Talk:Energy consumption

message: I found a chart that shows world energy consumption over time, but it only goes back to the 1970s.  If anyone can find or make a chart that goes back as far as data exists, that would be a great improvement. 
There is also a lot of things to say about the energy consumption budget of the world - what specific things all the energy we produce is actually used for. -- Beland 02:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also a considerable amount of consumption-related material on Future energy development.   -- Beland 04:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion request

message: The article says "Typically rates of energy consumption are used to compare development between nations." I bet that was thought up by someone from the US. :) I thought about tagging it for a citation, but decided to remove it. This may have been true a few decades ago, but these days low energy consumption per amount of production is a better indictor of developed a country is. However, feel free to put it back if you find a source, but then also look at whether this is still true and according to whom. DirkvdM 07:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Development

message: I'll probably find this elsewhere but I'm interested in following up whether we are approaching (or have already passed) the time when we consume more energy than is incident on the earth as solar energy or provided by internal earth processes such as cooling.  By my reckoning we are consuming 1.35x1017kWhrs annually but we receive only 1.75x1014kW of energy from the sun.  Now I realise there are probably some factors of 10 errors in this (and of units, ie kWhrs vs kW) but need some direction in this.  Why is this important?  Well I suspect this overall consumption of energy is much more important to the increase in global temperatures we seem to be experiencing than the Greenhouse effect, albeit this is probably not helping.--TimBarker 04:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a theory I haven't heard before, but the numbers don't support it.  Your estimated consumption figure is way off.  The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates world consumption at 421 quadrillion btu's per year, which comes out to 1.23*1014kWh.  (3413 btu per kWh).  Compare that to the intercepted solar energy, 1.75x1014kW times 8766 hours per year which gives you 1.53x1018kWh.  So, the solar energy intercepted by earth in a year is 10,000 times what we humans consume.  InNuce 01:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Growth in Consumption

message: Completed merge as suggested. Article basically addressed the same thing, but merge was reasonably clean with no great redundancy of material or lost material. Incentive came due to overlap in Energy (disambiguation). --LightYear 05:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge into [[Energy: world resources and consumption]]

message: I just added a link to "energy consumption" in the article auto-defrost, but then I noticed that energy consumption redirects to World energy resources and consumption, which is not quite the same. Despite the maxime to "think globally - act locally", the article World energy resources and consumption currently does not cover the consumption of the individual consumer. 
Then I realized that there also exists Domestic energy consumption, an article which was only created after the move discussed above. That article is in a poor state, but it did make me wonder if we need a disambiguation page. I looked at some of Special:WhatLinksHere/Energy_consumption, and it's practically impossible to categorize in which sense the term is used. Since the term is obviously used in a white area of fields, I'd like to brainstorm what we can do to give as many of our readers what they expect when they click on the various links to "energy consumption". For now, I think a disambiguation is be the easiest way out of this mess for us, so I'll just go ahead and do it, even though it means that nobody gets what they expect on first click.
The following list includes 2/3 of all articles; if anybody likes, please feel free to add the remaining 1/3 to it.  — Sebastian 05:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I had noticed the redirects on power consumption and energy consumption were not useful in relation to general energy consumption nor to an individuals energy use either. Domestic energy consumption may partly deal with the topic but I think aspects of personal energy use and general energy consumption are still not covered. Efficient energy use might be a good article to expand into this area. Alternatively, disambiguation helps a lot but we might need another article, possibly Energy consumption (personal), that explores all aspects of non-domestic energy consumption at an everyday human level, excluding the technical stuff to Power (physics) - Shiftchange (talk) 06:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: I have tagged this page as a clear WP:DABCONCEPT violation. A disambiguation page is not an index of articles on a topic, but a directory of articles sharing the same name but having unrelated meanings. For example, if there were a city named "Energy Consumption", an unrelated music group named "Energy Consumption", and an also unrelated TV series titled "Energy Consumption", and none of these was the primary topic for the name, then it would be appropriate to have a disambiguation page. If this page were to remain a disambiguation page, all titles not containing the phrase "energy consumption" would need to be removed from the page, which would leave only a page stating:
Energy consumption may refer to:
*World energy consumption
*Domestic energy consumption
*Electric energy consumption
It does not, however, appear that these are unrelated topics, meaning that such a page would continue to be a WP:DABCONCEPT violation, as all of these are merely partial title matches which appear to be aspects of the broader topic of consumption of energy. Rather than deleting the remaining content from the page, I am removing the incorrect "disambiguation", so that the appropriate discussion of the content of a topical article can take place. Cheers! bd2412 T 12:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree. Good that this settles it, and I will remove the disambig project types... Widefox; talk 22:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:DABCONCEPT]] violation