Jump to content

Talk:Renewable energy/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Not all biomass usage is "renewable" controversy

There appears to be considerable controversy surrounding slow regrowth sources of plant energy and peat being regarded as "renewable".

This necessitates a review of biomass being regarded as "renewable".

Personally, I tend to agree with these researchers on the classification of which biomass sources should be regarded as "renewable". As it can take anything from 2 to 100 years for different sources of plant energy to be replenished, and therefore to achieve carbon dioxide neutrality, such as the difference between fast growing switch grass and slow growing trees, some researchers suggest that if the biomass source takes longer than 20 years to regrow, then it may not be regarded as renewable from a climate change mitigation standpoint. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111115175352.htm

So I wrote this to sum up the problem. - The proportion of truly renewable biomass in use is uncertain, as peat, one of the largest sources of biomass, is sometimes regarded as renewable, such as by the IPCC, but not by other organizations, such as one created by the United Nations, with the rationale against its classification as a renewable fuel being based on the fact that peats extraction rate in industrialized countries far exceeds its slow regrowth rate of approximately 1mm per year when favorable conditions are present,[1] and due to the fact that it is reported that peat regrowth takes place only in 30-40% of peatlands.[2] Because of these factors, an organization established by the United Nations classified peat as a fossil fuel.[3] As did the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2006, who in that year, did not classify peat as a renewable biomass or biofuel, again excluding it from "renewable" classification due to the thousand plus year length of time for peat to re-accumulate after harvesting, but as a fossil fuel.[4] Later however, the IPCC changed its classification for peat, and peat is now regarded as a "slow-renewable" fuel by that organization.[5]

By this same reasoning by the IPCC who classified peat as a "slow-renewable", fossil fuels such as coal are simply a very slow-renewable fuel, taking millions of years, in contrast to peats thousands of years to reform, or to be replenished. http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/02/18/3691317.htm#.UbZSEUDVDTc

In sum, the present blanket assumption of all biomass( which includes the burning of trees that take 100 years to regrow and peat that takes thousands of years to regrow) as "renewable" is FUBAR when trying to stop climate change in the most critical period, that is the next 100 years.

So what shall we write?

As always, suggestions welcome. Boundarylayer (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Add history graph

I have created a logarithmic graph of energy production history from different sources based on data from www.bp.com/statisticalreview. Maybe it is worth adding in section "Growth of renewables"?--83.19.119.245 (talk) 10:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Energy produced from different sources in 2000-2011 and trend lines to 2020: coal (black), hydro (dark blue), nuclear (red), wind (light blue), biofuels (green) and solar (yellow). Source: [1].
I love the concept, but the fitted extrapolations should be dashed (or just dotted) lines because it is too difficult to tell them apart from the actual data at thumbnail size. 70.59.21.197 (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Where are the fossil fuels and prediction interrelations on that graph? EllenCT (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for comments. I have updated the graph with 2012 data, added fossil fuels and made trend lines dotted.--83.19.119.245 (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Move/ split/ trim proposals

Please comment of these suggestions:

  • The "100% renewables" section is getting quite long, and probably should be split to a new article, leaving a summary here, per WP:SS.
  • The "Enabling technologies" section, mainly about energy storage appears in several other articles where it is better placed. The idea of combining wind solar and geothermal and electric to match energy demand, is much more relevant here.
  • The third paragraph of the lead is anti-renewables POV, and many of these points are discussed in Renewable energy debate in a much more neutral way. Suggest remove.
  • The emerging technologies section is getting long and should be reworked.

-- Johnfos (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I have implemented most of these suggestions now. Johnfos (talk) 00:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Oceanogenic Power

Esta información ha sido fanáticamente borrada por la masonería criolla panameña. Chambones de la ampliación del canal. Supuestamente obedeciendo a la masonería internacional. Digo supuestamente, porque tal postura anacrónica: crear falsos editores en widipedia solo para borrar los temas que consideran deben ser ocultados a los demás, es tan ridícula en esta era IT, que sus arquitectos internacionales la han reducido a la práctica de sus plebeyos tercermundistas, al ser ellos mismos los que han criticado a la Iglesia Católica de eso.186.188.202.68 (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

