It was created by the marketing department of RWE AG, one of Germany’s big four electricity providers. It shows the energy flows in Germany for 1995. The image file I have is 2588 x 1062 pixels, so when you click on the image below, you won’t be seeing the full image, but only a thumbnail… (also because I don’t want to get sued by their legal department!)

The clear structuring of the diagram is what might be called “very German”: energy sources are at the left, with non-renewables at the top and renewables at the bottom. The second section shows energy conversion, the third section the energy use sectors. These are further broken down, before the arrow join again to show useful energy and energy losses (a 50:50 relationship). Losses in the conversion phase are shown as arrows that branch out vertically to the bottom. Exports and bunkering, on the other hands, is shown as vertical flow leaving to the top. Color coding is very clear, and flows are labeled with figures on each arrow. The unit is petajoule (PJ)

Even the black background goes well with the bright colours. Here are two close-ups of two sections from this energy flow diagram. Enjoy the beauty…

(click image to enlarge)

The typical LLNL graph has been extended by the red section on the left that shows a world energy breakdown. Only the U.S. energy consumption is traced further.
The second extension is the pink section. Here, Johan has broken down the energy use sectors ‘Residential’, ‘Commercial’, ‘Industrial’ and ‘Transportation’ in one or two further steps.

All flows are in TWh, data is from 2005 to 2009. The author used several additional data sources and recompiled the data, so that “figures may differ from Lawrence Livermore Laboratory estimations”. See notes for further information.

Good Sankey diagram, and definitely a great job Johan did here. The only suggestion I have, is to add percentage figures to the regional energy breakdown (red section on the left). Unfortunately, the watermark spoils the overall impression, but this is owed to the fact that he used a free trial version.

Johan also mentioned that he is working on forecasts up to 2050, and an animated GIF “running it over time since 1950 up until 2008″. Hope to be able to show you these here on the blog someday.

I also checked out some other Austrian sites and found one for Austrian Energy Flows 2005 (Energieflussbild Österreich 2005) on the Austrian Energy Agency website. It is a little more colorful, and has more information too.

Flows are in TJ. The diagram is divided into four sections, namely “Aufkommen” (energence?), “Umwandlung” (transformation), “Sonst. Verwendung und Verluste” (other uses and losses), and “Endenergieeinsatz” (final energy use). The color code for the energy types is as follows: oil (pale orange), electric energy (red), coal (dark grey), gas (yellow), renewables (dark green), distance heating (light green), hydro (blue). On the right side useful energy is shown in purple, and losses are displayed as light grey arrows. (Thank you to my friend Leo for the translations…).

Yet another national energy flow Sankey diagram, and indeed a very beautiful one. Hope to see updates of it every year.

Unfortunately this copy of the diagram isn’t very large, and I have trouble reading and translating everything. Flows are in petajoule (PJ), source given is Statistics Austria.

On the left are imports, withdrawl from stocks, and domestic production. Losses branch off in black to the top. The diagram differs fundamentally from the ones I have presented for other coutries (such as for New Zealand, the United Kingdom, or the U.S.) in two ways:
First, it doesn’t show the energy use by sectors, but instead a breakdown by energetic end use (985 PJ), non-energetic end use (101 PJ), exports (150 PJ), stock increase (18 PJ), as well as energy use within the energy sector itself (81 PJ).
Second, the colors of the flows are used to differentiate between liquid fossil (dark blue), gaseous fossil (medium grey) and solid fossils (light bluegrey) rather than specific energy carriers. Furthermore biogenic energy flows are shown in medium blue, renewables in very light blue. Converted electric energy is in dark grey.

In their energy audit reports, they always include a Sankey diagram in the very first chapter. Here is an example:

Other consulting companies, such as Pöyry (not sure how to pronounce this) haven taken on their approach and are also producing Motiva style Sankey diagrams.

Both Sankey diagrams designed in PowerPoint. Not bad at all, but probably quite a time-consuming task.

The report is about heat demand and CHP (Building a roadmap for heat. 2050 scenarios and heat delivery in the UK) and was prepared by University of Surrey and Imperial College for the Combined Heat and Power Association (CHPA). On p. 18 it has the following Sankey diagram. I have shown a similar diagram for the UK in this post.

Data is from the Digest of UK Energy Statistics. All flows are in millions of tonnes of oil equivalent (MTOE). Primary energy demand in 2007 was 237 MTOE.

The second Sankey diagram presented (on page 23) is a scenario for 2050. It was calculated using the MARKAL model.

One must read all the assumptions made for the model to be able to interpret it, but you can see immediately that the “energy system in 2050 is signifcantly altered under the common assumptions presented in all-electricity scenarios. In particular, final energy consumption in 2050 will be reduced by 46% against 2007 figures under the assumptions used in the CCC 80% CO2 reduction scenario”.

I invite you to read chapters 3.3. and 3.4 of the report to better understand the 2050 Sankey diagram. Note that the overall primary energy demand is significantly lower, but power generation almost doubles compared to the current situation. Losses from oil refineries are omitted in this scenario due to lack of data.

A great Sankey diagram by the research group made up from researchers from ICEPT (Imperial Centre for Energy Policy and Technology) and Centre for Environmental Strategy at the University of Surrey.

The Sankey diagram shows the energy flows over a 30-month test period from July 1993 to December 1995. Out of the 4981 kWh of energy, 2124 kWh were produced by the diesel engine, while 2857 kWh came from the 18 sqm installed PV modules. A storage battery is installed, and the diesel generator can be used to recharge it if there is no sunshine. The overall efficiency of the system was 61% over the testing period, but could be higher after the energy measuring equipment (consuming 499 kWh itself) was removed after the testing period.

