretty photos, along with fluid prose. Wizmut (talk) 08:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I have moved or removed many graphs. Some were duplicates. Some were summarized in another figure (per source). Some were time-series, but had only flat trends.

Also removed an old table of per-capita use in which the per-capita did not change in the mercifully few years the table tracked. Data would have to go back to the 60's to see a real change, so a graph is much preferred. Wizmut (talk) 08:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I have replaced the pie chart in the lead with a treemap. This would have some tradeoffs for future updates: a pie chart is easier to update, and more people can do it. However, a treemap has advantages. It doesn't have problems with dark mode, and the exact form can be fine-tuned. Additionally, treemaps are favored over pie charts for judging area size. https://medium.com/nerd-for-tech/how-treemaps-are-better-than-pie-chart-5f8709057fbc

Please discuss here about the pros and cons of this change. Wizmut (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Electricity generation by source table

I've restored the Electricity generation by source table. Given all the other tables in the article, it is not unduly large, The added graph is useful but the widely different ranges of the values makes detailed analysis difficult, for example the rate at which solar is growing, which is easy to get from the table. It only needs updates once a year and it covers the 21st century to date.--agr (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

That fact about solar jumping up suddenly is well-hidden amongst all the other numbers. Perhaps a graph highlighting changes among renewable sources would tell that story? I will upload one.

> Given all the other tables in the article, it is not unduly large

This is true. And, it is an impressive table. However, best practice seems to say that articles shouldn't have large tables at all (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#STATS). Perhaps we should work on telling the story of that data in another way, and make it clear how to access the data in more detail? Either in its own list article, or to a relevant page on the EIA website. A paragraph stating all the most salient trends, as well as a couple quick graphs and some links, would be a lot easier to read.

For example, I have made a draft that would contain the two large tables about imports/exports at the bottom of the article. (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:List_of_U.S._States_by_trade_of_electricity) However, I didn't want to cut that section down on the main page until the information was published elsewhere. On the main page, all this information could probably be summarized with a map.

There was also a complaint about the source/sector chart in the 'summary' section. I agree with that person that the table is a bit of a puzzle, and am considering how it can be better communicated. I removed a chart that was very similar, as the nearby flow chart seemed to be more expressive, but perhaps two smaller tables could be places in the production and consumption sections. If a table can be viewed in its entirety at the same time as the paragraph explaining it, all for the better.

Overall, I think this article could exist without large tables. But more work and discussion needs to happen to figure if and how that would work. Wizmut (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Removing excessive detail

I have done what I can in the Electricity section to remove the year-over-year comparisons, itemization of customer numbers, percentages and two different metric units, as well as chart and table details that offer little interest. I have begun adding sentences about recent trends, maps showing regional differences, and up to date time-series charts. Some of the figures I added were merely to update existing ones; they could still be removed if there are too many of them.

There are still two large tables at the bottom of the page that I believe have been summarized in one time-series chart and one map, respectively. If someone thinks the actual numbers must be visible rather than the overall trends, then surely they can go into list articles of their own. I will likely remove them soon if nobody objects. Wizmut (talk) 06:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Energy in the United States/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bneu2013 (talk · contribs) 10:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I look forward to your comments. Wizmut (talk) 02:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Update - sorry for the delay; I should have my first comments later today. Bneu2013 (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article section by section. I will have my first comments soon.

General comments

Update - I once again apologizing for the delay, but after skimming over the article, I'm not sure this article meets the criteria. The article provides great in depth coverage, which is backed up with sufficient pictures and graphs, but a good bit of the wording is a bit ambiguous and awkward, and needs to be worked on. That being said, I would like a more experienced reviewer to take a look at this and offer a second opinion before I continue. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments.

Not all of the data from 2022 is out (small scale solar is missing), and the EIA revises data for a year or so after they first release it.

Can you give a suggestion on greenhouse gas in the lead? It's easy to say something obvious or boring. Maybe a comparison to China? But which one? I added a sentence breaking down consumption by sector.

• Combine the first three sentences and last four sentences to make two paragraphs.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

I added a mention of the industrial revolution, using the same source that discussed the uses of coal. Coal stagnated around 1950 in the sense of fluctuating around a flat level, especially compared to the growth seen around 1850 to 1900. But the US electrified during this time, and coal significantly switched to electricity. I'll rephrase to include these facts.

"Car ownership" refers to per-capita cars, which was closer to doubling than tripling. Add in the baby boom and I'm not surprised the car total was at a higher rate. Per-capita is more interesting, though.

Post–World War II economic expansion is less specifically about the US, and it's also the first link below the section header for Economic history of the United States#Post-World War II prosperity: 1945–1973. Probably no change needed there.

I also rewrote the section on per-capita energy use. Wizmut (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Lead

• I would add an introductory sentence at the beginning of the first paragraph, something like "Energy in the United States is obtained from a diverse portfolio of sources".

• Is the data from 2022 available yet.

• I would include the shares of energy consumed in each major sector (electricity, transportation, industry, etc.)

• Consider a sentence or two about greenhouse gas emissions.

History

• Combine the first three sentences and last four sentences to make two paragraphs.

• From its founding until the late 19th century, population and energy use in the United States both increased by about 3% per year,[6][7] resulting in a relatively constant per capita energy use of 100 million BTU. - clarify when the start date is (e.g. late 18th century, beginning of settlement by European Americans in 16th century, etc.)

• Wood made up the majority of this until near the end of the 1800s, meaning the average American burned 8 tons of wood each year. - change to something like "Most energy came from wood during this time, with the average American burning eight tons each year."

