Jump to content

Talk:Energy transition

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

Merger proposal 2022

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
merged Hedgehoque (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Currently we have a very detailed Renewable energy transition article in contrast to the short Energy transition article focussing on definition and historic transitions in general. But in almost all appearances, the term is used in the renewable energy context. Users search for "energy transition", not for "renewable energy transition" as you can see in Google trends. The current state of both articles with multiple templates above the introduction does not leave a good impression. A merge could solve the issues. Historic energy transitions remain an interesting aspect. But they can be described in a sub-section. It has been two years since the last merge proposal by User:Chidgk1 ending with no consensus, but with only one opposing vote. It is time for a new approach.Hedgehoque (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right that the concept is important - but as the energy transition article is quite small I don't see any problem in keeping all the info from that article in a merged article. Also since I wrote my comment above UK (and maybe other countries) has discussed new nuclear - so a sentence on that should be added into a merged article otherwise readers might be confused if it was mentioned in energy transition. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The energy transition article is not that small at 26 kb, with substantial scope for expansion. Also length alone does not justify a merge. Both topics are notable and worthy of their own article. --Ita140188 (talk) 13:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

After four weeks I see a 3:1 support to merge, including my own support. Participation could have been better. I agree that historic energy transitions can be seen as an individual topic. However, the paragraph we have is only 3.5K in text, 7K including references. Expanding it, or launching an additional article about 'Historic energy transitions' would have my support. Merging was a first step before we can move on. The lead has become a mixture of both articles and partly rewritten, with a focus on the transition towards RE. Everything else has remained largely untouched. Condensing, structuring and updating still to be done.

Some of the changes:

  • File:Bp world energy consumption 2016.gif - removed as outdated. The energy consumption graphics has about the same content.
  • removed the outdated 2005-2050 scenario and lead paragraph about Germany
  • removed the triple pic (main souces) from energy transition. Similar content is provided by the other images (now as multiple image unter Technologies)
  • passage about mineral demand moved from lead into a sub-section of impacts
  • repaired maintenance issues with cite templates
  • IPCC sources section prepared

Hedgehoque (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this should have moved forward with only 3 people (other than the nominator) participating in this discussion. Where is the broad consensus? --Ita140188 (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am also a bit disappointed about the lack of interest (or indifference?) about this crucial topic within the WP community. One month should be a sufficient time. The merger proposal was prominently indicated on top of both articles, on the WP merger proposal page and the climate change project page. Imho 'energy transition' should be among the top 10 WP articles because an it is the foremost requirement in a response to climate change - and you can see a broad consensus in science about that. But the importance is on the renewable energy part. Consequently, the term 'energy transition' is mainly framed in this context. The historic view is an enrichment. But if you focus on the past and not the presence in the ET article, it would be the wrong emphasis. The article is already improving. Thank you, @Chidgk1, for the first edits. Hedgehoque (talk) 08:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hedgehoque do you have time to work on this article further? I think there is still more work required post merge, e.g. to address some of the concerns that Clayoquot has raised below. EMsmile (talk) 09:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, there is no energy transition so far

[edit]

I am not very at ease to write it, but it looks like that the concept of "energy transition" does not fit with the history of energy uses which took place in the last two centuries.

See :

  1. The History and Politics of Energy Transitions: Comparing Contested Views and Finding Common Ground / Benjamin K. Sovacool

https://academic.oup.com/book/16547/chapter/172497834

  1. The “Energy Transition”, from Atomic Utopia to Climate Denial: United States, 1945-1980 Jean-Baptiste Fressoz DOI : 10.3917/rhmc.692.0115.
Abstract : "The oil companies’ strategies for producing ignorance have already been the subject of important historical works. This article contributes to this question but with a different perspective. It focuses less on climate scepticism than on a more subtle, more acceptable and therefore much more general form of climate denial: the futurology of the “energy transition”, in which the history of energy has played a fundamental role. First, I describe the intellectual space, straddling atomic utopia and neo-Malthusianism, in which the idea of energy transition emerged in the 1950s. Then I focus on the work of Cesare Marchetti, an atomic scientist who, in 1974, applied the logistic model (or S-curve) to the analysis of the evolution of the global energy mix. Finally, I show the considerable influence of this logistical modeling within the Carter administration, among Exxon executives and climate scientists of the 1980s. Yet it is precisely this assumption that is problematic: considering energies, like technologies, as distinct and competing entities, when in fact they entertain relationships which are both competitive and symbiotic." DOI : 10.3917/rhmc.692.0115.

See also :

  1. Richard H. S CHALLENBERG , « Evolution, adaptation and survival : the very slow

death of the American charcoal iron industry », Annals of Science, vol. 32, n°4, p. 341-358 ;

  1. Louis C.HUNTER, History of Industrial Power in the United States, 1750-1930. Waterpower in the Century of Steam,Charlottesville, University Press of Virginia, 1979

Reneza (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Reneza, I don't understand what changes to the article you are proposing exactly? EMsmile (talk) 09:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for improvements

[edit]

Hi to those watching this page: I have some ideas for improvements. Firstly, due to that merger from a year ago, the article is now a bit bloated up; I think it needs to be condensed. Secondly, there is good, updated content about this topic at the article sustainable energy which is an FA article, in this section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_energy#Energy_system_transformation. So how can we best benefit from that content for this article here? It feels like the same content should be in both articles, which would not be very elegant though and lead to doubled-up efforts for maintenance. Has anyone thought this through yet? Pinging some people who could have opinions on this?: @Clayoquot and @Chidgk1 and @Efbrazil. EMsmile (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not notice the earlier merge discussion. I took a quick look through the article and I agree it looks bloated, but more importantly
  • It comes across as promotional and crystal-ball-y
  • It is not clear about the main characteristic of energy transitions, which is that they are difficult. That is the whole point of Smil's book.
  • It is not clear about the main difference between past energy transitions and the energy transition that is needed to prevent catastrophic climate change: Past energy transitions happened very slowly, but some experts believe we can get a new energy transition to happen faster by heavily applying policy.
  • There is also a significant point of view that transitioning off fossil fuels can't be speeded up by very much, and Smil is the main scholarly proponent of this point of view.
If you only have time to condense it without addressing these issues (which would require getting into the sources, not just working from existing words in the article), then I don't think condensing alone would leave the reader in a significantly better place.
Regarding the use of content from Sustainable energy, I think it should be re-used. I'm sure your concern about having the same content in multiple articles comes from a good place, but I think your concern is out of step with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Policies and guidelines call for articles to be high quality and comprehensive; they do not discourage having the same content in two articles. We have a ton of articles that have similar content, e.g. Tessa Virtue and Scott Moir. I would argue that maintaining articles is actually far easier when articles say the same things than when they say different things. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You probably know that I think excerpts are great whereas many others disagree Chidgk1 (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those points, Clayoquot - they should for sure be addressed.
Agree with you Chidgk1, I also think excerpts are great. It seems that people are unwilling to use them for FA or GA articles but for articles of lower quality level the excerpts seem to get accepted. The reason why I don't think we should have the same content about the current energy transition in several articles (and rather work with excerpts) is because for any content that is likely to change over time (like energy and climate change topics), the required updates then have to be made at two articles instead of just at one. Given that we have so few active editors in the climate change field we would just unnecessarily burden ourselves with more work. EMsmile (talk) 09:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought more about which section of sustainable energy to transcribe with an excerpt but in the end found none that really fitted. So I have for now done what Clayoquot had suggested and just copied some sentences across. Need to think further about what to include and what not. See below my comparison with the German Wikipedia article on the same topic. EMsmile (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moving country examples

