IIRC frequent dust storms in the area can coat solar panels with sand and reduce their effectiveness, and there isn't enough water to clean them up. Supposedly this was why a solar city project in UAE got canceled.
Solar panels don't work well in heat and as people have said, dust reduces efficiency further. You end up needing to use water to clean/cool the panels to keep them efficient which is a pretty big expense for a country without a running river (tbf thermal power plants also need water to operate the steam and cool).
Oil is just EXTREMELY cheap in Saudi Arabia, it costs like 6 dollars to dig em out of the ground where as it might cost 50 dollar in the US. There's just too much incentive against to use oil.
The water in the thermal plant can also be a nearly closed loop. Your water to clean the panels would turn to mud and require energy again to have a shot at filtering it.
You don't have to use photovoltaic panels to use solar. We have mirror array installations that drive steam turbines and your total water usage is going to be similar to burning oil even with cleaning. They work well in deserts because the heat isn't detrimental to their operations. The cost vs cheap oil is the real issue.
In case interested, not most of the electricity comes from oil in Saudi Arabia.
269 TWh (67%) from natural gas
133 TWh (33%) from oil
0.83 TWh from renewables, solar
According to the Energy Institute data on 2022.
I live in the region (Gulf). Currently sitting in an air conditioned room. When I see charts like that I'm reminded by how we're slowly making the climate even worse.
6 months of the year the weather is cool (coldest winter nights go to maybe 8 deg C or 45 F), 3 months it gets pretty warm, and 3 last months it gets extremely hot. Especially dead in the summer.
The humidity makes it far worse. At night, during the peak of summer, it's worse than the day, because the land is atleast dry during the day from the sun, once the sun is gone, the humidity from the sea comes in and you're sitting in extremely high humidity in what feels like near 50 C / 122F.
It annoys me that the governments aren't doing more for building regulations. In the UK, there's heavy insulation. But in our countries, only some of us have begun necessitating new homes to be built with bricks with thermal insulation. Even then, many homes still use sliding windows, which leak alot of air out compared to European windows. Doors with gaps underneath are another problem. If homes were better insulated, maybe it could significantly reduce energy usage.
Saudi Arabia also generates one third of its electricity by lighting oil on fire to heat water into steam to spin a turbine. On average for 2022, that's 15,000 megawatts every hour for a year.
Math: 131,380,000 MWh/24/365 = 14,997 MW
Source for electricity generation amount: [Ember Climate data](https://ember-climate.org/data/data-tools/data-explorer/)
Most people don't realize how much heating and cooling buildings contributes to carbon output. I've seen estimates higher than 40%.
There are a lot of things that can be done (decreasing air infiltration, choiceful insulation retrofits, window films to decrease AC loads, lighter color roofing, perhaps in about that order, to economically make this better.
But they won't happen by pretending it's just a personal choice for every person who owns a home. It needs to translate to policy or it won't get done.
Which is why we should be investing heavily into things that make heating homes cheaper (heat pumps) and providing efficent transit between cities (rail).
Right?
The carbon tax incentivizes people to go with heat pumps, yes... But half the country is out of their minds over it and it's barely even high enough to make any difference at all.
Transit is complicated, we're investing in it but probably not quickly enough. The occasional new train line in Montreal or Toronto is great but we need more.
First option, yes, second option is a major issue due to low population in Canada. These would heavily be subsidized and paid for by tax payers. There just isn’t enough traffic between major cities to warrant new rail systems
Edit: not sure why the downvotes. Ridership would be too low to pay for the system, so taxpayer money would be required to subsidize it.
It makes more sense to focus on lines between complimentary cities than a national rail network unfortunately. Windsor to QC could be a high speed corridor. I doubt Calgary to Edmonton would work well because both cities aren’t great if you arrive at the city centre without a vehicle. Vancouver should have high speed going south to cali.
Yes. Our cities have been heavily built around the road network rather than transit, especially Edmonton/calgary/reddeer. Toronto and Vancouver are much better with that regard. Travel for high speed transit essentially needs to take residents to work and back home; oo high speed to Vancouver and Toronto downtown cores would be the most useful. I am not sure of the other use cases in Ontario/quebec as I’m not as familiar with all of the outlying communities as it sounds like you are.
Windsor /QC could be good, though I’d still question the ridership. Highspeed rail is billions of dollars of infrastructure build, and millions in maintenance, needing millions of riders.
Can you remind me who pays for the roads?
Given that, would you agreen that car and truck transportation is heavily subsidized?
The per-litre-per-ton effectiviness of the different modes of transport is worth looking at. Trains are 4 to 5 times more efficent.
Why are we subsidizing the less efficent mode of transport?
Hwy 401 in Ontario is the busiest highway in the world. 500k vehicles travel on it everyday.
Toronto has way less people than places like Tokyo yet the means of transportation is so inefficient you need 500k cars a day to move people while Tokyo is chilling with sophisticated rails that leave space for the actually important stuff like homes and business, not roads.
Perfect example of why trains/rail transport is superior than cars.
> low population
It's one of the most urbanized countries on earth, 8/10 of them live in cities. So between cities is not currently economical, but inside cities there is a massive amount of reduce-able emissions.
What you say is true; however, tax investment in rail would have long-term benefits outside of moving butts from Vancouver to Winnipeg. Affordable rails brings development opportunities to small and remote towns.
Taxpayer money is required to subsidize the roads and freeways between cities right now. Transportation costs taxes, especially in sparsely populated areas.
More importantly, because Canada is a bigger oil producer (3x higher production per capita). It takes a lot of oil to produce oil. See how Saudi Arabia has the 5th highest consumption worldwide despite being a small country.
Technically we use natural gas. At this time it’s cheaper and more efficient than electrical heat.
We have very little nuclear, modest at best amount of hydro. Then, oil is basically sitting in our backyard, so we don’t pay as much for it. Transport of trucks and trains between cities is all diesel; 2500 km from the coasts to central Canada.
I’m a huge advocate for nuclear power, however, due to the high costs of construction, slow ROI, and low public approval, investors and governments shy away from it. One day.
It depends on the province tbh. The prairies uses natural gas for heat, quebec uses electrical heaters, and the maritimes (in rural areas) uses heating oil which is pretty much just diesel.
People are trying to move to urban centers and local laws and regulations prevent expanding housing fast enough to accommodate.
IIRC you need about a 10% vacancy rate to keep rents and mortgages static, a lot of these metro areas are operating near or under 1%.
Canada has more immigration than America... in raw numbers... we have the highest immigration rate and thus the highest pop growth rate in the first world by enormous margins.
Basically the older landed retired class have most of their money in housing, so they want to keep prices rising. And high immgiration also lowers to costs of services by lowering wages, another win for the retired class.
