information data on wealth distribution and food security, electricity provision by power source
latest changes & additions at abelard.org link to document abstracts quotations at abelard.org, with source document where relevant      latest news headlines at abelard's news and comment zone Children and television violence interesting site links at abelard's news and comment zone about abelard and abelard.org
link to short briefings documents France zone at abelard.org - another France economics and money zone at abelard.org - government swindles and how to transfer money on the net   Energy - beyond fossil fuels click for abelard's child education zone visit abelard's gallery technology zone at abelard.org: how to survive and thrive on the web

back to abelard's front page

information tables

site map

Custom Search
Index wealth distribution and food security data
  Electricity usage and derivation
  World coal resources (at end 2001)
  World oil resources (at the end of 2004)
  required land use for alternative replacement energy production in USA
  end notes  

Table of wealth distribution and food security

This table illustrates wealth differences between countries and within countries. It also shows shows the ability of those countries to feed themselves.

 

 


advertising
disclaimer

wealth distribution and food security data

country Gini
value
GDP per capita (PPP) population density
(per sq km)
population
(in millions)
land area

percentage agriculturally useful land

pop. density per sq km ag. land
Brazil 59.1 $7,400 21 176 8,511,965 sq km
3,277,284 sq m
6% 345
Chile 57.5 $10,000 20 15 756,950 sq km
291,442 sq m
3% 661
Mexico 51.9 $9,000 52 103 1,972,550 sq km
759,473 sq m
13% 402
Venezuela 48.8 $6,100 26 24 912,050 sq km
351,158 sq m
3% 877
Argentina 45.0 * $12,000 14 38 2,766,890 sq km
1,065,310 sq m
9% 153
USA 40.8 $36,300 27

290

9,363,130 km
3,605,000 sq m
19% 146
Russia 39.9 $8,300 9 145 17,075,200 sq km
6,574,307 sq m
8% 106
UK 36.1 $24,700 238 58 244,755 sq km
94,230 sq m
26% 911
Switzerland 33.1 $31,100 170 7 41,290 sq km
15,898 sq m
10% 1695
France 32.7 $25,400 106 58 547,030 sq km
210,618 sq m
33% 321
Canada 32.0 $29,400  4 31.9   9,220,970 sq km 4.94%  70
Sweden 25.0 $24,700 20 9 449,964 sq km
7% 286
Japan 24.9 $27,200 339 125 369,000 sq km
152,334 sq m
12%
2823
Denmark 24.7 $28,000 116 5 43,094 sq km
16,592 sq m
56% 207
China 40 $4,300 138 1284 9,326,410 sq km 13.31% 1034
Russia 39.9 $8,300 9 145 16,995,800 sq km 7.46% 114
India 37.8 $2,500 318 1,045 3,287,590 sq km 54.35% 585
Iraq 60 ** $2,400  56 24.7 437,072 sq km  11.89% 475
country Gini value GDP per capita (PPP) population density (per sq km) population
(in millions)
land area

percentage agriculturally useful land

pop. density per sq km ag. land
  1 2 3 4 5 6 7
* estimate from World Bank data.
** Approximate only, the most recent figure available dates from 1956.
Data source for table: CIA Factbook
Be aware that much of some countries is mountainous, or otherwise difficult, by virtue of swamps, deserts, cold etc.

Definition: For the column, ‘agricultural useful land’ , I have taken the CIA definition for arable land, that is, land cultivated for crops that are replanted after each harvest like wheat, maize, and rice.

The CIA separately defines permanent cropland as land cultivated for crops that are not replanted after each harvest like citrus, coffee, and rubber; includes land under flowering shrubs, fruit trees, nut trees, and vines, but excludes land under trees grown for wood or timber.

I have done this because my intention is to have some approximation for the potential food self-sufficiency of the various countries listed. In third-world countries, a great deal of the category defined as permanent crops is production for export and for foreign exchange. Generally, the profits end up in the bank accounts of local agent kleptocracies and their Western corporate paymasters; and, of course, the cheap, luxury items are sold in advanced countries, to the detriment of the local poor.