[edit]

The South Korea section is too long - how about we move it to Energy in South Korea and excerpt a smaller amount from there back to here? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should be moved to Energy in South Korea and/or some of it to Climate change in South Korea? But I don't think we need to have an excerpt from it, unless South Korea is for some reason a shining example or very important case? - Same also applies to the other country examples, I think we should move most or all of them. EMsmile (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've just moved the little bit of content in the United States example to Energy policy of the United States. EMsmile (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved a few more of the country examples to sub-articles when I thought the content was not to relevant for a high level article. What about the remaining country examples, should they also be moved, or is it good to keep some key ones here? EMsmile (talk) 07:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed culling & refocus

[edit]

I think the earlier merger of Renewable energy transition into this article has introduced too much content that is specific to renewable energy. Therefore, I am proposing to move the entire section called "Social aspects" to renewable energy. I think it would be useful to have it there, in particular the aspect of mining of specific minerals for solar panels and batteries. I think this article on "energy transition" should be scaled back to become a high level overview article rather. Similarly I am not sure if the long, detailed section on country examples makes sense here. EMsmile (talk) 10:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see more on mining and social impacts at Renewable energy, so I generally support this. I'm not sure this means the material here should be removed altogether (there should still be some mention and a link to Just transition), but your effort to scale back the article makes sense, and I agree the section for individual countries seems long. Larataguera (talk) 10:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, we can do it like that (i.e. leave a short summary of the issues here). It's interesting to look back at the article version of April 2022 before the content from renewable energy transition was merged in. The article was small and lean back then, a bit like what I would have expected: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Energy_transition&oldid=1085233299 But there is no reason to "turn back the clock" and split if off again. Still, I think any of that overly detailed content about renewable energy needs to be moved out. I've just moved out two images and text about Germany to the sub-article variable renewable energy. EMsmile (talk) 13:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the section on mining and minerals to renewable energy now. I've left the content for "just transition" unchanged for now. EMsmile (talk) 08:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I tried to clean that remaining section up a bit. It could still use a little work. Larataguera (talk) 11:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison with article in German Wikipedia

[edit]

For comparison purposes, I encourage you to take a look at the corresponding entry in the German Wikipedia (use Google Translate or similar to translate the page). (the topic is rather big in German media, called "Energiewende". It is a huge article, very detailed article (contains content that we have at climate change mitigation and some other articles, I guess). Nevertheless it's useful to see how it's framed there: The focus is on the current energy transition to renewables but they provide context and comparison with the historical examples. I've copied here the translated table of contents just to provide food for thought (I am not proposing to build up the English article in the same way! It's only to provide inputs on which aspects could be covered; probably many of them are in related sub-articles rather, so we could sort that out with some clever links):

EMsmile (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed hatnote

[edit]

I am proposing this hatnote to make it easier for people what this article does and doesn't cover: "This article is about transitions in energy systems in general although with a focus on the current transition to renewable energy. For details on renewable energy, see renewable energy.". Is that good? EMsmile (talk) 08:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be more confusing than helpful. It would be helpful only if there was a plausible scenario in which someone was looking for content on renewable energy and somehow typed "energy transition"" rather than "renewable energy" into the search bar. I don't think it's NPOV to claim that "the current energy transition" is a transition to renewable energy. There is an envisioned transition to clean/low-carbon energy which is likely to involve a high percentage of renewables but is extremely unlikely to be 100% renewables. Also the sources that I'm familiar with tend to refer to this transition more in the future than in the present, e.g. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2022/12/bumps-in-the-energy-transition-yergin . Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good points, thanks. I think such a hatnote is useful for two purposes: to point people in the right direction if they are looking for something else. Secondly, to point future editors in the right direction in case they plan to add content that doesn't actually fit (a common problem for student editors). I've changed it to this for now: "This article is about transitions in energy systems with a focus on the present and future transition to low-carbon energy systems. For details on renewable energy, see renewable energy." EMsmile (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only the first of those two purposes is what we generally use hatnotes for. When the article becomes clearer about what energy transitions are, future editors will be guided by the clarity. "Energy system" is jargon. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 10:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think in practical terms, the hatnote is also useful for the second purpose that I mentioned, especially when an article's scope is unclear or a bit contested (compare also with the hatnote discussion at ocean and sea). But yes, I know that WP:HAT does not mention that purpose. - Why do you think that energy system is more jargon than energy transition? At the end of the day, any technical term could be called "jargon". What would you replace "energy system" with then? EMsmile (talk) 12:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say energy system is more jargon than energy transition. What I'm saying is that if we use the term "energy system", we need to explain what the term means the first time we use the term. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 14:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks, now I understand what you mean. (Femke has in the meantime removed the hatnote.) EMsmile (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changing over to long ref style

[edit]

I've started the process of converting this article to long ref style consistently. Am about half way through, will do the rest in the next few days. I think it works better for this kind of shorter article. EMsmile (talk) 08:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some more; two more remaining. Strange, when I try to change those two refs to long ref style, the page freezes up on me. Maybe try another time. EMsmile (talk) 08:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I got a similar problem on another article this morning. If it recurs I will probably report a bug or you can
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/How_to_report_a_bug Chidgk1 (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for additional edits?

