Hong Kong, China vs Qatar: Fossil fuel consumption, per square kilometre

Hong Kong, China
0.2367 terawatt-hours per square kilometre
in 2023
Qatar
0.0529 terawatt-hours per square kilometre
in 2023
Hong Kong, China rank
4th
Qatar rank
7th

Fossil fuel consumption, per square kilometre over time

  • Hong Kong, China
  • Qatar
00.10.20.3196519942023

How they compare

Hong Kong, China currently reports 0.2367 terawatt-hours per square kilometre against 0.0529 terawatt-hours per square kilometre in Qatar, a difference of 0.1838 terawatt-hours per square kilometre.

That makes Hong Kong, China's figure about 4.5 times Qatar's.

Across all 59 years both countries report, Hong Kong, China has been ahead every year.

Hong Kong, China ranks 4th and Qatar ranks 7th of 205 countries.

Hong Kong, China has averaged higher in every one of the 7 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Hong Kong, China Qatar Difference Ahead
1960s 0.0329 terawatt-hours per square kilometre 0.0004 terawatt-hours per square kilometre 0.0325 terawatt-hours per square kilometre Hong Kong, China
1970s 0.0597 terawatt-hours per square kilometre 0.0017 terawatt-hours per square kilometre 0.058 terawatt-hours per square kilometre Hong Kong, China
1980s 0.1047 terawatt-hours per square kilometre 0.0056 terawatt-hours per square kilometre 0.099 terawatt-hours per square kilometre Hong Kong, China
1990s 0.1716 terawatt-hours per square kilometre 0.0113 terawatt-hours per square kilometre 0.1603 terawatt-hours per square kilometre Hong Kong, China
2000s 0.2547 terawatt-hours per square kilometre 0.0182 terawatt-hours per square kilometre 0.2365 terawatt-hours per square kilometre Hong Kong, China
2010s 0.3174 terawatt-hours per square kilometre 0.044 terawatt-hours per square kilometre 0.2733 terawatt-hours per square kilometre Hong Kong, China
2020s 0.2292 terawatt-hours per square kilometre 0.0487 terawatt-hours per square kilometre 0.1806 terawatt-hours per square kilometre Hong Kong, China

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher fossil fuel consumption, per square kilometre, Hong Kong, China or Qatar?
Hong Kong, China, at 0.2367 terawatt-hours per square kilometre against 0.0529 terawatt-hours per square kilometre in Qatar as of 2023.
What is the difference in fossil fuel consumption, per square kilometre between Hong Kong, China and Qatar?
0.1838 terawatt-hours per square kilometre, with Hong Kong, China ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Hong Kong, China and Qatar?
59 years are reported by both, from 1965 to 2023.
How do Hong Kong, China and Qatar rank globally for fossil fuel consumption, per square kilometre?
Hong Kong, China ranks 4th and Qatar ranks 7th of 205 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Fossil fuel consumption, per square kilometre. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

Hong Kong, China vs Qatar: Fossil fuel consumption, per square kilometre. Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 06 September 2026, from https://energy.statizoid.com/compare/fossil-fuel-consumption-per-square-kilometre/hong-kong-sar-china/qatar/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page; please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://energy.statizoid.com/compare/fossil-fuel-consumption-per-square-kilometre/hong-kong-sar-china/qatar/">Hong Kong, China vs Qatar: Fossil fuel consumption, per square kilometre</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Fossil fuel consumption, per square kilometre
Unit
terawatt-hours per square kilometre
Source
Statizoid (derived)
Licence
Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage
205 places, 9,414 data points, 1965–2023
Last refreshed

Fossil fuel consumption divided by Land area (sq. km), matched on country and year. Neither publisher issues this ratio as a series; it is computed here from both.