Hong Kong, China vs Singapore: Primary energy use, per square kilometre

Hong Kong, China
0.2389 terawatt-hours per square kilometre
in 2023
Singapore
1.35 terawatt-hours per square kilometre
in 2023
Hong Kong, China rank
4th
Singapore rank
1st

Primary energy use, per square kilometre over time

  • Hong Kong, China
  • Singapore
00.511.5196519942023

How they compare

Singapore currently reports 1.35 terawatt-hours per square kilometre against 0.2389 terawatt-hours per square kilometre in Hong Kong, China, a difference of 1.11 terawatt-hours per square kilometre.

That makes Singapore's figure about 5.6 times Hong Kong, China's.

Across all 59 years both countries report, Singapore has been ahead every year.

Hong Kong, China ranks 4th and Singapore ranks 1st of 204 countries.

Singapore has averaged higher in every one of the 7 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Hong Kong, China Singapore Difference Ahead
1960s 0.0329 terawatt-hours per square kilometre 0.0986 terawatt-hours per square kilometre 0.0657 terawatt-hours per square kilometre Singapore
1970s 0.0597 terawatt-hours per square kilometre 0.1408 terawatt-hours per square kilometre 0.081 terawatt-hours per square kilometre Singapore
1980s 0.1047 terawatt-hours per square kilometre 0.2306 terawatt-hours per square kilometre 0.1259 terawatt-hours per square kilometre Singapore
1990s 0.169 terawatt-hours per square kilometre 0.5337 terawatt-hours per square kilometre 0.3647 terawatt-hours per square kilometre Singapore
2000s 0.2547 terawatt-hours per square kilometre 0.8158 terawatt-hours per square kilometre 0.5611 terawatt-hours per square kilometre Singapore
2010s 0.3179 terawatt-hours per square kilometre 1.29 terawatt-hours per square kilometre 0.9745 terawatt-hours per square kilometre Singapore
2020s 0.231 terawatt-hours per square kilometre 1.3 terawatt-hours per square kilometre 1.07 terawatt-hours per square kilometre Singapore

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher primary energy use, per square kilometre, Hong Kong, China or Singapore?
Singapore, at 1.35 terawatt-hours per square kilometre against 0.2389 terawatt-hours per square kilometre in Hong Kong, China as of 2023.
What is the difference in primary energy use, per square kilometre between Hong Kong, China and Singapore?
1.11 terawatt-hours per square kilometre, with Singapore ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Hong Kong, China and Singapore?
59 years are reported by both, from 1965 to 2023.
How do Hong Kong, China and Singapore rank globally for primary energy use, per square kilometre?
Hong Kong, China ranks 4th and Singapore ranks 1st of 204 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Primary energy use, 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 Singapore: Primary energy use, per square kilometre. Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 05 September 2026, from https://energy.statizoid.com/compare/primary-energy-use-per-square-kilometre-2/hong-kong-sar-china/singapore/

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/primary-energy-use-per-square-kilometre-2/hong-kong-sar-china/singapore/">Hong Kong, China vs Singapore: Primary energy use, per square kilometre</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Primary energy use, per square kilometre
Unit
terawatt-hours per square kilometre
Source
Statizoid (derived)
Licence
Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage
204 places, 9,376 data points, 1965–2023
Last refreshed

Primary energy use 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.