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://en.wikipedia.org/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://en.wikipedia.org/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)

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:

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


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