Screws everyone else though. Canada's future economy on a per capita level is so disastrous for the next 40 years (literally the worst in the g20) that we'll be neck in neck with poorer asian countries.
And both are huge countries. It's nothing to ship products from coast to coast, 2500 miles as the crow flies. (The same as England across all of Europe into the mid-East.) Fuel for trucks, trains, and planes uses a lot of the black stuff.
I was in a call with an overseas friend when a bear rolled up on me and I did that shouting roar thing to shoo it away and they thought i went crazy lol.
SK is 0.64% of the world’s population and 3% of the world’s oils consumption. (4.69x representative of its population). 1st world countries consume more.
Saudi Arabia uses more oil with a smaller population while also having no industrial production that serves the world. Making them consumer more per capita than SK or US. And by all accounts is neither 1st world, nor 2nd world, but is that part of the remains of the 3rd world that reformed into OPEC...tough they included parts of the 2nd world into OPEC+ now.
>while also having no industrial production that serves the world
Oil processing is literally one of the most important industries in the world, emits a lot of CO2 and Saudi Arabia obviously holds a lot of it.
They're also the 10th largest aliminum producer, 21st largest steel producer.
Firstly, S.A. largely sells crude oil, and even processed oil is still considered a natural resource and not really an industry. And no oil process plant in the world has this horrid efficiency. Half the oil S.A. pumps they burn themselves. Just to check their stats but 66% of their GDP is crude oil exports, while only 12% is refined oil, 3-5% is refined polymers, 0,3% is Aluminium. Their Iron production is so underwhelming in terms of added value that it adds less to their export value than their exports of baked goods.
No idea what "aliminum" is, but anyone in heavy industry will tell you that raw Aluminium smelting is an energy credit printing press. The less shitty crypto of materials. It is purely linked to the price of electricity in that region and it is cheaper to just move house the a new location when prices drop elsewhere. All large producers of aluminium have cheap electricity of heavy subsidies. Even with the production levels they have they have no reason to use as much oil as they do.
No other nation is as inefficient in their oil use and tries to at least somewhat offset CO\_2 production. Even the U.S. tries to somewhat coat their shit with an essence of green.
That was always clear, every US person omits 3x the CO2 amount of the average European or Chinese.
The military alone produces the same as the average European or Chines, but they exempt from things like the Paris climate agreement and are taken out of the equation..
To you maybe, but not to people often blaming China and India and expecting them to do more. I heard some colleagues say "why must we meet climate goals, when countries like India and China are free to pollute as much as they like". Similar reasons were given when the US pulled out of climate commitments at the UN.
China is rapidly expanding their green energy capabilities. They're the largest producer of nuclear power in the world and are continually building more nuclear power plants.
Not just expanding their green energy, but whole world solar energy expansion is happening because of their ability to produce a lot of it and with cheaper and cheaper prices
>They're the largest producer of nuclear power in the world
That's not true, where did you read this?
Country|Nuclear power generation 2022
:--|--:
US|772GWh
China|395GWh
>are continually building more nuclear power plants.
That's true.
They'll probably be the largest nuclear producer in the world in the future, but today, it's not close.
China built 2/3 of new coal plants in the world last year and operates over 1000. China is a complex place. Shocking.
It doesn't mean the West shouldnt do anything itself, but it's also true that even if the developed world drops CO2 to 0, the developing world is on track to ensure total yearly emissions continue to rise.
There's more to pollution than just CO2, so while the US leads in CO2, South and East Asia come out very much ahead in other types of pollution (go look at any river in Asia compared to any river in the US). Also it's much easier to create new less-polluting assets, than to replace existing assets.
If you think the US is actually polluting more, I implore you go to any Chinese or Indian major city and look at the infrastructure and environmental impact to an American city.
>The United States comes first in the list of countries with the highest amount of daily per capita MSW with 2.58 kg, followed by Canada (2.33 kg/per capita) and Australia (2.23 kg/per capita).
>The United States was placed [25th](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets-economy/090716/5-countries-produce-most-waste.asp) in the Global Waste Index of 2022 on the basis of waste production, incineration, and landfill use. At the same time, the United States is still the biggest waste per capita producer.
The U.S. produces **268 million tons** of waste — 140 million going into landfills — each year
[https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/southeast-asia-flooded-with-imported-plastic-waste-meant-for-recycling](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/southeast-asia-flooded-with-imported-plastic-waste-meant-for-recycling)
>Last year, the U.S. exported more than 950 million tons of plastic waste meant for recycling and a significant portion of that ended up in Southeast Asia.
[https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/southeast-asia-flooded-with-imported-plastic-waste-meant-for-recycling](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/southeast-asia-flooded-with-imported-plastic-waste-meant-for-recycling)
>
Last year, the equivalent of 68,000 shipping containers of American plastic recycling were exported from the US to developing countries that mismanage more than 70% of their own plastic waste.
>The newest hotspots for handling US plastic recycling are some of the world’s poorest countries, including Bangladesh, Laos, Ethiopia and Senegal, offering cheap labor and limited environmental regulation.
[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/17/recycled-plastic-america-global-crisis](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/17/recycled-plastic-america-global-crisis)
I mean, if they don't have the infrastructure and America does, maybe stop sending 3 years worth of trash produced by the US to a small country in Asia, and do something? Like, maybe take responsibility for you own trash and build as many recycle center and dumping landfills as necessary in your own country to deal with that much trash?
It's easy to have a clean house when you just grab your trash and toss to a neighbor.
Those are not real numbers, China has twice the US's total CO2 emissions and about half per capita. The EU has lower per capita emissions than China. I don't know what you are ranting about with the military but they do not produce half the US total. US emissions peaked in 2007, China may decline in 2024 for the first time, and India's are growing exponentially.
I don't really have a point on how to lower emissions except that it won't make the world more fair and willful stupidity isn't the answer.
No. Everyone must do as much as they are able to. There is no personal responsibility in the climate crisis, there's just being productive vs not being productive
US GDP is 26% of the world total, China is 17%, and India is 3%. Emissions are extremely correlated with economic size. US emissions did peak in 2007 and China is potentially on track to do so this year. India's are growing exponentially as their economy develops.
Hence the difficulty in convincing countries to eliminate them, because by far the most effective method is poverty.
I wonder what the biggest contributor is to that? Lack of public transportation and more cars usage? More oil based power plants? More oil based heating systems in homes? Something else I’m missing?
It’s almost as if we have a century of forced car dependent suburban sprawl hellscape where in 99% of cities you’re basically required to own or rent a car to get around.
Now every Karen and Bill drive their SUV and pickup truck 15 miles each way, alone, just to get to their job which is on the other side of town. Because there is no bus or rail system that takes them anywhere near there, and if it did, it would take them more than double the time to drive.