My concern, at this point, is not any ‘moral’ judgement as to whether this is good, bad or neutral (in the present state of the world, my inclination is to regard it as the way of the world and fairly neutral). However, I bring this to your attention in order that you may think clearly about these matters for yourself. You might, for example, decide that you would rather seek out, and add in, the permanent crop figures; or again, you might imagine that increased land could be brought under cultivation by the application of ever-advancing, agricultural technology. You might think that trading crops for Western technology might, in the longer run, raise the general standard of life in backward countries. You might wonder about the strategic importance of food security, especially for some Western countries. Not one of these is an easy, or settled, question.

It has been said that trade is like a magic wand, capable of transforming food
into aeroplanes, or haircuts, into holidays in Ibiza.

As usual, keep in mind that such figures can only be approximations.



Electricity usage and derivation

country energy usage in ‘big power station’ (1 GW) equivalents
[GWeq]
** energy inputs to produce electricity in ‘big power station’ (1 GW) equivalents
[GWeq]
produced electricity, and as %age of total energy use   electricity from

1

fossil
[GWeq]

2

hydro
[GWeq]

3

nuclear
[GWeq]

4

wind
[GWeq]

USA 3065   430.4
[14%]
  316.8
[73.6%]
25.1
[5.7%]
87.8
[20.4%]
1.42
[0.3%]
Germany    459.2 164.8       60.75
14%]
  36.6
[60.3%]
3.0
[4.9%]
18.53
[30.5%]
2.6
[4.3%]
UK    306.9     41.6
[13.6%]
  31.2
[75.1%]
0.8
[1.9%]
9.4
[22.6%]
0.16 
[0.4%]
France    351.2 115     59.4
[16.9%]
  4.2
[7.0%]
9.4
[15.8%]
45.8
[77.1%]
0.08
[0.1%]
Japan    704.8   107.0
[15.2%]
  55.7
[52.1%]
14.6
[13.6%]
36.7
[34.3%]
 
Spain    184.4      24.3
[13.2%]
 
[x%]

[x%]
7.0
[28.8%]
1.0 
[0.24%]
Brazil    237.8     37.2
[15.6%]
 
[x%]

[x%]
1.6
[4.3%]
 
Russia   880.9     92.9
[10.5%]
  65
[70.0%]
20.7
[22.3%]
14.3
[15.4%]
 
China 1150   172.7
[15%]
  100.4
[58.12%]
70
[40.5%]
1.9
[1.1%]
0.11 
[0.19%]
India 431.1  
[x%]
  95.7
[94.6%]
16.1
[15.9%]
4.4
[4.3%]
 
Denmark 25.9  
[x%]
 
[x%]
* - 2.4
[x%]  
1 2 3 4   5 6 7 8

Data source, columns 5, 6, 7: BP Statistical Review. Col 8: various.
Column 2: BP figures for primary energy consumption x 1.37 conversion factor

subsidary sources: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/nshare.htm
http://www.enerdata.fr/enerdata_UK/Produits/exemples/conso.pdf (total energy use)
Column 4 derived from http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/contents.html
                                         (electricity generation and consumption tables)


**It is easy to confuse the figures in columns 2, 3 and 4. Much electricity generation is done using fossil fuels. Fossil fuel electricity generation is about 38% efficient, and electricity is the end-use form of power used by consumers.

Column 2 represents the total input-energy usage by a country. For every unit of fossil fuel, or other energy source, that is consumed by a country in electrical generation, only 38% of that unit will end up as usable end-user energy. When referring to alternative energy, the inputs are notional and based upon this 38% efficiency figure. In other words, for example, a given quantity of electricity produced by nuclear power generation will be deemed to have taken the same amount of fossil fuel energy as if it had been generated using fossil fuels.

The figure of 38% is a crude average, as used by BP. While similar efficiency losses will be involved in non-fossil fuel electricity generation, these losses may not show up clearly, as only the end-use electrical energy will appear in the relevant columns.

In column 4, the percentage is the delivered end-user energy, as a percentage of column 2 (the energy input to the country). It can also be read as the degree of electrification of that country.

End-user energy is difficult to define and to understand.