[edit]

As part of the “Improving communication of climate change knowledge through Wikipedia” project , I have been asked to spend a few hours editing this article. My initial thoughts are to focus on the following edits:

  • Strengthen the historical aspects of energy transitions, and make this article a little less focused on the current energy transition.
  • Create a new section title something like “Current energy transition” and incorporate current sections 4-10 as subsections within that new section.
  • Shorten section 10 - “Examples by country”’ and make it more generic and focused on the concepts listed within these country specific transitions. The current list of countries in section 10 seems rather arbitrary.
  • Include a subsection on Just Transition issues.

Wondering if anyone has thoughts on particular areas within this article that they would like to see revised, or thoughts on these proposed changes.

More information on my involvement the above project is available on my user page. Dtetta (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great! Thanks @Dtetta {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 00:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would be great if you could post a proposed new article structure with the edits you have in mind so we can get a better idea of what changes you intend to do. It would be easier to imagine the changes you are proposing. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 00:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure-happy to do that:) Dtetta (talk) 01:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you get to it I would appreciate a user mention so that I don't miss it. I look forward to seeing the improvements you have in mind. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 10:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, we've had earlier discussions on work required on this article in March this year (please scroll up). I'd be interested to hear your reactions to those earlier suggestions. I copy below comments that User:Clayoquot had made which I think are very pertinent:

++++++

I did not notice the earlier merge discussion. I took a quick look through the article and I agree it looks bloated, but more importantly
  • It comes across as promotional and crystal-ball-y
  • It is not clear about the main characteristic of energy transitions, which is that they are difficult. That is the whole point of Smil's book.
  • It is not clear about the main difference between past energy transitions and the energy transition that is needed to prevent catastrophic climate change: Past energy transitions happened very slowly, but some experts believe we can get a new energy transition to happen faster by heavily applying policy.
  • There is also a significant point of view that transitioning off fossil fuels can't be speeded up by very much, and Smil is the main scholarly proponent of this point of view.
If you only have time to condense it without addressing these issues (which would require getting into the sources, not just working from existing words in the article), then I don't think condensing alone would leave the reader in a significantly better place.

++++++EMsmile (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also please note my suggestion above to get inspiration from the structure of the German Wikipedia article on this topic.
Regarding your suggestion of "*Strengthen the historical aspects of energy transitions, and make this article a little less focused on the current energy transition." I would not be in favour of this. I think those earlier energy transitions are not really comparable with our current issue at hand. If anything they could be made into a separate article like energy transitions prior to 20th century. The current energy transition article should focus on our current problem at hand (i.e. to decarbonise) with a short mention of other energy transitions in the past (just like the article in the German Wikipedia does it). Alternatively, there could be an article on energy transitions overview and then current energy transition. But as most readers are likely to look up information on the current situation, I think the existing article on energy transition should mainly be focused on what is happening now, i.e. in the context of climate change, i.e. moving away from fossil fuels. EMsmile (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like the German structure. I think "past transitions" should just be a small section to provide context. But were past energy transitions deliberate processes? I think this article mainly relates to the "planned" energy transition we are undergoing now due to climate change. Expanding it to other transitions would be pushing readers off topic. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 12:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks folks, and apologies for this longish response. Yes, I had read the earlier discussions. In fact the idea of expanding the history section was inspired by Clayoquot’s 24 March post (and reference to Smil’s work) and Reneza’s 29 September 22 reference to the article by Sovacol, which got me looking at other articles about historical perspectives on energy transitions .
I also realized several climate change editors have been doing a lot of good work on this page, whereas I have not been involved at all to date. So my main purpose with this discussion thread is just to see if there are any further specific revisions anyone would like to see done. The suggestions I provided were an attempt to get that ball rolling, as well as provide a quick take on ways of improving the article based on a brief review of it. I’m also trying to be aware of not overburdening editors with having to react to detailed proposals that I might create.
Although the German Wikipedia article has some interesting points about the current energy transition, I don’t think it’s past treatment of the general topic is all that helpful. I looked at the outline and the [Google translation of the wikipedia.de>Energy transition article, and I think there are a few ideas that could be borrowed from that, but in general I don’t see it as a very useful model. For example:
  • It’s limited in its perspective. The history seems to be written from an energy scarcity viewpoint, whereas the US energy history articles I read I’ve come from a perspective of abundance.
  • I didn’t find the fossil age subsection to be very instructive. It reads like a somewhat jumbled collection of historical facts.
  • In Section 2>Goals, I don’t understand why some of the subsections in that part of the article are considered goals at all. These are certainly issues that shape the energy transition but I don’t think they are goals per se. So I’m not sure how they could be incorporated into this article in an effective way.
  • On a more positive note, subsection 1.2.1 in “The beginning of the energy transition” has some useful information in it, and
  • Section 4>“Concepts” has some elements that would be useful in this article as a way of augmenting the ideas presented in current Section 6 – Technologies. But it also seems like the Energy system transformation section in the Sustainable energy article, which is already listed as a “further information” note just above Section 6>Technologies, is probably just as useful. I realize the question of how much of that section should be duplicated in the energy transition article has been discussed previously, but my vote would probably be to include more of that section, rather than the Section 4 information from the wikipedia.de>Energy Transition article.
As Gtoffolletto suggested, I think that way I can be most helpful is to post some suggested ideas here in outline form, along with some suggested references. For example, I think there are several basic concepts in energy transitions, along the lines of Smil’s work, that I think could be included near the top of the article as a way of providing an historical framing for the events that are happening now in the current energy transition. If there are specific things other editors would like me to do after looking at that, I would be happy to work on those suggestions. Dtetta (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Need to broaden coverage in Technologies section, other minor suggestions

[edit]

Took another look at the article, and noticed a few areas that could use improvement. Thought I would mention those as I continue to work on suggestions and references for the Background/history section.