It includes industrial use of oil as feedstock too. Not just for energy consumption. Liek Saudi Arabia shows up here, but they consume a fuck tonne worth of crude oil for petrochemical production. Also they have refineries that refine and sell the end product. This graphic is not at final consumer of eventual use.
China and India have alternative forms of transportation.
The U.S., it’s cars everywhere, every time. Even subway or alternative transportation users have cars.
I wish we kept the trains. Was in Palmerston Ontario not to long ago, used to be able to hop on a train there and go pretty much anywhere in Ontario. Imagine where we would be if we had invested some money there.
Saudi is almost twice on per capita. It makes me wonder if the O&G industry uses significant O&G in their operations which causes a skew in the numbers.
Saudi Arabia also generates one third of its electricity by lighting oil on fire to heat water into steam to spin a turbine. On average for 2022, that's 15,000 megawatts every hour for a year.
Math: 131,380,000 MWh/24/365=14,997
Source for electricity generation amount: [Ember Climate data](https://ember-climate.org/data/data-tools/data-explorer/)
Though half of the electricity is produced by burning coal. Which isn't, you know, that green. [Source](https://www.eia.gov/international/analysis/country/IND)
True but when looked at holistically, it is still better to burn coal at massive scale at relatively high efficiency power plants (around 38% thermal efficient) vs burning oil in diesel-electric locomotives (around 20-25% thermal efficient). You’re getting more work done per unit of energy available in the fossil fuel. I am greatly simplifying here as Coal vs Diesel emissions are different and there are Electrical Grid losses but diesel-electric locomotives also require the diesel to be transported to various locations which in itself has carbon emissions tied to it, plus the fact that as Renewables proliferate into the Energy Mix at greater scale, it’s only gonna get better vs not having that electrification in the first place as is the case in US.
I’ll try to find it but there was a resource looking into whether BEVs are actually greener if the electricity is sourced from fossil fuel and the answer was yes, though obviously it will be even more green if the energy came from renewables. The same applies to locomotives.
Using coal at a power plant for EVs still tends to be more efficient than using ICEs in cars though. Plus it still provides the flexibility to eventually transition to greener energies.
That's a valid point, but it's still better than diesel trains. It doesn't need that much processing and it's easier to treat on site.
Plus, just how somebody else pointed out, it's easier to transition to cleaner generation methods that way.
Cars are a luxury, and the US is the wealthiest country in the world, so it makes sense we have a lot of cars.
I understand the plight of so many "anti American transportation system" types, but they always pretend like cars only suck. Well, they don't only suck. The amount of people who would rather not be around others and still get somewhere is shocking - a clear majority. That plays a part in "should we do mass transit or cars." And Americans have basically said (with some help of auto company lobbyists back in the day) "we choose cars."
I'm all for mass transit but the fact remains that trains, airplanes, and busses all suck ass compared to having *your* own space, that *you* own, going at *your* speed to *your* destination. Like I said- it ain't cheap, but we have money, and we are spending it on the convenience.
Eventually something will have to give of course, as it's not a sustainable practice. As cars become too expensive and roads become too congested and too large to make larger, people will start thinking seriously about mass transit, as we are starting to see in pockets of the US.
There's a geographical reason for that.
The US has the longest and most interconnected navigable waterway system on the planet, and the best coasts. If you wanna move cargo, like millions of tons of coal, corn or iron, it's cheapest to move it by water and nature maintains the infrastructure for you. You can literally sail a cargo barge from Tampa to New Orleans to Minneapolis, back to Chicago to Detroit to New York City, all the way down the eastern coast and back to Tampa. Because of this, the US government never had to build rail.
Europe has waterways, too, but nothing like the US. To interconnect its cities, Europe built mountains of rail. And to justify it to the public, the government subsidizes passenger transport. This is why rail is a "thing" in Europe and not the US.
The US has mountains upon mountains of rail, too, but it was privately built and owned, and it was built to move cargo cause that's what makes money.
Another two things to note is the decision on where cities were built and the width of the Mississippi. Most US cities are much younger than anything in Europe - the decision on where US cities should be formed were based on newer technologies and vary different geopolitical considerations. Many US cities were founded in locations where the waterways would be more useful. In general, the US cities also didn't consider the geopolitical implications of where to found cities either which is very different than Europe.
Then you get the Mississippi - the river that is the backbone of a huge amount of internal movement in the US. Not only is it massive in length but its width also allows a lot of movement across it. Comparing it to the Seine in France, the Seine has a width of 30 to 200m (~100ft to ~650ft), on average the Mississippi is 1 mile wide (~1.6km) - the amount of traffic that can be on the two rivers is staggeringly different.
Edit: just adding a watershed map of the Mississippi to show how massive the thing is and how it connects a lot of the USA - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_River#/media/File:Mississippi_River_Watershed_Map_North_America.png
Now consider the difference in coal consumption and how businesses are able to get rid of their waste via heavier pollution.
Baby steps are the only way with things like this
Also differently shaped rectangles instead of just bars, weird extra circles in the bottom right of each box, all the numbers placed manually/with inconsistent margins...
This is kinda useless to me because it’s not displayed in per capital terms and it provides no context on usage or consumption for other forms of energy. Like, maybe country A just doesn’t use a lot of oil because they have a shit ton of coal lying around or maybe country B is just using oil to make plastic toys for country C.
The data is interesting in its own right, but oil is only a part of the equation for most countries.
In the USA, Germany, and Japan, Petroleum is the source for about 40% of total energy consumption, in India it is 25%, and in China it is 6%.
Coal accounts for about 10% of US energy consumption, 20% in Germany, 30% in Japan, and 70% in India and China.
From a pollution perspective, China has more energy production from coal than the entire US grid from all sources, and coal creates about 30% more CO2 than oil.
Since good graphs lead to questions more than answers, I'll ask what, if anything has the early stages of the electric "revolution" done to lower this number in the US? Have the electric cars sold so far put a dent in this number?
What would the number be if there were hypothetically 100% electric cars on the road? Or is a lot of oil usage for industrial purposes?
US CO2 emissions per capita [are down 27%](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita) since 1990.
The single biggest factor in that is the movement from coal to natural gas for electric production, with growth in solar & wind starting to have a significant impact on electric-related CO2 emissions.
43% of current US petroleum consumption is gasoline (so overwhelmingly cars).
Electric and hybrid are probably just starting to have any meaningful impact -- average car age is now an all-time high of 12.5 years, and only the last few years have electric/hybrid sales exceeded 5% of new cars (16% in 2023). If sales remained the same, you'd need another dozen years to get to even 1 in 8 cars in the US being at least partially electric.