  • Is the energy going into the power station to be regarded as the end-user of the energy coming into the country?
  • Or is the end-user to be considered the person who swithches on a light at home?
  • What of the person who switches on a light in a factory? Is the factory the end-user, or is it the person or company who purchases the manufacturer’s goods?
  • What of recycled waste, used to produce further energy?
  • What of the hairdressing salon that blow-dies your hair? Is it different if you do this job at home?

These are the questions asked by added-value taxmen, or governments ‘adjusting’ their GNP fictions.

Neither am I going to attend to the various energy losses inevitable in the production process.

I have no intention of plumbing this sort of complexity, my purpose being to show the broad outlines of energy production and usage without unnecessary confusion.

Thus, my definition of end-user energy is related directly
to the energy inputs of the country.

The percentages in the remaining columns relate to the relative amounts of electricity generated by various means in a country. The percentages in the left part of the table have no bearing on the percentages in the right part of the table.

 

[solar reflection difficulties http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/07/Carbonemissions.shtml]

Sustainable Transport
Note: idealistic, but useful, reference document (lead source: Lavigne)

tide power again
sloppy remarks from the Groaniad



advertising
disclaimer



World coal resources (at end 2001)

country proved reserves of coal
in million tonnes/ [million tonnes
oil equiv.]
production
Anthracite and bituminous Lignite and brown (sub-bituminous) Total coal reserves %age of world proved coal reserves in million tonnes oil equivalent %age of country's coal reserves in 2001 years before reserves exausted
The World 519,062
[346,041]
465,391
[132,969]
984,453
[479,010]
100.0% 2,248.3 0.47% 213
USA 115,891
[77,260]
134,103
[38,315]
249,994
[115,575]
25.4% 590.7 0.51% 246
Russia 49,088
[32,725]
107,922
[30,835]
157,010
[63,560]
15.9% 120.8 0.19% 500 +
China 62,200
[4,167]
52,300
[14,943]
114,500
[19,110]
11.6% 548.5 2.87% 105
India 82,396
[84,264]
2,000
[571]
84,396
[84,834]
8.6% 161.1 0.19% 246
Australia 42,550
[28,366]
39,540
[11,297]
82,090
[39,663]
8.3% 168.1 0.42% 260
Germany 23,000
[1,533]
43,000
[12,286]
66,000
[13,819]
6.7% 54.2 0.39% 326
South Africa 49,520
[33,013]
0 49,520
[33,013]
5.0% 126.7 0.38% 220
Ukraine 16,274
[10,849]
17,879
[531]
34,153
[11,380]
3.5% 43.6 0.38% 407
Poland 20,300
[13,533]
1,860
[531]
22,160
[14,084]
2.3% 72.4 0.51% 136
UK 1,000
[667]
500
[143]
1,500
[810]
1.2% 19.6 2.42% 47
  1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Data source, columns 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7: BP Statistical Review

1 tonne oil = 1.5 tonnes ‘hard’ coal / 3.5 tonnes lignite

There are claims from the coal industry that it is possible to use coal such that there is lower resulting pollution.



advertising
disclaimer

World oil resources (at the end of 2004)

country known reserves extraction
in billion barrels
(000 million)
%age of world reserves in 000
barrels daily
%age world extraction (rank) %age of country's reserves in 2001 years before reserves exausted
The World 1050.0 100.0% 74,493 100% 2.59% 39 years
Saudi Arabia 261.8 24.9% 8,768 11.77% (1) 1.22% 82 years
Iraq 112.5 10.7% 2,414 3.24% (11) 0.78% 128 years
Kuwait 96.5 9.2% 2,142 2.88% (12) 0.81% 123 years
Iran 87.9 8.5% 3,688 4.95% (4) 

1.53%

65 years
United Arab Emirates 97.8 9.3% 2,422 3.25% (10)