  • The transition discussion seems overly focused on the electricity sector, important as it is. The “Overview of components” and “Technologies” sections are mostly limited to the transitions in that sector. Energy/GHG issues in other sectors (industry, buildings, transport, and ag) don’t appear to be discussed much, if at all. EPA’s numbers on GHG emissions by sector shows that electricity/power production is responsible for only 25% of total GHG emissions, at least in the US (couldn’t find a good figure for a global ratio, but assume its roughly similar). So most of the energy transition discussion in these sections is focused on that limited piece of the pie. As a result, the “Share of Power Supply” chart in the RE subsection (Citation 58) gives a much different impression than is provided in another IEA chart, Figure 1.9, p.43, from Energy Outlook 2022, which shows fossil fuels still constituting 60% of the Total Energy Supply in 2050. Our World in Data’s Electricity Mix page also illustrates this issue. These sections need to talk about energy transitions in all of these sectors. The 100% Renewable energy subsection mentions this idea briefly but doesn’t describe what changes are expected/needed in these other sectors (and ignores the issue of energy use in the ag sector).
  • On a similar coverage note, energy efficiency is mentioned in the “Overview of Components” section, but not discussed in any detail. From the reading I’ve done, this does seem like an important component, so it should probably be given proportional treatment.
  • The text in the second paragraph in the “Drivers for current energy transition” section needs citation support. Citation 41 is just a listing of statistics, as far as I can tell, there is no text in that citation that would support the text in this paragraph.
  • The “Overview of components” and “Technologies” sections seem like they should just be one section, with the text in the Overview section acting as the intro for the Technologies section. The two sections have a disjointed feel as they are now. Dtetta (talk) 06:22, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All good points. But no need to point out all those issues here on the talk page (it's getting way too long and I don't think other editors will read all of it). Just go WP:BOLD with clear edit summaries and if someone has any issues with an edit they will discuss or revert it. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 08:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I can do that for the last two bullet points. But the first one is rather foundational to the article, and addressing it will require a fair amount of work. It also gets into a more general theme (related to past energy transitions as precedents) of how long the current transition will likely take. The second one, re: efficiency, will also require a bit of work. So, just like with the background/past transitions outline I plan to post, it would be nice to see if there is some general support for these suggestions (or if someone sees problems with them) before I, or another editor, puts in that editing time. Appreciate the input you’ve provided on them.
BTW, I realize that the EPA figure covers a broader set of emissions than just those related to energy production, but I think it’s still illustrative. Dtetta (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quick note that I'd really like to join this discussion in depth. I'll try to carve out some time in the next week if that's OK. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good Clayoquot:) One other note re: broader coverage for the technologies and approaches section. The IEA Energy Outlook 2022 report has a great overview of the issues involved in this energy transition for the period up to 2050. Covers a variety of aspects not in this current article. The first 80 pages or so are the overview and key findings. Well worth the read. Dtetta (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first bullet is important because, as you point out, electricity generation is only 25% of emissions. Regarding the second bullet, efficiency in a narrow sense, such as insulating homes and using more aerodynamic cars, is probably not worth saying much on. Efficiency in the broader sense of demand reduction, which would include things like improving rail service to reduce plane and truck usage, is more interesting and should be included in the discussion of transforming particular sectors.
Sector-by-sector transformation is covered in Sustainable energy, along with several of other issues that are critical to the current/future energy transition but are covered here weakly or not at all: long-distance transmission lines and firm electricity generation to manage VRE, the uses and limitations of hydrogen, and the uses and limitations of bioenergy. Sustainable energy also touches on some other themes that should be covered here: the coal-to-natural-gas transition that is still ongoing, and the traditional-biomass-to-modern-energy transition for several billion people in the developing world that is supposed to be done by 2030.
Overall I still feel a literature review should be done to get a clear sense of what this article should even be about. What value could it provide that Sustainable energy cannot? I think it could provide value; we still need to figure out what that is. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 14:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:Clayoquot: that clearer sense of what this article is about is still missing. When I compare it with the German Wikipedia (sorry to keep bringing this up but the German one really is a very strong Wikipedia for climate change topics), I see there: the German energy transition article is very focused on the current situation, i.e. how to get to a situation where the Paris Agreement goals could be reached. Secondly, the German Wikipedia does not have an article on sustainable energy. Instead, that article is linked to the renewable energy article. So I question if three articles are actually needed (energy transition, sustainable energy and renewable energy). If they are all needed then which is the parent article and which the sub-article. In any case, I would envision quite a slim article for energy transition, just to provide some overview and context. EMsmile (talk) 12:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think all three of these articles could use a re-evaluation. From the standpoint of Clayoquot’s idea that the Sustainable Energy article could contain all of the info in the Energy Transition article, I think that is a viable approach for the Sustainable Energy article, and would suggest the Energy transition article include a focus on the types of issues raised in the Energy System Transformation section of the Sustainable energy article. However, that list is far from complete. For example, the IEA Energy Outlook 2022 report (which gets updated yearly and would provide an ongoing backbone to future revisions of this section, as well as the Energy Transition article) lists several topics that are not in the Energy transformation section, but could be summarized there and described more fully in a broader Energy Transition article. These include (I listed pages from the summary portion, there is more detail in the body):
  • The ongoing role of fossil fuels in this energy transition. Not just describe them but provide a clear picture, as Energy Outlook 22 does, re: how their percentage of the overall mix changes between now and 2050. The graph for 2030 is on IEA p46
  • Describe peak fossil fuel and its implications - IEA page 43.
  • Policies that are fast tracking a clean energy economy - IEA page 20
  • The role of energy efficiency - IEA page 22 - I think this is a critical discussion item for the transition, and the IEA report mentions how progress on this makes other transition tasks easier - I can also see Clayoquot’s point about having more of a focus on energy demand as a whole.
  • The role of clean fuels - IEA page 22
  • The role of investment - IEA page 23-basics are covered in the Sustainable energy article, but not more specific issues, such as:
    • Need for equity in energy access - IEA page 39
  • Key considerations for the electricity sector, such as reliability and affordability of electricity, and flexibility of the power systems: including generation plants, grids demand-side response, and energy storage - IEA p45
  • Global energy supply and demand by sector at various time points between now and 2050.
  • Mineral supply issues - IEA P 47
  • Geo political issues and disjointed energy markets - IEA P 58
  • Key steps for the transition. This includes: synchronise scaling up a range of clean energy technologies with scaling back of fossil fuels; tackle the demand side and prioritise energy efficiency; reverse the slide into energy poverty and give poor communities a lift into the new energy economy; collaborate to bring down the cost of capital in emerging market and developing economies; manage the retirement and reuse of existing infrastructure carefully, bearing in mind that some of it will be essential for a secure transition; and invest in flexibility. IEA pp.59 to 61
Not saying that Outlook 2022 should be the sole reference for these ideas or numbers, but that this is a good framework for the topics that should be discussed in the article. In other words, a Reader’s Digest version of the first 80 pages of that report, using other sources as appropriate. And, of course I still think that a better description of past transitions and there relevance to the current one is useful. As well as a specific section on Just Transition issues.
I think EMsmile provided a good one line objective for the Energy Transition article, which I see as - what are all the various steps needed to build a global energy infrastructure that is sufficiently low carbon to meet the goals of the Paris agreement?
By contrast, I’m not sure what sustainable energy really means. The article talks about sustainable development goals as well as the impacts from energy use, but never really clarifies what sustainability energy per se contributes to those goals and how it differs from the renewable energy sources that are listed as components of it. What is it about them that merits the term “sustainable energy”, or how it does looking at them from a sustainable energy focus change how we think of them. I think the Sustainable energy article would work better retitled as something like “Clean energy economy” with the sustainability definition and sustainable goals sections given less emphasis. It’s a very, very well written article, but I have to say I disagree with the basic premise of it.
Re: the Renewable energy article, it may have its own issues, but at least the concept is a focused one that the general reading population can relate to. Dtetta (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One last note, and will stop for now. The SE article does talk about reducing energy poverty as a goal in Section 1.3. IMO this seems like a side goal as written - i.e. SE involves reducing energy poverty as well as pursuing all the other energy options described in the article. I think the Energy transition article could look at this from a slightly different perspective. Reducing energy poverty/improving equity is a means to help build the kind of infrastructure that moves the world towards a Paris compliant clean energy economy by 2050. The Energy Outlook 2022 report also seems to approach this from that same viewpoint. Dtetta (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting ideas. It sounds like you're planning to spend more than a few hours on this, which is wonderful :) I'll need to spend some time reading sources and will come back to this. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have about three hours left to work on this article under the SDG 13 project; afterwards my contributions will be those of a regular WP volunteer. Right now I’m thinking of spending those three hours trying to improve the “Examples of past energy transitions” section along the lines of what I described earlier in this discussion thread, which might include a little more detail on Smil’s work that you had referred to back in March. But I do plan to work more on this article (if there is support for it continuing as a stand alone article), so will be interested to see what your thoughts (and others) are on what the general structure should look like. Dtetta (talk) 23:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw this May ‘23 Energy Transition Plan for California. As the world’s fourth/fifth largest economy, probably an important reference in terms of energy transition planning. Echoes a number of themes in the IEA report. Dtetta (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very important and interesting discussion. I'll try to respond bit by bit. My first set of thoughts is in the new section Overview sources on energy transitions below. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the scope of the Sustainable energy article, it turned out to have a broader scope than I imagined when I first started working on it. I initially thought of sustainable energy as a product, akin to "sustainable fashion" or "sustainably-farmed shrimp". And that's probably how many of us environmentalists in rich countries think about it. When I looked into the formal definitions of "sustainable energy" and how people think about it around the globe, I realized it was more like an issue than a product. Questions on whether energy is equitably accessible, reliable, and affordable tend to be outside of the conversation around "sustainability" in Canada and the U.S., but in India or Africa they are key aspects of the issue of making energy sustainable. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fressoz definition