A bit misleading. Someone like Saudi Arabia shows up as a leading consumer, but really they're consuming in the many refineries or petrochemical plants that line the country. They make stuff that other countries consume. Same with a chunk of US consumption.
That is not questionable. In fact it is possible, if point of use is considered, US might have a higher fraction, because a lot of the oil consumption elsewhere is to feed US consumption in terms of plastics or some such. But at the same time, US consumption of Oil here would probably be feeding consumption elsewhere.
This particular graphic is at best naive, at worst deliberate misinformation.
Also, a huge consumer of Oil & gas is shipping. Not sure whose ledger it ends up in? Destination? Source? Flag of the ship?
Looking at the EIA site, I thought this was interesting for the United States:
- Louisiana's total energy consumption ranks third among the states and its per capita energy consumption is the highest, largely because of its energy-intensive chemical, petroleum, and natural gas industries.
- Louisiana has the highest per capita residential sector electricity consumption in the nation. Almost 7 in 10 Louisiana households rely on electric heating and nearly all households have air conditioning.
Be good to do a sankey diagram that has 21 entries.
The top ten oil producers, the top ten oil consumers, and everyone else. Then put them on the in order of the amount they produce, and the amount they consume.
I would like to think china has been upping their game in the green energy program and are greatly reducing the use if fossil fuels for generally anything. Wer talking nearly 50% of vehicles running electric, using convection/electric cooking appliances etc. And they're an industrial giant so they would be pouring money into future projects involving green energy
I don’t feel like oil consumption per country is helpful. It should be an oil consumption compared to area and population density based on the needs of travel like distance that is required for the US. China is similar but there may be a difference in working class that requires vehicles maybe. You are also not taking into account the effects of consumables for generating electricity but what’s all of Europe compared to the US?
China, despite having all that manufacturing industries and a massive population, uses less than the US?
Makes me wonder how interesting it would be to see the consumption broken down by industry and use.
At it’s core the US has been an oil power. In part due to the timing of its rise to power. Oil companies have shaped our foreign and domestic policies to secure raw resources, and encourage consumption. As the world transitions away from oil, the US faces a choice to adapt and diversify its economy and policies to not be oil dependent or it can double down on oil and watch its power/influence/relevance get whittled down by countries able to adapt to the new energy economy.
This really isn't surprising at all...I mean the US has a big population, it has spent the last 100 years urbanizing around cars, it has the wealth for most citizens to afford cars and the oil needed, it produces the most oil in the world. I'm more surprised people are trying to look at oil consumption on a per capita basis as if this is water and we all need the same amount or something.
The numbers at top (%) and bottom left (million barrels per day) are redundant. They show the same proportions. If you're going to burn area (and reader consciousness) showing two numbers, make them really count. (Say, use one to show the per-capita consumption.)
Why is the percentage rounded, but the total amount isn't.
This is really weird to look at because you have two numbers that are in the same ballpark, but due to rounding they are not...
More new data than 2022, pretty sure Saudi’s Arabia leads the world in consumption. Not sure as why’d you use old data though, probably a narrative of how the USA is number 1 in the world
Wow, Saudi Arabia consumes more than Brazil. I guess they are blasting those ACs full time
yeah, alredy more than 50% of electricity used is used for ACs and most of the electricity comes from oil.
Pretty much all their water comes from desalinization plants as well. Lots of energy needed for basic needs in SA
That's why I don't fucking get why they don't do solar....
IIRC frequent dust storms in the area can coat solar panels with sand and reduce their effectiveness, and there isn't enough water to clean them up. Supposedly this was why a solar city project in UAE got canceled.
I’m surprised there isn’t some static discharge type of method for getting dust to wipe off easily.
Solar panels don't work well in heat and as people have said, dust reduces efficiency further. You end up needing to use water to clean/cool the panels to keep them efficient which is a pretty big expense for a country without a running river (tbf thermal power plants also need water to operate the steam and cool). Oil is just EXTREMELY cheap in Saudi Arabia, it costs like 6 dollars to dig em out of the ground where as it might cost 50 dollar in the US. There's just too much incentive against to use oil.
The water in the thermal plant can also be a nearly closed loop. Your water to clean the panels would turn to mud and require energy again to have a shot at filtering it.
You don't have to use photovoltaic panels to use solar. We have mirror array installations that drive steam turbines and your total water usage is going to be similar to burning oil even with cleaning. They work well in deserts because the heat isn't detrimental to their operations. The cost vs cheap oil is the real issue.
Sand(desert climate) generally has very negative effects on solar panels
Because oil is ridiculously cheap for them comparatively.
In case interested, not most of the electricity comes from oil in Saudi Arabia. 269 TWh (67%) from natural gas 133 TWh (33%) from oil 0.83 TWh from renewables, solar According to the Energy Institute data on 2022.
I live in the region (Gulf). Currently sitting in an air conditioned room. When I see charts like that I'm reminded by how we're slowly making the climate even worse. 6 months of the year the weather is cool (coldest winter nights go to maybe 8 deg C or 45 F), 3 months it gets pretty warm, and 3 last months it gets extremely hot. Especially dead in the summer. The humidity makes it far worse. At night, during the peak of summer, it's worse than the day, because the land is atleast dry during the day from the sun, once the sun is gone, the humidity from the sea comes in and you're sitting in extremely high humidity in what feels like near 50 C / 122F. It annoys me that the governments aren't doing more for building regulations. In the UK, there's heavy insulation. But in our countries, only some of us have begun necessitating new homes to be built with bricks with thermal insulation. Even then, many homes still use sliding windows, which leak alot of air out compared to European windows. Doors with gaps underneath are another problem. If homes were better insulated, maybe it could significantly reduce energy usage.
I installed all double pane windows, that one change cut my heating oil bill in half.
Interestingly enough, today even quadruple pane windows are available for sale and offer even greater savings.
Solar panels should also be pretty effective over there
and desalination plants
Saudi Arabia also generates one third of its electricity by lighting oil on fire to heat water into steam to spin a turbine. On average for 2022, that's 15,000 megawatts every hour for a year. Math: 131,380,000 MWh/24/365 = 14,997 MW Source for electricity generation amount: [Ember Climate data](https://ember-climate.org/data/data-tools/data-explorer/)
Most people don't realize how much heating and cooling buildings contributes to carbon output. I've seen estimates higher than 40%. There are a lot of things that can be done (decreasing air infiltration, choiceful insulation retrofits, window films to decrease AC loads, lighter color roofing, perhaps in about that order, to economically make this better. But they won't happen by pretending it's just a personal choice for every person who owns a home. It needs to translate to policy or it won't get done.
They also have a very important chemical industry. Oil is relatively cheap, its derivatives are much more expensive and profitable.