0.90%

111 years
Russian Federation 48.6 4.6% 7,056 9.47% (3)  5.30% 19 years
Venuzuela 77.7 7.4% 3,418 4.59% (6)  1.61% 62 years
China 24.0 2.3% 3,308 4.44% (8)  5.03% 19.9 yrs   
Libya 29.5 2.8% 1,425 1.91% (15) 1.76% 56.8 yrs   
Mexico 26.9 2.6% 3,560 4.78% (5)  4.83% 20.7 yrs   
Nigeria 24.0 2.3% 2,148 2.88% (13) 3.27% 30.6 yrs   
USA 30.4 2.9% 7,717 10.36% (2) 9.27% 10.8 yrs   
Norway 9.4 0.9% 3,414 4.58% (7)  13.3% 7.5 years
Algeria 9.2 0.9% 1,563 2.01% (14) 6.2% 16.1 yrs   
UK 4.9 0.5% 2,503 3.49% (9)   18.6% 5.4 years
Data source: world oil reserves and oil-based fuel development


required land use for alternative replacement energy production in USA

1 quad = 1015 Btu = 2.931 x 1011 kilowatthours (293,100,000,000 kwh) = one year’s continuous output from 33.46 ‘big power stations’.

USA uses about 97 quads of power, the world uses about 410 quads of power as a whole [as at 2001].

Marker at abelard.org

Current and projected US gross annual energy supply from various renewable energy technologies, based on the thermal equivalent and required land area. [Table 3]
Energy technology Current (2000) Projected (2050)
kWh x 109 Quads Million
hectares
kWh x 109 Quads Million
hectares
Biomass 1047.6 3.600a 75b 1455.0 5 102b
Hydroelectric power 1134.9 3.900a 26c 1455.0 5 33
Geothermal energy 87.3 0.300a 0.400 349.2 1.2 1
Solar thermal < 11.6 < 0.040 < 0.010 291.0 10 11
Photovoltaics < 11.6 < 0.040 < 0.010 3201.0 11 3
Wind power 11.6 0.040a 0.500 2037.0 7 8
Biogas < 0.3 < 0.001 < 0.001 145.5 0.5 0.01
Passive solar power 87.5 0.300d 0 1746.0 6 1
Totals 2392.2 8.221 101.921 10,679.7 45.7 159.01
  1. USBC (2001).
  2. This is the equivalent land area required to produce 3 metric tons per hectare, plus the energy required for harvesting and transport.
  3. Total area based on an average of 75,000 hectares per reservoir area per 1 billion kilowatt-hours per year produced.
  4. Pimentel et al. (1994).

Source:
Renewable Energy: Current and Potential Issues
David Pimentel, Megan Herz , Michele Glickstein, Mathew Z Immerman, Richard Allen, Katrina Becker, Jeff Evans, Benita Hussain, Ryan Sarsfeld, Anat Grosfeld, And Thomas Seidel in BioScience, December 2002 / Vol. 52 No. 12 1111-1120

related material
David Pimentel on the limitations of biofuels

end notes

  1. A million hectares = 10,000 square kilometres
    100 hectares = 1 sq. km

    The area of the United States of America is 916,192,300 hectares [9,161,923 sq.km].
    Approximately 20% of this land is rated as agriculturally useful. As you will see from the table, meeting energy needs from biofuel land usage is no done deal, or as Pimentel puts it,
    “The authors suggest that cellulosic ethanol sources can provide 30% of U.S. current petroleum consumption. The report advocates using 1.3 billion tons of cellulosic biomass. They are suggesting using nearly 66% of all forests, all agricultural crops, and all grasses each year to produce this cellulosic ethanol. Literally the U.S. would be stripped of its vegetation. The result would be that soil erosion would intensify, water runoff would increase, and global warming would increase.”

    The State of Connecticut has an area of 1,435,400 ha. [14,357 sq.km].
    The area of Delaware is 644,470 ha. [6,447 sq.km].
    Texas has an area of 69,562,100 ha. [695,621sq.km].
    The area of California is 42,397,000 ha. [423,970 sq. km].

email abelard email abelard at abelard.org

© abelard, 2003, 7 february


all rights reserved

the address for this document is http://www.abelard.org/briefings/tables.htm

... words
prints as 1 A4 pages (on my printer and set-up)

latest abstracts briefings information   headlines resources interesting about abelard