Talk:Energy crisis

message: I recently saw a report on TV about the gas prices. The report said that when you factor inflation into the picture, gas prices are actually not that high. I was wondering if anyone here would be willing to work this into the article. Thanks. Andrew Parodi 09:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion: Gas prices and inflation

message: This article is filling up with link spam.  Please review WP:EL.  Per WP guidelines, when an article starts attracting numerous links, it should be periodically emptied - Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam.  Before adding a new link, suggest it first on this Talk page rather than adding to the links section.  Calltech 14:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed External Links Section

message: The text has been damaged, can one fix it! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.203.11.154 (talk) 09:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Damage to subject 

message: I removed this section, seems to be put here by a vandal
Global Warming & Gas Prices.
The obvious has not been clearly stated by the news media. The regulation of Global Warming and of Greenhouse Gas emissions are the entire reason that gas prices are growing. The United States’ refineries are under scrutiny because of the amount of CO2 released in the air from the change of Crude Oil to Petroleum with reasonable Octane levels. These new regulations of Global Warming by the “New World Order” drive gas prices up. More Oil Refineries need to be built and fewer regulations will help lower the cost of oil.
168.28.49.228
There is some substance here though, if we can get some research and citations on the effect of regulation. I actualy agree with the position that Global Warming is a (marxist) religious myth, not scientific fact. However, wikipedia rightfully is not a soapbox.
168.28.49.228 16:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This seems not to belong 

message: I removed this
According to Penn & Teller, the belief that the United States faces an upcoming or current energy crisis caused by its dependence on foreign oil and other fossil fuels is "bullshit". Citing the current 100+ nuclear power plants that supply ~20% of U.S. energy, they assert that building another 400 would solve the vast majority of the perceived problem.
for obvious reasons.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.92.2.145 (talk) 04:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  editing the article 

message: Removed the limited to growth quote from the predictions. They did not predict any oil shortages at all. It is possibly a false attribution to a tablle in the book showing the relative difference between resources at current rates of usage and expotential rates of usage. This was not part of the model and not a prediction. This has been misquoted in "The Skeptial Environmentalist" and by other Cornucopians.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.84.247 (talk) 12:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Limits to growth

message: List_of_countries_by_future_GDP_estimates_(PPP): World GDP = $77,000 billion =~ $1014              
World_energy_resources_and_consumption: 15 TW = 1.5 x 1013 W (in 2004) =~1013 W
~1013 W multiplied by (24 x 365 hours per year) = 1017 Wh per year
divide by 1000 (kWh / Wh) = 1014 kWh per year
  
Conversion_of_units: British thermal unit (ISO) ≡ 1.0545 kJ ; 3.6 MJ per kWh
 
Gasoline#Energy_content: 125,000  BTU/US gal
Convert to J:
1 gal gas ~ 125,000 kJ ~ 125 MJ
divide by 3.6 MJ per kWh
1 gal gas ~ 40 kWh
At $4.00 per gallon -> $4.00 / 40 kWh =~ $0.10 per kWh
Benchmark Energy cost / World GDP = (1014 kWh per year)( $0.10 per kWh) / $1014 = 0.1 =10%  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nukeh (talk • contribs) 17:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the point of this? This looks like original research based on really stretched assumptions. I would assume most fossil fuels don't have to be pumped at a gas station, so the price is way off, for one. If you have a real source, please provide it. And beside, wouldn't this be more relevant at a different article, such as the World_energy_resources_and_consumption one that you linked? - Bobet 18:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nukeh, your calculations may be correct, I can't tell. But they do not appear to be appropriate for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. We only cover that which has already been established, we don't establish new facts and insights ourselves. If you think this should be published, you should contact a peer-reviewed journal. Once it is published in such a journal, it might be suitable for Wikipedia. AecisBrievenbus 21:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem - my edit can stay down.  It would be interesting to see the calculation behind this concept: Greenspan said disruption of even 3 to 4 million barrels a day could translate into oil prices as high as $120 a barrel -- far above even the recent highs of $80 set last week -- and the loss of anything more would mean "chaos" to the global economy.  Doug Youvan (talk) 09:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The calculation is here, too. Doug Youvan (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benchmark math and unit conversion 

message: In a related matter, does anyone think that fuel economy should be kept out of the automobile infoboxes?  Please voice your opinion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_Automobile#Vote_on_Fuel_Economy_in_the_Infobox 198.151.13.8 (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fuel Economy infobox 

message: I suggest that someone (I don't know how to do it, sorry) adds the following
graph
http://www.earthpolicy.org/Updates/2007/Update67_data.htm#fig3
to the historical crises section: in that picture you can actually see
each of the crises that the section refers to.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.18.66.26 (talk) 11:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical crises 

message: The discussion of Peak Oil is scattered and lacks a basic introduction.  I have consolidated some sections and provided a brief intro.  The Mitigation section is too long: there is a good main article on this.  Feel free to further improve and update this.  Rlsheehan (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are going to remove one third of an article it would be best to achieve a consensus beforehand. - Shiftchange (talk) 15:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a section and a reference.  I removed excess(?) material from the discussion of Mitigation.  If there  is some material you want to keep, I suggest it be moved to the main article on Mitigation. If you really want some of it put back here, that's OK. Thanks for your feedback. Rlsheehan (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improve Peak Oil 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Energy crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090116014916/http://www.isa.org/InTechTemplate.cfm?Section=Departments5&template=%2FContentManagement%2FContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=68134 to http://www.isa.org/InTechTemplate.cfm?Section=Departments5&template=%2FContentManagement%2FContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=68134
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130113121745/http://www.unep.org/Renewable_Energy_Investment/ to http://www.unep.org/Renewable_Energy_Investment/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: — Assignment last updated by IceyBoyBano (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: CRISIS COMMUNICATION

message: Whoever wrote the "fule" section is on drugs or something. It is full of grammatical errors and basically unreadable.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SecretSpectre (talk • contribs) 03:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. The tone is all wrong.  We are supposed to write in first person Wikipedia voice. I would encourage you to re-write that section. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad phrasing