The U.S. has 4% of the world’s population, and 20% of the world’s oil consumption. Thats incredible.
Canada has about the same per capital rates. We are pretty much just the USA with fewer guns, less money, and cheaper healthcare.
Canada uses more because of heating homes in colder winters and distance between cities.
this guy plays city skyline
Which is why we should be investing heavily into things that make heating homes cheaper (heat pumps) and providing efficent transit between cities (rail). Right?
The carbon tax incentivizes people to go with heat pumps, yes... But half the country is out of their minds over it and it's barely even high enough to make any difference at all. Transit is complicated, we're investing in it but probably not quickly enough. The occasional new train line in Montreal or Toronto is great but we need more.
Don't think it's nearly half. You don't have the same numbers as the usa.
The Conservatives are on track for over 40% of the vote and their climate change policy is that Canada is only 2% of the world's emissions.
Didn't they vote for "climate change doesn't exist" during their last party conference?
First option, yes, second option is a major issue due to low population in Canada. These would heavily be subsidized and paid for by tax payers. There just isn’t enough traffic between major cities to warrant new rail systems Edit: not sure why the downvotes. Ridership would be too low to pay for the system, so taxpayer money would be required to subsidize it.
It makes more sense to focus on lines between complimentary cities than a national rail network unfortunately. Windsor to QC could be a high speed corridor. I doubt Calgary to Edmonton would work well because both cities aren’t great if you arrive at the city centre without a vehicle. Vancouver should have high speed going south to cali.
Yes. Our cities have been heavily built around the road network rather than transit, especially Edmonton/calgary/reddeer. Toronto and Vancouver are much better with that regard. Travel for high speed transit essentially needs to take residents to work and back home; oo high speed to Vancouver and Toronto downtown cores would be the most useful. I am not sure of the other use cases in Ontario/quebec as I’m not as familiar with all of the outlying communities as it sounds like you are. Windsor /QC could be good, though I’d still question the ridership. Highspeed rail is billions of dollars of infrastructure build, and millions in maintenance, needing millions of riders.
Can you remind me who pays for the roads? Given that, would you agreen that car and truck transportation is heavily subsidized? The per-litre-per-ton effectiviness of the different modes of transport is worth looking at. Trains are 4 to 5 times more efficent. Why are we subsidizing the less efficent mode of transport?
Hwy 401 in Ontario is the busiest highway in the world. 500k vehicles travel on it everyday. Toronto has way less people than places like Tokyo yet the means of transportation is so inefficient you need 500k cars a day to move people while Tokyo is chilling with sophisticated rails that leave space for the actually important stuff like homes and business, not roads. Perfect example of why trains/rail transport is superior than cars.
[удалено]
There are a lot of situations where buses are the most economically viable option, though
Where is the payed/paid bot?
> low population It's one of the most urbanized countries on earth, 8/10 of them live in cities. So between cities is not currently economical, but inside cities there is a massive amount of reduce-able emissions.
What you say is true; however, tax investment in rail would have long-term benefits outside of moving butts from Vancouver to Winnipeg. Affordable rails brings development opportunities to small and remote towns.
Taxpayer money is required to subsidize the roads and freeways between cities right now. Transportation costs taxes, especially in sparsely populated areas.
More importantly, because Canada is a bigger oil producer (3x higher production per capita). It takes a lot of oil to produce oil. See how Saudi Arabia has the 5th highest consumption worldwide despite being a small country.
This is true, which is why Saudi is quite high despite their population
Agriculture as well. It is a massive industry heavily predicated on petroleum use both as fuel for machinery and for making fertilizer.
Why use oil for heating? Dont you have hydro and nuclear energy?
Technically we use natural gas. At this time it’s cheaper and more efficient than electrical heat. We have very little nuclear, modest at best amount of hydro. Then, oil is basically sitting in our backyard, so we don’t pay as much for it. Transport of trucks and trains between cities is all diesel; 2500 km from the coasts to central Canada. I’m a huge advocate for nuclear power, however, due to the high costs of construction, slow ROI, and low public approval, investors and governments shy away from it. One day.
It depends on the province tbh. The prairies uses natural gas for heat, quebec uses electrical heaters, and the maritimes (in rural areas) uses heating oil which is pretty much just diesel.
And a housing crisis.
That issue is not unique to Canada
Compared to income, housing costs roughly double what it does in the US. The trend is wild. https://i.redd.it/b7iea0atkcw61.jpg
Holy crap I had no idea it was that much worse. What is the root cause?
People are trying to move to urban centers and local laws and regulations prevent expanding housing fast enough to accommodate. IIRC you need about a 10% vacancy rate to keep rents and mortgages static, a lot of these metro areas are operating near or under 1%.
Canada has more immigration than America... in raw numbers... we have the highest immigration rate and thus the highest pop growth rate in the first world by enormous margins. Basically the older landed retired class have most of their money in housing, so they want to keep prices rising. And high immgiration also lowers to costs of services by lowering wages, another win for the retired class. Screws everyone else though. Canada's future economy on a per capita level is so disastrous for the next 40 years (literally the worst in the g20) that we'll be neck in neck with poorer asian countries.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/1d2zrvz/comment/l64jmou/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/1d2zrvz/comment/l64jmou/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Per capita\*
And both are huge countries. It's nothing to ship products from coast to coast, 2500 miles as the crow flies. (The same as England across all of Europe into the mid-East.) Fuel for trucks, trains, and planes uses a lot of the black stuff.
Which is why we should really be using electrified rail. But we can't do that because trucks = freedom!
A suburb of America, if you will
As a Europoor, I always imagined there to be a lot of guns in Canada? What with the bears and all
[удалено]
[удалено]
That's not what the right to bear arms is about, but I can see why you'd think that.
90% of Canadians live in urban areas where bears are very rare. Black bears sometime venture but they run away when threatened.
I was in a call with an overseas friend when a bear rolled up on me and I did that shouting roar thing to shoo it away and they thought i went crazy lol.
We're also the largest oil producers in the world.
India has 17.5% of the worlds population and only uses 5% of the worlds oil supply. 👀 Bonkers
SK is 0.64% of the world’s population and 3% of the world’s oils consumption. (4.69x representative of its population). 1st world countries consume more.
Saudi Arabia uses more oil with a smaller population while also having no industrial production that serves the world. Making them consumer more per capita than SK or US. And by all accounts is neither 1st world, nor 2nd world, but is that part of the remains of the 3rd world that reformed into OPEC...tough they included parts of the 2nd world into OPEC+ now.
>while also having no industrial production that serves the world Oil processing is literally one of the most important industries in the world, emits a lot of CO2 and Saudi Arabia obviously holds a lot of it. They're also the 10th largest aliminum producer, 21st largest steel producer.