[edit]

The amount of weight given to "The second discourse was most broadly described by Jean-Baptiste Fressoz" struck me as odd. I looked into it and the source is self-published. The source is cited by 70 other papers on Google Scholar.[1] To put this in perspective, one of Smil's books on energy transitions is cited by 777 papers.[2] Using the handy mw:Who Wrote That?' tool I traced the Fressoz stuff to this edit which also introduced some other weird changes. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 13:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this particular text is not very useful. And the first two sentences of that paragraph seems disconnected from the others. They are really just a response to the paragraph that comes before, and should probably be there, if they are kept at all. Dtetta (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Overview sources on energy transitions

[edit]

Many thanks, Dtetta, for your commitment to this article! There are many points you've made in the section above, Need to broaden coverage in Technologies section, other minor suggestions, that I'd like to address. I'm open to discussing the overall information architecture for the clean energy transition, but first I'd like to address the question of what the reader should see when they go to the page Energy transition. The usual Wikipedia practice is to take guidance from high-quality sources that define the term and give a general overview of the topic.

The IEA's World Energy Outlook (WEO) report is an excellent source for up-to-date facts. However, its purpose is not to give a general overview of the clean energy transition. Nor, obviously, does it aim to give an overview of what energy transitions are in general. The IEA's main publication on its vision for the clean energy transition is Net Zero by 2050, with minor updates that are included in the annual WEO. The main purpose of WEO is to help decision-makers predict what will happen in energy markets[3][4] given many geopolitical factors, just one of which is the desire to shift to clean energy. Some of the facts in WEO are part of the discussion around what a rapid transition to clean energy looks like, whereas other facts are in the report because the transition is not happening as rapidly as it could. What WEO 2022 describes is a mixture of clean energy transition and energy system inertia.

To guide us on what what the reader should see when they go to the page Energy transition, particularly the first three sections which are about definitions and history, WEO would not be my first choice. Here are some sources that I think are more helpful:

