[ RadSafe ] Anyone have GOOD world wide energy consumption data?

[Philip Simpson]

Ted , 

You can also look at the US Central Intelligence Agency website's Factbook under "world" and "economics".  "The Economist" magazine/website may also be a good resource for this type of data.

Phil Simpson, BSE Nuc. Eng., BSE Mat & Met Eng.
Assistant Reactor Manager (Retired)
University of Michigan
Ford Nuclear Reactor


On Mar 20, 2011, at 2:25 PM, Ted de Castro wrote:

> Thanks - I found my error - it was 85,000  thousand barrels of oil per day!
> 
> So - the purpose of my calculation?
> 
> Well - a quick gedanken experiment (or muse)  suggested me that solar, wind, wave or maybe even bio fuels were hopeless as a fossil fuel replacement - SINCE - as I reasoned:
> 
> Wind wave and solar are PROMPT use of solar energy.
> 
> Bio fuels are collected solar energy  integrated over a growing season - and consumed in much less time thus exceeding the rate of solar energy input.
> 
> Likewise fossil fuels represent millions of years of solar energy integration over the entire planet - land AND sea, collected and stored at some probably small efficiency which I couldn't begin to guess - BUT which we consumed over only a couple of centuries - once again FAR outstripping the prompt solar energy rate.
> 
> Nuclear of course represents solar or maybe stellar energy as well - BUT from within the star and integrated over billions of years.
> 
> Anyhow - since the "devil is in the details" as they say - in this case those unknown efficiencies ....  A more direct calculation seemed a good way to "check this out".
> 
> So - what I came up with was to replace the entire world wide fossil fuel use assuming we could harvest that with 10% efficiency (current unconcentrated solar cell max efficiency) would require 0.2% of the entire land surface (or 1% for biofuel - 2% efficiency last I heard - but that COULD use sea space as well).
> 
> I found that surprisingly maybe almost possibly doable!  I had thought that considering the LONG integration time as opposed to the short use times and there would be no way the the prompt solar rate would be sufficient - so I was wrong - thus concluding that the efficiency of solar to biomass to fossil fuel conversion MUST be vanishingly small!
> 
> On 3/20/2011 10:38 AM, Jeff Terry wrote:
>> Hi Ted,
>> 
>> I rely on the BP World Energy Report for all of my energy consumption data that I present.
>> 
>> http://tinyurl.com/26h3ayt
>> 
>> Jeff
>> 
>> 
>> Jeff Terry
>> Asst. Professor of Physics
>> Life Science Bldg Rm 166
>> Illinois Institute of Technology
>> 3101 S. Dearborn St.
>> Chicago IL 60616
>> 630-252-9708
>> terryj at iit.edu
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mar 20, 2011, at 12:34 PM, Ted de Castro wrote:
>> 
>>> Members here often have good data like this right on the top of their minds or at least readily available.
>>> 
>>> I wanted to do some world wide energy consumption/resource calculations - purpose not important at this point - so using Google I was trying to determine world wide fossil fuel consumption and ran into what appeared to be good information - mostly from Wikipedia.
>>> 
>>> I found references for oil:
>>> 
>>> 85,000 barrels per day 2003
>>> 
>>> Barrel of oil 42 gallons crude - 44 gallons refined of which 6.8 gallons is NOT used for fuel.
>>> 
>>> and Oil energy equivalent /barrel
>>> 
>>> 1.7 MWh
>>> 5.8 e6 BTU
>>> 6.1178632e9 J
>>> 
>>> THEN I found another reference that gave 2004 data:
>>> 
>>> Oil 160 e15 BTU/yr
>>> coal 95e15 BTU/yr
>>> gas  95e15 BTU/yr
>>> 
>>> I thought that NOW I have the info I needed and could bring it all together.
>>> 
>>> Unfortunately I chose to check the data for internal consistency and:
>>> 
>>> 85,000*5.8 e6*365 = 1.8 e14 BTU.yr
>>> 
>>> from the first reference does NOT equal 1.6 e17 as stated in the other reference.
>>> 
>>> Factor of 2 agreement I would have accepted - factor of 10 - skeptical.  BUT factor of 1000 -
>>> all I have here is junk data which could only yield a GIGO calculation.
>>> 
>>> MAYBE the ratio of oil/coal/gas is ok - but considering the discrepancy - unless ONE of those numbers can agree with RELIABLE data - I doubt that as well.
>>> 
>>> So - can anyone point me to better data?
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> 
>>> Ted de Castro
>>> retired (for all those that want to ascribe an affiliation with each message)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>>> 
>>> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>>> 
>>> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>> _______________________________________________
>> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>> 
>> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>> 
>> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> 
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> 
>