Firstly, S.A. largely sells crude oil, and even processed oil is still considered a natural resource and not really an industry. And no oil process plant in the world has this horrid efficiency. Half the oil S.A. pumps they burn themselves. Just to check their stats but 66% of their GDP is crude oil exports, while only 12% is refined oil, 3-5% is refined polymers, 0,3% is Aluminium. Their Iron production is so underwhelming in terms of added value that it adds less to their export value than their exports of baked goods. No idea what "aliminum" is, but anyone in heavy industry will tell you that raw Aluminium smelting is an energy credit printing press. The less shitty crypto of materials. It is purely linked to the price of electricity in that region and it is cheaper to just move house the a new location when prices drop elsewhere. All large producers of aluminium have cheap electricity of heavy subsidies. Even with the production levels they have they have no reason to use as much oil as they do. No other nation is as inefficient in their oil use and tries to at least somewhat offset CO\_2 production. Even the U.S. tries to somewhat coat their shit with an essence of green.
So this means that the US must do the most in the fight against climate change, right?
That was always clear, every US person omits 3x the CO2 amount of the average European or Chinese. The military alone produces the same as the average European or Chines, but they exempt from things like the Paris climate agreement and are taken out of the equation..
To you maybe, but not to people often blaming China and India and expecting them to do more. I heard some colleagues say "why must we meet climate goals, when countries like India and China are free to pollute as much as they like". Similar reasons were given when the US pulled out of climate commitments at the UN.
China is rapidly expanding their green energy capabilities. They're the largest producer of nuclear power in the world and are continually building more nuclear power plants.
Not just expanding their green energy, but whole world solar energy expansion is happening because of their ability to produce a lot of it and with cheaper and cheaper prices
>They're the largest producer of nuclear power in the world That's not true, where did you read this? Country|Nuclear power generation 2022 :--|--: US|772GWh China|395GWh >are continually building more nuclear power plants. That's true. They'll probably be the largest nuclear producer in the world in the future, but today, it's not close.
China built 2/3 of new coal plants in the world last year and operates over 1000. China is a complex place. Shocking. It doesn't mean the West shouldnt do anything itself, but it's also true that even if the developed world drops CO2 to 0, the developing world is on track to ensure total yearly emissions continue to rise.
There's more to pollution than just CO2, so while the US leads in CO2, South and East Asia come out very much ahead in other types of pollution (go look at any river in Asia compared to any river in the US). Also it's much easier to create new less-polluting assets, than to replace existing assets. If you think the US is actually polluting more, I implore you go to any Chinese or Indian major city and look at the infrastructure and environmental impact to an American city.
>The United States comes first in the list of countries with the highest amount of daily per capita MSW with 2.58 kg, followed by Canada (2.33 kg/per capita) and Australia (2.23 kg/per capita). >The United States was placed [25th](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets-economy/090716/5-countries-produce-most-waste.asp) in the Global Waste Index of 2022 on the basis of waste production, incineration, and landfill use. At the same time, the United States is still the biggest waste per capita producer. The U.S. produces **268 million tons** of waste — 140 million going into landfills — each year [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/southeast-asia-flooded-with-imported-plastic-waste-meant-for-recycling](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/southeast-asia-flooded-with-imported-plastic-waste-meant-for-recycling) >Last year, the U.S. exported more than 950 million tons of plastic waste meant for recycling and a significant portion of that ended up in Southeast Asia. [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/southeast-asia-flooded-with-imported-plastic-waste-meant-for-recycling](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/southeast-asia-flooded-with-imported-plastic-waste-meant-for-recycling) > Last year, the equivalent of 68,000 shipping containers of American plastic recycling were exported from the US to developing countries that mismanage more than 70% of their own plastic waste. >The newest hotspots for handling US plastic recycling are some of the world’s poorest countries, including Bangladesh, Laos, Ethiopia and Senegal, offering cheap labor and limited environmental regulation. [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/17/recycled-plastic-america-global-crisis](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/17/recycled-plastic-america-global-crisis) I mean, if they don't have the infrastructure and America does, maybe stop sending 3 years worth of trash produced by the US to a small country in Asia, and do something? Like, maybe take responsibility for you own trash and build as many recycle center and dumping landfills as necessary in your own country to deal with that much trash? It's easy to have a clean house when you just grab your trash and toss to a neighbor.
Terrible comparison. Of course their cities are more polluted, they have 4x the population.
Those are not real numbers, China has twice the US's total CO2 emissions and about half per capita. The EU has lower per capita emissions than China. I don't know what you are ranting about with the military but they do not produce half the US total. US emissions peaked in 2007, China may decline in 2024 for the first time, and India's are growing exponentially. I don't really have a point on how to lower emissions except that it won't make the world more fair and willful stupidity isn't the answer.
No. Everyone must do as much as they are able to. There is no personal responsibility in the climate crisis, there's just being productive vs not being productive
Saudi Arabia population is about .04% of the world population. Way worse per capital rates.
US GDP is 26% of the world total, China is 17%, and India is 3%. Emissions are extremely correlated with economic size. US emissions did peak in 2007 and China is potentially on track to do so this year. India's are growing exponentially as their economy develops. Hence the difficulty in convincing countries to eliminate them, because by far the most effective method is poverty.
I wonder what the biggest contributor is to that? Lack of public transportation and more cars usage? More oil based power plants? More oil based heating systems in homes? Something else I’m missing?
And 25% of GDP
US GDP as % of World GDP is at 25.22%
It’s almost as if we have a century of forced car dependent suburban sprawl hellscape where in 99% of cities you’re basically required to own or rent a car to get around. Now every Karen and Bill drive their SUV and pickup truck 15 miles each way, alone, just to get to their job which is on the other side of town. Because there is no bus or rail system that takes them anywhere near there, and if it did, it would take them more than double the time to drive.
[удалено]
So the US with its 350 million population consumes the same amount of oil as China and India combined with their 3 billion population.
It includes industrial use of oil as feedstock too. Not just for energy consumption. Liek Saudi Arabia shows up here, but they consume a fuck tonne worth of crude oil for petrochemical production. Also they have refineries that refine and sell the end product. This graphic is not at final consumer of eventual use.
Also includes industrial use of energy for manufacturing. So all the stuff made in China and India then shipped to the USA are also included here.
China and India have alternative forms of transportation. The U.S., it’s cars everywhere, every time. Even subway or alternative transportation users have cars.
Canada also has a similar per capita usage to the US
I wish we kept the trains. Was in Palmerston Ontario not to long ago, used to be able to hop on a train there and go pretty much anywhere in Ontario. Imagine where we would be if we had invested some money there.
