Jump to content

Talk:Copper in renewable energy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The quantitative metrics, specifically the amount of copper needed per MW of generation capacity for wind and solar, basically rely on two sources: citations 9 and 10 (both from the "Leonardo Energy" site). I have managed to download the whitepaper on "Wind Generator Technology," (might be nice to insert this direct link in the citation) but cannot find the other reference. Furthermore "Wind Generator Technology" does not specifically discuss copper use.

In fact, many of the citations come from Leonardo Energy. But that site does not have a good search functionality. Direct links to the sources would really help.

There is one discussion on the amount of copper needed in wind here, but it is vague enough to not really be able to do the calculation. It cites some report that Oak Ridge National Laboratory did, but I cannot find any mention of that report anywhere else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.254.147.8 (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are important numbers, and even more important to get right. If anyone knows of proper citations for them, please strengthen the article by adding them.

  • Data regarding amounts of copper for both onshore and offshore wind farms were published in the periodical, Energy Policy, V41 (2012): 561-57. These will be analyzed and included shortly to support the data cited in the article. Other more recent citations will be researched as well to update the data. Enviromet (talk) 02:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This work has been completed. The article has been enhanced by data recently published in secondary sources such as Energy & Infrastructure, Solar Industry Magazine, Renewable Energy World, and from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA. Enviromet (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Copper in renewable energy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Copper in renewable energy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

[edit]

I suspect this article may be an indiscriminate collection of renewable energy technologies that happen to use copper. In particular, the vast majority of uses of copper are for wires, which are already widely used in countless other technologies:

"[In photovoltaic systems, c]opper is used in: 1) small wires that interconnect photovoltaic modules; 2) earthing grids in electrode earth pegs, horizontal plates, naked cables, and wires; 3) DC cables that connect photovoltaic modules to inverters; 4) low-voltage AC cables that connect inverters to metering systems and protection cabinets; 5) high-voltage AC cables; 6) communication cables; 7) inverters/power electronics; 8) ribbons; and 9) transformer windings."

This may be why @Smokefoot recently tagged the article for notability. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know the appropriate tag, but indiscriminate collection of information seems suitable. There might be parts work moving to individual articles, but it is (IMHO) "hippie science" aimed at saving the planet. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Smokefoot: What is "hippie science"? Could you explain how this is "hippie science"? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hippie science is my own term. It refers to technical writing where advocacy or aspirations overwhelm sober reporting and facts. The article "Copper in renewable energy" is written as a guide for solving great environmental challenges. I happen to be a pretty strongly pro-environment, BTW. --Smokefoot (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Metallurgists, materials scientists and electrical engineers don't just “happen” to specify any material for a technology. A lot of thought goes into each materials specification. In the case of copper and its hundreds of alloys with widely different compositions and properties, specifications are made for different reasons, such as their electrical conductivity, thermal conductivity, corrosion resistance (for example, certain copper alloys, such as the copper-nickel group, are corrosion resistant in saline environments…where offshore windmills are situated), alloyability, formability, joining, recyclability. And then, based on the appropriate combination of these technical considerations and their financial considerations, decisions are made based costs and benefits. So no, this cannot be an "indiscriminate collection of technologies that happen to use copper.” Decisions are made with intention after careful analyses. Enviromet (talk) 02:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Point of View (NPV) is an absolutely essential criteria in Wikipedia articles. This article certainly has a neutral point of view. It acknowledges the benefits of other materials, such as for example, that silver is a better electrical conductor than copper, that silver is the preferred material in crystalline silicon wafer-based solar cells, that copper-indium-gallium selenide thin film solar cells actually have a "lower" conversion efficiency than conventional PV technology (but research continues on CIGS to reduce the cost of the technology), and it mentions that PV systems use either aluminum or copper, and that there are “advantages to each”…so, the article is written “with” a neutral point of view. It aims to provide an encyclopedic reference about the how, how much, and where copper is used in these emerging renewable energy systems. So I request that this tag be removed. Enviromet (talk) 03:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in the top section of this talk page, I plan to take a fresh look at peer-reviewed and secondary published literature and provide updates since the article was started in 2012. I will try to post updates over the next few weeks. Enviromet (talk) 03:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • This work has been completed. Over 40 edits have been made including the addition of recent information and data from more secondary sources (e.g., Scientific American, Renewable Energy World, Solar Industry Magazine, Wind Systems Magazine, Energy & Infrastructure, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA). Pertinent information was also added from publications of the United States Geological Survey (Global Mineral Resource Assessment, 2014), the International Energy Agency, and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Please review changes and permit the removal of template messages which no longer apply. Enviromet (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is long and heavily citationed, but what is the particular significance of this topic? Like, why "copper in renewable energy," and not, "steel in renewable energy," or, "copper in healthcare"? It seems like it'd be worth a couple of sentences in Copper#Applications, at most. Is this article sponsored by Big Copper, or perhaps by Big Alternatives to Copper? Vegemeister (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because "Renewable energy systems consume approximately five times more copper than conventional power generation systems, making the metal essential for any successful transition to fossil fuel alternatives."? [1] This one says up to 12 times.. [2] . Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Copper_in_renewable_energy&oldid=1201139456"