  • Araújo, Kathleen (2014-03-01). "The emerging field of energy transitions: Progress, challenges, and opportunities". Energy Research & Social Science. 1: 112–121. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2014.03.002. ISSN 2214-6296.
  • Sovacool, Benjamin K. (2016-03-01). "How long will it take? Conceptualizing the temporal dynamics of energy transitions". Energy Research & Social Science. Energy Transitions in Europe: Emerging Challenges, Innovative Approaches, and Possible Solutions. 13: 202–215. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2015.12.020. ISSN 2214-6296. under a CC-BY license!!!
historical record does seemingly support the mainstream view that energy transitions all take time -p205* * *however, three arguments in favor of rapid transition: (1) some past fast transitions in terms of energy end-use and prime movers, (2) examples of rapid national-scale transitions in energy supply exist, (3) the drivers of future transitions may differ fundamentally from the drivers of historical transitions -p207* *although previous,transitions may have taken a great deal of time, we have learned a sufficient amount from them so that contemporary, or future, energy transitions can be expedited. -p210* *newly developed policy mechanisms such as production tax credits, feed-in tariffs, and renewable portfolio standards can hasten the adoption of preferred technologies - p211 Dtetta (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clayoquot - glad you are posting a thread about suggested sources. I also had the Sovacool sources on my list as useful for developing a revised history/past section. Hadn’t seen Arujo, thanks for that find.
Here’s my list of additional sources to consider. Not going to go into all of the citation detail you provided, as I don’t think that’s particularly important at this point, but all the links are there. Listed the first author only for the sake of brevity.
History/past transitions
Historical sources of energy-p2* *Electricity as a primary and secondary source-p6* * *Principle categories of energy use-p7* *Continuing evolution toward higher energy conversion efficiencies-p8* *Global, interdependent, integrated energy infrastructure-p13* *Energy use and GDP-p14* *Universal patterns of energy transition-pp.25 to 26* *Unique role of electricity: benefits, feature, drivers -pp.39 to 44. Dtetta (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Factors that contribute to energy transitions include: supply constraints, cost advantages, performance advantages and policy decisions (pp.16 -19); more comprehensive list of energy transition since 1850 (Table 1, p.21); transitions in terms of energy service provided, including: heating lighting, transportation, mechanical power, and cooling (pp.21-30); aspects in developing countries, relevance for today (pp.33-38) Dtetta (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Scale of changes in technologies, institutions and practices currently necessary is comparable with the scale of changes experienced in past industrial revolutions so productivity gains and economic welfare benefits ensuing from a low carbon transition may be similar to those of past revolutions (p 117); because mitigating climate change is a social good, it requires effective and systemic policy to promote a low carbon transition and avoid ‘escape routes' associated with partial solutions - differs from past industrial revolutions that were primarily driven by the private economic benefits of adopting new technologies and practices(p.121); introduction of new technologies that have widespread potential uses, the scope for further cost reductions as they are deployed, and the potential for stimulating complementary innovations has historically contributed significantly to enduring productivity gains and the spread of economic benefits (p.125); previous industrial revolutions involved profound, long drawn-out, interacting changes not simply in technology but also in markets (and trade), institutions, culture and society (p.125) Dtetta (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Important factors in determining the speed of a transition is how incumbents react to new competitors. Potential to fight back, creating ‘last-gasp' effects -transitions are just as much about the decline of incumbent industries as about the rise of new ones. p5* * past energy transitions have been characterised by major increases in energy consumption - example for today is transition to electric vehicles leading to greatly increased electricity demand - p6* *energy transitions can be seen as catalysts for certain economic, social and political transformations. -p9* *In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, as new energy sources and technologies were introduced, large shares of the population were left on the margins for decades - relevant today for less developed countries - p10 Dtetta (talk) 01:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
History of the industrial era as a continuous sequence of transitions to more convenient and cleaner fuels, better inanimate prime movers (from steam engines to steam turbines and internal combustion engines) and to higher share of final energy use delivered as electricity-p3 Dtetta (talk)
When new technologies become cheaper than existing technologies, some of the political conflicts are dissipated and the market can drive rapid deployment - we are at this stage now for certain renewable energy sources, such as solar PV and onshore wind. However, scaling up from niche to mass adoption requires further political support for developing complementary technology, infrastructure, and market reforms (p.493); different political logics shape clean energy transitions at different stages of the “experience curve” (which models production costs or prices as a function of cumulative manufacturing experience). These political dynamics generate evolving pressures for policymaking and demand different levels or types of coalition-building among pro-transition groups (p.493); description of recent past showing how politics and coalitions have changed as societies have moved from top to bottom of “experience curve”(pp.502-517) Dtetta (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Current Transition
However, since you seem to dismiss WEO 2022, I feel I need to push back on that, even though that really shouldn’t be what this particular thread is about. I respectfully disagree with your assessment of the IEA 2050 article. Personally I don’t think it’s as good as the WEO 2022. It comes across as promotional and and full of platitudes, similar to the kinds of traits you had cautioned against in your 24 March post.
Rather than claim the IEA 2050 report as some sort of higher authority on the topic, I think it would be more helpful if you list the concepts in that report that you think belong in this article.
And rather than dismiss WEO 2022 out of hand I think it would be much more helpful if you addressed the specific points in it that I listed as important to include in this article. Are there ones that you don’t think belong? Whatever you think the purpose of that report is, IMO the concepts in it are key elements of what should be in the article. Specifically, regarding you statement that WEO 2022 “describes is a mixture of clean energy transition and energy system inertia”, I think that is exactly what should be included in this article. It’s one of the critical issues we’re facing.
Also, curious as to why you raise the WP:RS policy. Seems to me like most of the editors I’ve noticed who are involved with editing the article and posting on the talk page have a lot of experience with this guidance, as well as WP:SCIRS. Is there something in particular you want to point out?
To move things forward, how about this. Let’s both go back to our posts and fill in, for each of these sources we listed, what exactly we think are the useful concept(s) that merit it’s inclusion in the article, like I did for WEO 2022. Then I think we will have grist for a meaningful discussion. Dtetta (talk) 00:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, happy to move forward with a more point-by-point discussion as you suggested. Where did I raise the WP:RS policy? I'm not sure if I understand your question. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great - and sorry for the confusion re WP:RS. I was just surprised to see you say “The usual Wikipedia practice is to take guidance from high-quality sources that define the term and give a general overview of the topic.” It just seems like the audience on this talk page knows that already. BTW, I am getting ready for surgery on Tuesday, so probably won’t be able to focus on this until later next week. Look forward to our discussion, and hopefully some others will join in. Dtetta (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck with your surgery! I will keep you in my thoughts on Tuesday. Regarding my earlier comment, when I think of an audience for article talk pages I imagine there are probably more people reading than there are talking, and the non-talkers may include new editors. So I try to write with new editors in mind, and I wasn't directing my comment at you and wasn't trying to be pedantic. I apologize if I caused offense.
The point I was trying to make wasn't about how to identify reliable sources. It was about using reliable overview sources to determine what the scope of the article should be, i.e. what aspects the article should cover and with how much weight. The relevant policy (as you know but I'll mention this for our less-experienced editors) is WP:Neutral point of view, particularly WP:BALANCE.
I've noticed that for this article and for other climate articles I've been pinged into recently, the process for determining the article scope has relied more on activities like looking at the German Wikipedia or looking up definitions of individual words in the article title. I've actually been concerned about whether newer editors are getting the impression that these activities, rather than finding high-quality overview sources, are the normal way of doing things. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. And thanks for your kind thoughts and support. Surgery has been moved to a from a surgery center to a hospital on Friday. So if you do send any positive thoughts out there, Friday would be the day:) I’ll try to fill in some bullet points for the sources I listed prior to Friday. Dtetta (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Think I have enough info from these sources (described in bullets above) to revise the “Examples of past energy transitions” section. Will probably retitle it “Relevance of past energy transitions”. Dtetta (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note regarding sourcing: Great work finding some excellent sources. Regarding Mckinsey2022 - The Net-Zero Transition, I'd be cautious with this one given that its publisher is a management consulting firm. This kind of paper wouldn't get past internal approvals if it called for actions that might make McKinsey clients unhappy, e.g. by saying fossil fuel subsidies are a bad idea. So while it may be useful for some things, I expect it to be biased. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:51, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a good point - IMO this source is most useful for sections 5, 6, and 7. Probably good to look for a supporting source for any of the concepts and facts that the McKinsey report has to offer. Dtetta (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Points in WEO

[edit]

Hi Dave, I've finally found some time to respond to the specific points you brought up from the WEO.