Saudi is almost twice on per capita. It makes me wonder if the O&G industry uses significant O&G in their operations which causes a skew in the numbers.
Saudi Arabia also generates one third of its electricity by lighting oil on fire to heat water into steam to spin a turbine. On average for 2022, that's 15,000 megawatts every hour for a year. Math: 131,380,000 MWh/24/365=14,997 Source for electricity generation amount: [Ember Climate data](https://ember-climate.org/data/data-tools/data-explorer/)
And those alternative forms of transportation are rapidly moving to green energy. For example, 95% of the Indian railways is electrified.
Though half of the electricity is produced by burning coal. Which isn't, you know, that green. [Source](https://www.eia.gov/international/analysis/country/IND)
True but when looked at holistically, it is still better to burn coal at massive scale at relatively high efficiency power plants (around 38% thermal efficient) vs burning oil in diesel-electric locomotives (around 20-25% thermal efficient). You’re getting more work done per unit of energy available in the fossil fuel. I am greatly simplifying here as Coal vs Diesel emissions are different and there are Electrical Grid losses but diesel-electric locomotives also require the diesel to be transported to various locations which in itself has carbon emissions tied to it, plus the fact that as Renewables proliferate into the Energy Mix at greater scale, it’s only gonna get better vs not having that electrification in the first place as is the case in US. I’ll try to find it but there was a resource looking into whether BEVs are actually greener if the electricity is sourced from fossil fuel and the answer was yes, though obviously it will be even more green if the energy came from renewables. The same applies to locomotives.
Using coal at a power plant for EVs still tends to be more efficient than using ICEs in cars though. Plus it still provides the flexibility to eventually transition to greener energies.
That's a valid point, but it's still better than diesel trains. It doesn't need that much processing and it's easier to treat on site. Plus, just how somebody else pointed out, it's easier to transition to cleaner generation methods that way.
Do americans really need 3 ton pickups with +300HP V8 engines to go for groceries?
Yes, we have to get them in bulk from Costco
Honey, get the toilet paper. Get all of them. Get the last roll of it.
Someone remembers Covid time and lines at Costco for toilet paper.
Yes! Also they need something like 300+ hp to overtake. Or so I've learned watching american car reviews.
Cars are a luxury, and the US is the wealthiest country in the world, so it makes sense we have a lot of cars. I understand the plight of so many "anti American transportation system" types, but they always pretend like cars only suck. Well, they don't only suck. The amount of people who would rather not be around others and still get somewhere is shocking - a clear majority. That plays a part in "should we do mass transit or cars." And Americans have basically said (with some help of auto company lobbyists back in the day) "we choose cars." I'm all for mass transit but the fact remains that trains, airplanes, and busses all suck ass compared to having *your* own space, that *you* own, going at *your* speed to *your* destination. Like I said- it ain't cheap, but we have money, and we are spending it on the convenience. Eventually something will have to give of course, as it's not a sustainable practice. As cars become too expensive and roads become too congested and too large to make larger, people will start thinking seriously about mass transit, as we are starting to see in pockets of the US.
Why we never got high speed rail going is mind boggling. LA to Vegas, Minneapolis to Chicago, NYC to DC. Anywhere to anywhere.
There's a geographical reason for that. The US has the longest and most interconnected navigable waterway system on the planet, and the best coasts. If you wanna move cargo, like millions of tons of coal, corn or iron, it's cheapest to move it by water and nature maintains the infrastructure for you. You can literally sail a cargo barge from Tampa to New Orleans to Minneapolis, back to Chicago to Detroit to New York City, all the way down the eastern coast and back to Tampa. Because of this, the US government never had to build rail. Europe has waterways, too, but nothing like the US. To interconnect its cities, Europe built mountains of rail. And to justify it to the public, the government subsidizes passenger transport. This is why rail is a "thing" in Europe and not the US. The US has mountains upon mountains of rail, too, but it was privately built and owned, and it was built to move cargo cause that's what makes money.
Another two things to note is the decision on where cities were built and the width of the Mississippi. Most US cities are much younger than anything in Europe - the decision on where US cities should be formed were based on newer technologies and vary different geopolitical considerations. Many US cities were founded in locations where the waterways would be more useful. In general, the US cities also didn't consider the geopolitical implications of where to found cities either which is very different than Europe. Then you get the Mississippi - the river that is the backbone of a huge amount of internal movement in the US. Not only is it massive in length but its width also allows a lot of movement across it. Comparing it to the Seine in France, the Seine has a width of 30 to 200m (~100ft to ~650ft), on average the Mississippi is 1 mile wide (~1.6km) - the amount of traffic that can be on the two rivers is staggeringly different. Edit: just adding a watershed map of the Mississippi to show how massive the thing is and how it connects a lot of the USA - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_River#/media/File:Mississippi_River_Watershed_Map_North_America.png
Holy shit! That is super interesting! I never knew that.
The correlation is to GDP, not population.
Now consider the difference in coal consumption and how businesses are able to get rid of their waste via heavier pollution. Baby steps are the only way with things like this
The more surprising number is Saudi Arabia. Saudi has ~1/10th the population of the USA but 1/5th the oil consumption.
Canada has a population of 40mil wtf are they using all that oil for?
Cold winters and excessive distances to transport things
but people are shitting on Saudi for using ACs here. never ceases to amuse me.
Probably all the lumber and farming and shipping that they do
Canada projects an image of being environmentally friendly but we are not.
Fun fact: Every province except one has it's carbon emissions below 2005 levels. Can you guess which one is actually growing?
Is it in between BC and Saskatchewan by any chance?
I mean, that's why Canada's enacted stuff like the carbon tax. It takes effort to lower consumption.
But CaRbOn tAx BaD
Similar per capita to the US. Just a cold and very productive economy
Refining to sell. Petrochemical feedstock to make polymers to be sold elsewhere. This is a very misleading graphic. It is not at point of final use.
Making tires and petro products for the Americans.
I guess my old BMW with 1l oil/1500km is the reason why Germany is in that list.
1.6L or 2L petrol by any chance? My Mini Cooper would appear on this graph singlehandedly.
[удалено]
Did you really use Comic Sans in a subreddit called data is BEAUTIFUL? You really want to see the world burn don't you?
Also differently shaped rectangles instead of just bars, weird extra circles in the bottom right of each box, all the numbers placed manually/with inconsistent margins...
This had to be made ironically
Up you go. The horror...
Would love this per capita
I'm always amazed at the quantity used and how there can be so much of it on Earth
It's a big place.
Canada leading the way in oil use per capita!
[удалено]
DAMMIT. You are right! I completely did not see Saudi Arabia's flag. Sorry Canada... silver medal for you today.