• By the late 1800s, coal had surpassed wood as the major source of energy, as it would often be became cheaper for those some living in cities. - also, didn't the Industrial Revolution in the United States play a role in this?

• Did coal production actually stagnate after 1950? Because if I'm not mistaken, there was a massive increase in coal fired electricity generation in the 1950s and 60s fueled by the post war boom. Also, if I'm not mistaken, natural gas largely replaced coal for home heating during this time.

• According to multiple sources, the number of cars in the US tripled, not doubled between 1945 and 1965.

• Change "after the war" link to Post–World War II economic expansion.

• This figure varied between 300 and 360 for half a century starting in the late 60s. In 2020, per capita consumption dipped below 300 million BTUs for the first time since 1967. - change "60s" to "1960s" and add "BTU" after "360". Also, this isn't the best description of the trend. When did the growth in energy consumption start to slow? Did it peak during a certain year and has it generally declined since then. What was the peak amount, and what has resulted in this decline/stagnation? More description is needed.

Second opinion

• There has been really great work done to get the article to this stage. However, at present, the coverage is not sufficiently broad to meet GA criterion 3(a). The content of the current version of the article is essentially about Energy production and consumption in the United States. The subject of Energy in the United States is significantly broader. The article should present a high level summary and links for additional topics that are essential to this subject. Topics that I recommend should be added to this article (in high level summary form) include Climate (carbon emissions etc), Energy policy, Energy law (and regulation), Energy conservation. At present this article also has no content about the highly diverse organisational structure, entities and governance of the energy sector in the United States, or anything about energy commerce (ie how energy is traded). Additional topics in these areas should also be considered. There are links to articles on some related energy topics in the "See also" section, and in the navigation template at the bottom, but I don't think this is enough. Additional short summary sections are needed in this article on additional topics that are essential to the subject, complete with links to either a closely-related summary article (eg Energy policy of the United States, Energy conservation in the United States etc) and/or to an existing category of relevant articles (eg Category:United States federal energy legislation).

Marshelec (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Summary section

@Animaljammer23 thank you for your attention to this article. I have some comments.

I am curious what size screen you are viewing the 'Summary' section on, and what makes it look confusing. I understand it's a busy section but it has a logic to it once you read the column headers. If the tables are getting distorted I can try to adjust the templates used.

I also like the pictures you found but have some comments:

• Houses are about two-thirds of residences and use an above-average amount of energy, so a picture of a detached house is appropriate for the 'Consumption' section. If you believe there's only room for so many pictures, the house might take priority over the office. A car would also be appropriate, they are big consumers.
• Cooling towers are present on non-nuclear plants, and all other energy sources have an image of the generator themselves.
• Captions normally clarify what is in the picture, rather than repeating nearby text.

Wizmut (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Feel free to add the house image back if you wish! Animaljammer23 (talk) 09:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet of Lam312321321, see investigation)

Regarding the format under summary, have you tried moving the tables? Perhaps line them up elsewhere in the text and go into more detail in text explaining the summary. The tables looks quite messy right now and a bit sqashed together. Animaljammer23 (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet of Lam312321321, see investigation)

The tables could be distributed but then they wouldn't be as comparable. I'll try to make it easier to look at, but overall the tables exist as a companion to the flow diagram and they help each other make sense. Wizmut (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Early US statements unsupported by citations

https://mastodon.social/%40pixx%40merveilles.town/113618113895826180 (Found on the internet: replaced @ with %40 to avoid wikipedia email filter being falsely triggered here.)

"Wikipedia has this fun claim:

From its founding until the late 19th century, population and energy use in the United States both increased by about 3% per year,[8][9] resulting in a relatively constant per capita energy use of 100 million BTU. Wood made up the majority of this until near the end of the 1800s, meaning the average American burned eight tons of wood each year.[10]

I've spent over an hour looking into it and I'm fairly sure that a) this was a total misuse of my time and b) this is complete and utter b***shit.

The source they cite for energy usage growth of 3% per year is the US government's energy agency, which only lists data starting in the 20th century. There is no data there which gives _any_ indication of what per-capita energy usage was at the founding of the country.

Moreover, average global per-capita energy consumption TODAY is only ~74 milion BTU per capita per year! This is claiming that when America was _founded_, Americans were using _more energy on average_ than global average _today_?? That seems _plausible_, but only _just_, and there's nowhere _near_ enough evidence listed to back it up.

The source they cite for the 8 tons of wood per person per year is just a missouri university's info on BTU per pound.

Looking at the data that I _can_ find, this seems to be completely unsupported.

It doesn't appear to be malicious, though; the person who added the chart has source code for most of the charts they've made, albeit not this one, and the energy claims appear to have been in the article _before_ they worked on it?

I'd ask them for sources but that'd require making a WP account 107.134.180.114 (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The historical energy use data has a reference which points to Appendix D1 (I didn't make them more specific links because the EIA site has changed those around in past). This appendix has estimates that go back about 400 years, for what it's worth. Would be nice to have a second source on that, for sure. That chart required putting together the historical data with the yearly data, so I didn't make an R script to handle the raw data.

As for the comparison to the world average, I agree there's probably a discrepancy there in how each data point is defined. Perhaps a lot of countries do not accurately track household use of wood or heating oil. However, the stats do reflect what the source says. See WP:TRUTH

Some of the numbers use routine calculations. 8 tons of wood seems like a lot but that could be as little as 8 trees. Wizmut (talk) 04:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)