Fantastic ideas
  • Describe peak fossil fuel and its implications - IEA page 43.
  • Mineral supply issues - IEA P 47
    This topic merits an entire article in addition to coverage here. Currently we have Technology-critical element which is too broad and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy#Conservation_areas,_recycling_and_rare-earth_elements , which is too narrow.
  • Key steps for the transition. This includes synchronise scaling up a range of clean energy technologies with scaling back of fossil fuels; tackle the demand side and prioritise energy efficiency; reverse the slide into energy poverty and give poor communities a lift into the new energy economy; collaborate to bring down the cost of capital in emerging market and developing economies; manage the retirement and reuse of existing infrastructure carefully, bearing in mind that some of it will be essential for a secure transition; and invest in flexibility. IEA pp.59 to 61
  • Key considerations for the electricity sector, such as reliability and affordability of electricity, and flexibility of the power systems including generation plants, grids demand-side response, and energy storage - IEA p45
    This too merits an entire article in addition to coverage here. Coverage here might focus on the steps needed to build and scale-up such a system. Transmission lines and grid capacity are the limiting factor for wind and solar deployment in some locations.
  • The role of investment - IEA page 23-basics are covered in the Sustainable energy article, but not more specific issues, such as
    • Need for equity in energy access - IEA page 39
  • Geo political issues and disjointed energy markets - IEA P 58
Yes

The following things are suitable for this article but are also covered decently in other articles:

  • Policies that are fast tracking a clean energy economy - IEA page 20
  • The role of energy efficiency - IEA page 22 - I think this is a critical discussion item for the transition, and the IEA report mentions how progress on this makes other transition tasks easier - I can also see Clayoquot’s point about having more of a focus on energy demand as a whole.
    IEA p.22 convinced me that I was too skeptical initially. There seems to be a lot of opportunity for technical efficiency that I'm oblivious to in my first-world bubble.
It's complicated
  • The role of clean fuels - IEA page 22
    I don't know if the WEO explains the role of clean fuels - p. 22 doesn't say what they are to be used for, doesn't define the term, and doesn't talk about their limitations and downsides. Sustainable energy tries to describe these issues around hydrogen and biofuels using other sources. This particular point reminded me to think about what level of knowledge we should assume the reader of Energy transition has. I'm not sure whether this article should explain the pros and cons of hydrogen, biofuels, and electrofuels, or assume the reader knows them already and just link to other articles.
  • The ongoing role of fossil fuels in this energy transition. Not just describe them but provide a clear picture, as Energy Outlook 22 does, re how their percentage of the overall mix changes between now and 2050. The graph for 2030 is on IEA p46
    I don't know if the WEO explains the role of fossil fuels in this energy transition. There are many factors besides the clean energy transition that go into the numbers shown on p. 46. If I were to summarize the mainstream view of the role of fossil fuels in the clean energy transition, I would say "Fossil fuels will continue to be necessary while technologies that burn them are phased out and R&D progresses on fossil fuel substitutes. This demand can be met with existing fossil fuel extraction projects. No further oil and gas development is needed." That's what the IEA's Net Zero document says; I'm not sure if the message comes across in WEO.
  • Global energy supply and demand by sector at various time points between now and 2050.
    Probably more detail than needed here, and numbers are influenced by factors other than the clean energy transition for all scenarios except NZE.

I hope this helps. I'll likely be distracted by RL stuff for the next couple of weeks so I'll get to the other big questions that have been raised when I can. Best wishes and good luck to you, Dave. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that Clayoquot! It’s a helpful assessment that moves things forward:) Dtetta (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you're finding it helpful! You have the hard part :) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am just wondering where we stand with this. Do I understand correctly that those listings above were brainstorming but haven't been addressed in the article yet? Pinging User:Dtetta and User:Clayoquot. I currently don't have time for this article either but I just want to make sure this is clear when someone else comes along in future who has time to work on this (one can always hope :-) ). EMsmile (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed wall of text

[edit]

I've removed a wall of text that was recently added to the section "Drivers for current energy transition" and was not specific about energy transition (also should not use external links in the text), not written in encyclopedic style. Moving this to talk page in case some of it should be put back in: 

+++++++++

In November 2023, the International Energy Agency (IEA) released a report titled "The Oil and Gas Industry in Net Zero Transitions," which scrutinized the role of fossil fuels in global CO2 emissions. According to the report, oil and gas consumption in 2022 stood at 97 million barrels per day and 4,150 billion cubic meters, respectively, accounting for half of the energy-related carbon emissions. The report presented several future-oriented scenarios, including the Stated Policies Scenario (STEPS), which anticipates a peak in demand for these fuels before 2030, though not at a rate that aligns with international climate targets. More ambitious frameworks, such as the Announced Pledges Scenario (APS) and the Net Zero Emissions by 2050 (NZE) Scenario, suggest significant declines in fossil fuel usage, with the NZE scenario aiming for a reduction to 24 mb/d for oil and 920 bcm for natural gas by mid-century. The document also pointed out that international oil companies, often referred to as "majors," control less than 13% of global production, underscoring the dominant role of national companies. Furthermore, it highlighted the need for the refining sector to adapt by focusing on products like petrochemical feedstocks and bitumen, and projected a peak in the liquified natural gas (LNG) trade before 2035. The analysis included a caution against overinvestment in fossil fuels, which could hinder the transition to a low-carbon future, advocating for a balanced investment strategy and no new conventional projects post-2030 in line with the NZE scenario. The report ultimately underscored the importance of the oil and gas industry in achieving a sustainable energy transition and the necessity for informed policies and investments to reach global net-zero goals.[1]

In 2023, the global operating coal capacity increased by 2%, resulting in a net rise of 48.4 GW and reaching a total capacity of 2,130 GW, marking the largest net increase since 2016. While new construction starts for coal plants outside China reached a record low, with only seven countries initiating new projects, indicating a global shift towards fewer new coal developments. This global increase in coal capacity was predominantly driven by significant developments in China and India, which together represent a substantial portion of both the operational and developing global coal capacity.[2] EMsmile (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "The Oil and Gas Industry in Net Zero Transitions – Analysis". IEA. 23 November 2023. Retrieved 2024-03-25.
  2. ^ Monitor, Global Energy; CREA; E3G; Finance, Reclaim; Club, Sierra; SFOC; Network, Kiko; Europe, C. a. N.; Groups, Bangladesh; Asia, Trend; ACJCE; Sustentable, Chile; POLEN; ICM; Arayara (2024-04-10). "Boom and Bust Coal 2024". Global Energy Monitor.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

EMsmile (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Better image needed for the lead

[edit]
A possible energy transition timeline from 2016 to 2050 (created in 2018). The vertical access is the percentage of fossil vs non-fossil sources in the energy mix. Various source 'peaks' are shown and milestones in the transition flagged in their projected positions on the timeline.