The Sankey diagram shows actually measured values in kWh. It has a top-to-bottom orientation. Diesel is on the left side, the photovoltaic system on the right. Losses branch out horizontally. The battery is the blue box labeled “DC-Ges.” in the middle.

This Sankey diagram is pretty much messed up, and definitely a candidate for the “Worst Sankey Diagram Contest” that has already been called for. It took me a few seconds to understand that the flows dangling vertically below the blue arrow are actually a breakdown of the 177 mtep consommation finale. Vraiment … j’ai vu mieux que ça!

This is more or less how I would do it. Less colors, a breakdown of the blue flow into the five consumption sectors.

Below are three image sections of a Sankey diagram showing Swedish energy flows in 2007. These were published on p. 54/55 in the report ‘Energy in Sweden 2008′ by Swedish Energy Agency (Energimyndigheten). Numbers are in TWh, source for the diagram was Statistics Sweden data.

The first diagram (which is the left part of the diagram) shows the total 624 TWh energy supplied and the energy sources. The second one is the breakdown of energy produced by sectors, and also shows the losses in energy conversion. The third on is a different breakdown of the 404 TWh by energy carrier.

Nothing more to add. They are simple, clean, beautiful.

The energy flow Sankey diagram below (created by Marshall University for WV Energy Division) was presented at last year’s energy summit, and is available along with the other presentations here.

Figures are for 2006 in trillion BTU. Energy carriers used in WV are displayed as flows entering from the left. Domestic energy sources are in orange, while imported supplies are in sand color. Overall energy in 2006 was 4,384 trillion BTU. The state exported 81% of the energy (blue) and consumed 19% within (836 trillion BTU). A breakdown of doemstic consumption by sectors is shown in pink.

This Sankey diagram looks nice, but violates the basic rule for Sankey diagrams: flows have to be to scale among each other. The magnitude of the stacked orange arrows (representing 4100 trillion BTU West Virginia production) should be 14.5 times larger than that of the sand color flow (representing 283.86 trillion BTU), however it is only about 9 times larger, overemphasizing external supply (or underrepresenting domestic energy supply).

Or, compare the two arrows fro “crude oil” (10.14) and “natural gas” (230.12). The latter should have 23 times the width of the other… The blue arrow for “international raw coal” (392) looks approximately as wide as that of the blue “natural gas” (106). The scale might still be somehow OK for the base of the arrow, but as the arrow becomes thinner towards the head, the 4:1 ratio is definitely not supported any more.

The two diagrams show energy consumption and use in Toronto (above) and Helsinki (below). Even though the absolute figures in GWh are given, one shouldn’t directly compare them. A per capita basis would be fairer (Toronto had a population of 2.5 mio in 2006, more than 5 mio. in the metro area, while Helsinki had 580.000 inhabitants in 2008 in the city, 1.3 mio in the greater Helsinki area — Toronto is today 4.5 times larger than Helsinki). Both are “cold-climate municipalities”.

The publication calculates a ‘community energy efficiency’ of 50% for Toronto and 68% for Helsinki. “A comparison of the two municipalities reveals that Helsinki significantly improved its efficiency by using the waste heat that is produced by local coal power plants to warm 90% of the buildings and homes in Helsinki. Further analysis has demonstrated that Helsinki’s energy system was able to achieve its overall level of 68% efficiency because the city’s compact land-use pattern made investments in energy-saving infrastructure, such as district heating and public transit, economically viable.”

Does anybody know other metropolitan energy flow studies? I am aware of research activities in the field of urban material flow accounts or urban metabolism (e.g. Lisbon) but have to check whether they show Sankey diagrams in their publications.

The Sankey diagrams were presented in May 2008 at the Seventh Annual Conference on CCS in Pittsburgh, PA on a poster titled ‘Strategies for Improving Efficiencies in Oxy-Combustion Retrofits’. See the PDF here.

The first diagram shows how heat losses occur at the boiler and at the stack. Only a part of the energy flow at the power generator can be used, while a large chunk is thermodynamic loss. In the second diagram, heat from the boiler and compression is recovered and fed back.

A colorful one for the weekend…

Unfortunately the diagram is too small to grasp the details. The Sankey arrows represent energy content. Losses are shown as black arrows. This seems to have been the result of a study project dealing with a fuel cell driven boat (ZEMSHIPS).

Sustainable Energy Ireland has published the report “Energy Ireland – Key Statistics 2008″.

This is the updated overall energy flow Sankey diagram from the report.

And here is another interesting one from the same report. It features the fuels used for transportation in Ireland with a breakdown by vehicle type.

All flows are in ktoe (1000 tonnes of oil equivalent, 1 ktoe = 41868 GJ). The flows seem to be mostly to scale, although there must be a problem with the flow ‘Refining Losses 6 ktoe’ which seems wider than the ‘Rail 47 ktoe’ flow, for example. Private cars consume most energy of all vehicle types (2184 out of 5685 ktoe or 38.4 %) , followed by trucks (road freight) and airplanes.

I won’t be commenting on the 3D design of the Sankey diagrams, which is definitely … eye-catching. Colm asked which software has been used to create these, but another reader had already pointed out in a comment that it is based on SankeyHelper, but has undergone retouching in Illustrator.