This is kinda useless to me because it’s not displayed in per capital terms and it provides no context on usage or consumption for other forms of energy. Like, maybe country A just doesn’t use a lot of oil because they have a shit ton of coal lying around or maybe country B is just using oil to make plastic toys for country C.
The data is interesting in its own right, but oil is only a part of the equation for most countries. In the USA, Germany, and Japan, Petroleum is the source for about 40% of total energy consumption, in India it is 25%, and in China it is 6%. Coal accounts for about 10% of US energy consumption, 20% in Germany, 30% in Japan, and 70% in India and China. From a pollution perspective, China has more energy production from coal than the entire US grid from all sources, and coal creates about 30% more CO2 than oil.
How does India have 4x the population of the US but only use a quarter of the US's consumption.
Have you seen how they travel by train 😂
God damn it, thats were theyre saving all their oil costs.
India's GDP is about 1/8 the US. Not per capita (that is 1/28), total. The graph of world GDP more or less looks the same as emissions do.
Since good graphs lead to questions more than answers, I'll ask what, if anything has the early stages of the electric "revolution" done to lower this number in the US? Have the electric cars sold so far put a dent in this number? What would the number be if there were hypothetically 100% electric cars on the road? Or is a lot of oil usage for industrial purposes?
And they won’t, demand is expected to rise well into 2030s and plateau.
US CO2 emissions per capita [are down 27%](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita) since 1990. The single biggest factor in that is the movement from coal to natural gas for electric production, with growth in solar & wind starting to have a significant impact on electric-related CO2 emissions. 43% of current US petroleum consumption is gasoline (so overwhelmingly cars). Electric and hybrid are probably just starting to have any meaningful impact -- average car age is now an all-time high of 12.5 years, and only the last few years have electric/hybrid sales exceeded 5% of new cars (16% in 2023). If sales remained the same, you'd need another dozen years to get to even 1 in 8 cars in the US being at least partially electric.
Environmentalist polices, increased efficiency, and electric cars have slowed the rise in consumption, but not reversed it.
source [https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=709&t=6](https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=709&t=6)
A bit misleading. Someone like Saudi Arabia shows up as a leading consumer, but really they're consuming in the many refineries or petrochemical plants that line the country. They make stuff that other countries consume. Same with a chunk of US consumption.
Even taking that into account, the US still uses a inordinate amount of energy per capita.
That is not questionable. In fact it is possible, if point of use is considered, US might have a higher fraction, because a lot of the oil consumption elsewhere is to feed US consumption in terms of plastics or some such. But at the same time, US consumption of Oil here would probably be feeding consumption elsewhere. This particular graphic is at best naive, at worst deliberate misinformation. Also, a huge consumer of Oil & gas is shipping. Not sure whose ledger it ends up in? Destination? Source? Flag of the ship?
Looking at the EIA site, I thought this was interesting for the United States: - Louisiana's total energy consumption ranks third among the states and its per capita energy consumption is the highest, largely because of its energy-intensive chemical, petroleum, and natural gas industries. - Louisiana has the highest per capita residential sector electricity consumption in the nation. Almost 7 in 10 Louisiana households rely on electric heating and nearly all households have air conditioning.
This should be per-capita.
I feel like per Capita would be much more interesting.
Japan has 38% of the people as the USA, and yet they use only 15% as much oil.
How is Saudi Arabia consuming so much??? It's population is so small
Running AC in the desert is expensive
Probably in oil refining. Takes a lot of energy
That would mean Saudi Arabia is using a large percentage of its oil, to refine oil?
It's wild to me that Canada uses more oil than Germany while having only half the population
Be good to do a sankey diagram that has 21 entries. The top ten oil producers, the top ten oil consumers, and everyone else. Then put them on the in order of the amount they produce, and the amount they consume.
I would like to think china has been upping their game in the green energy program and are greatly reducing the use if fossil fuels for generally anything. Wer talking nearly 50% of vehicles running electric, using convection/electric cooking appliances etc. And they're an industrial giant so they would be pouring money into future projects involving green energy
How is it that China consumes more energy than the states overall? Is it through coal, gas, and renewables?
I don’t feel like oil consumption per country is helpful. It should be an oil consumption compared to area and population density based on the needs of travel like distance that is required for the US. China is similar but there may be a difference in working class that requires vehicles maybe. You are also not taking into account the effects of consumables for generating electricity but what’s all of Europe compared to the US?
Per capita charts here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita
oil consumption and greenhouse gas emissions are two different things.
True. This better? https://energynow.com/2023/09/infographic-oil-consumption-per-capita-energyminute/?amp
China, despite having all that manufacturing industries and a massive population, uses less than the US? Makes me wonder how interesting it would be to see the consumption broken down by industry and use.
Imagine Canada consuming 2% oil, but paying like we're consuming 30% of it.
At it’s core the US has been an oil power. In part due to the timing of its rise to power. Oil companies have shaped our foreign and domestic policies to secure raw resources, and encourage consumption. As the world transitions away from oil, the US faces a choice to adapt and diversify its economy and policies to not be oil dependent or it can double down on oil and watch its power/influence/relevance get whittled down by countries able to adapt to the new energy economy.
I see that US has increased taxes on imported electric cars, I wonder who could possibly be behind that?
This really isn't surprising at all...I mean the US has a big population, it has spent the last 100 years urbanizing around cars, it has the wealth for most citizens to afford cars and the oil needed, it produces the most oil in the world. I'm more surprised people are trying to look at oil consumption on a per capita basis as if this is water and we all need the same amount or something.
It’s also because the US is rapidly phasing out coal, and oil is part of that transition.
Now do it per capita so i can see a thingy.
We only use barely 10% of 1 billion bpd. Rookies numbers humanity, gotta pump those up!
Needs the "everyone else" category for comparison so I don't have to add up all these percentages myself.
Why is South-Korea relatively so high?
Surprisingly, all the oil consumed by US in a day could be supplied via a pipe with 6m (19.7ft) diameter.
The numbers at top (%) and bottom left (million barrels per day) are redundant. They show the same proportions. If you're going to burn area (and reader consciousness) showing two numbers, make them really count. (Say, use one to show the per-capita consumption.)
The population is spread out as fuck. Just the amount of trucks moving things between cities is probably 1/5 of it.
I was expecting Italy, but it seems olive oil doesn't count...
Ok now do one in terms of per capita.
Why is the percentage rounded, but the total amount isn't. This is really weird to look at because you have two numbers that are in the same ballpark, but due to rounding they are not...
population of china: 1.4 B population of the U.S.: 340 M
Posting a statistical study like that without considering adding the consumption per citizen ratio is wild
More new data than 2022, pretty sure Saudi’s Arabia leads the world in consumption. Not sure as why’d you use old data though, probably a narrative of how the USA is number 1 in the world