I think the image that we currently have in the lead is not ideal. I think it might have been me who put it there in the first place but upon closer inspection I actually find it rather unclear. It is cluttered with information but does not give a clear picture of the main topic of this article. The source for the image leads me to a non-existent website. How about we replace it with a 2 x 2 image collage, similar to the one at sustainable energy? What should be in the 4 photos though: perhaps three on renewable energy and one on something else? Perhaps one of the four could be a graph showing trends in fossil fuel phase out? Or an image showing a power grid of sorts? EMsmile (talk) 12:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree another image or collage would be good. Charts could include growth of renewable energy, increase in mineral resource demand in future scenarios, disparities in energy access, reliability of grid as % of RE increases. If pictures are preferred, they could include solar wind installation, thermostat (indicating need for smart grid to adjust demand at critical times), map of person still gathering wood (illustrates energy inequity) - some of this is already done in the lead image collage in the SE article. Dtetta (talk) 23:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am undecided on which images to pick: how would the four images for energy transition differ from the four images at sustainable energy, to make it clear visually that this is a related but different topic? EMsmile (talk) 07:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A collage would be pretty generic though. Something more pertinent would be better. For example a simpler graph showing a planned shift in carbon/low carbon energy sources from here to 2050? Does the IEA publish something similar that is free? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 12:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where to go from here regarding the image in the lead? The current one (see on the right) is so difficult to read. Also, the source for it seems to have disappeared, the URL link that is in Wikimedia Commons no longer works. EMsmile (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Transition" is an abstraction, so images are hard to find. One of the charts comparing fossil fuel vs renewables/sustainables would be appropriate, as would copying the collages from the articles on renewables or sustainables. The current graphic is bad in several ways. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. I suggest that we remove that image from the lead for now. Rather have no image there than this confusing one, right? I've also replaced the gallery with renewable energy photos from the US with the image collage from renewable energy. This is the one that I've removed. Perhaps one or two photos could be put back in but I felt that 4 photos from the US was too US-centric for this overview article:
Gold Ray Dam on the Rogue River (Oregon)
Wind farm in Idaho, United States
Photovoltaic array in Colorado
Salt tanks at Solana CSP in Arizona provide 1 GWh thermal energy storage.[1]

EMsmile (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC) EMsmile (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have a clearer image caption if we use that bar chart as the lead image, please? The caption should mention (explicitly) how this relates to energy transition. EMsmile (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Solana". US Department of Energy. Retrieved 28 June 2022.

Should food security be removed?

[edit]

If I understand right from https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w3ct5wrg most of the GHG from fertiliser is not due to energy. Is there a good reason to keep food security in this article? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found not only the sentence on food security dubious but the whole paragraph; and also poorly sourced. I have removed it now. The removed text is below. It had been added in one go in this edit.
+++++++

Despite the widespread understanding that a transition to low carbon energy is necessary, there are a number of risks and barriers to making it more appealing than conventional energy. Low carbon energy rarely comes up as a solution beyond combating climate change, but has wider implications for food security[dubious – discuss] and employment.[1] This further supports the recognized dearth of research for clean energy innovations, which may lead to quicker transitions.[2][obsolete source] Overall, the transition to renewable energy requires a shift among governments, business, and the public. Altering public bias may mitigate the risk of subsequent administrations de-transitioning – through perhaps public awareness campaigns or carbon levies.[3] EMsmile (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ CIFAR (12 May 2017). "The Future of Basic and Applied Energy Research". CIFAR. Archived from the original on 23 September 2020. Retrieved 9 September 2020.
  2. ^ CIFAR (12 May 2017). "The Sustainability of Global Energy Consumption Demand and Supply Needs". CIFAR. Archived from the original on 28 September 2020. Retrieved 9 September 2020.
  3. ^ CIFAR (12 May 2017). "The Role of Regulation in Inducing Clean Energy Adoption". CIFAR. Archived from the original on 3 October 2020. Retrieved 9 September 2020.

Efficiency gains in primary energy

[edit]

I've removed this recently added content as it had no sources and its relevance wasn't clear to me (would it fit better at renewable energy?). If the diagram is important, please make the caption clearer w.r.t to energy transition: 

+++++

Efficiency gains in primary energy

Sankey diagram for the United States 2016 shows that 66.4% of primary energy, mostly from fossil fuels, ends up as waste heat

As the burning of fossil fuels typically encompasses large losses of embodied energy of about two thirds when converting to electrical or mechanical energy, transitioning to non thermal renewables has the added advantage that more energy is used and less energy is wasted. Thus, the amount of primary energy required in a clean energy system is significantly smaller. The false notion that all fossil fuel primary energy has to be replaced by renewables in the energy transition has been dubbed the primary energy fallacy. EMsmile (talk) 13:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New section on electrification

[edit]

Hi User:Officer781 you recently added a section on electrification. I've condensed that a bit and corrected a broken ref. But I wonder if a) we need more sources and b) if we should rather use an excerpt from sustainable energy which also talks about electrification in this context. What speaks against the excerpt for me is that the language seems more academic at sustainable energy (your proposed wording is maybe easier to understand) and also that the ref style there is the long ref style (the refs could be copied across, it's just some extra copy & paste, so not a big hurdle). Wondering though if your content on electrification is correct and up to date compared to the content at sustainable energy. In any case, I've added a link across now. Pinging User:Clayoquot in case she has comments. EMsmile (talk) 13:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the new section is excellent! Excerpts are harder to update in some ways so I would suggest not using one here. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Energy_transition&oldid=1239183976"