This section is barely English and totally unintelligible. Yes: Impossible for you, because you need 10 years to learn engineering and not 3 month to learn english or spanish.186.188.202.68 (talk) 12:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC) It sounds crazy as well, but I don't understand what is being communicated so I'm not sure. Also the only source is entirely tangential to the main point. Based on these issues, I deleted it. If it is to be reinserted, proper sourcing and better English are a good place to start. Zabby1982 (talk) 06:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hasta se atreven a confesar que lo único que saben es escribir y hablar inglés, y que aún en este idioma no entienden de matemáticas y física. Porque la buena fé implicaría no borrar la información, sino corregir o ayudar que la gramática sea mejor. Claro, hay que entender lo que se está escribiendo. 186.188.202.68 (talk) 12:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Diff undo request

Please replace the deleted text in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Renewable_energy&diff=548559878&oldid=548114851 I have read the arguments at Talk:Carbon neutral fuel and believe the text should be restored. I have independent reasons for asking that it be restored, but I am a new wikipedian and the article is semi-protected. Pointer wrangler (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.
Please continue (calmly) the discussion at Talk:Carbon neutral fuel#Confusion among title, summary, and contents. An edit request of this nature cannot be actioned for you whilst discussion is ongoing and no consensus has been reached. If consensus is reached, and you still need help, just reactivate this request. Thanks. Begoon talk 05:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
After months there has been no response, and another editor and I have corrected the (primarily ammonia-related) concerns there, so I am reactivating the request. Pointer wrangler (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Since there was no objection I did this. Anyone with questions should see these external links added to the main article:
Pointer wrangler (talk) 01:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Traditional Biomass is Renewable in neither Letter and Spirit

The proportion or the extent of renewable biomass may be uncertain, but I do not see any uncertainty regarding traditional biomass, which is literally people in undeveloped countries burning sticks and dung. We know that such fuel is not renewable by definition and from history, and we know also that its usage is extremely harmful to the environment. Any uncertainty and debate over renewability of biomass should be explicitly confined to its modern, technologized usage where necessary precautions may be taken to replenish the energy source. Pensiveneko (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I also object to wood and dung fuel being referred to as renewable, because it releases carbon and therefore is not sustainable. Non-sustainable energy is renewable in the short term but not the long term. The only sustainable biofuel is Brazilian sugarcane, and only just barely. Pointer wrangler (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
The article follows the traditional approach of the IEA and others:
Renewable energy flows involve natural phenomena such as sunlight, wind, tides, plant growth, and geothermal heat, as the International Energy Agency explains:[6]

Renewable energy is derived from natural processes that are replenished constantly. In its various forms, it derives directly from the sun, or from heat generated deep within the earth. Included in the definition is electricity and heat generated from solar, wind, ocean, hydropower, biomass, geothermal resources, and biofuels and hydrogen derived from renewable resources.

Debate about particular technologies is welcome, provided it is reliably sourced, and this should go in the Renewable energy debate article. Johnfos (talk) 10:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
There are plenty of traditional definitions which are wrong at the level of logical consistency. I agree the issue should be discussed in the debate article, but isn't it also important to discuss what should and should not be included in this article? What makes a traditional IEA source better than, say, a review journal article that points out wood fuel isn't technically renewable because deforestation results in new timber growth which absorbs less carbon than the old growth forest it replaces and always will as long as it continues to be harvested regularly? I vote for logic over tradition. Pointer wrangler (talk) 01:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I had hoped that someone else may have commented by now, but no... I vote for WP:Reliable sources, as this is an encyclopedia after all, and WP:Original research is not allowed. Please provide the best and most reputable authoritative sources that support what you say. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 01:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
What makes the IEA more authoritative than the U.S. Federal courts which have just rejected the myth of biofuel sustainability? And how about [2] already in this article? Pointer wrangler (talk) 00:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Sustainability, sustainable development, and engineering emerging technologies

Due to a potential appearance of conflict of interest concerns[3] I have started a Request for Comments on engineering sustainable development. Tim AFS (talk) 06:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

"Grown much faster than anyone anticipated"

"Renewable energy use has grown much faster than anyone anticipated." - This sounds like it was taken straight from a news article and does not belong in an encyclopaedia. "Anyone" is far too broad, while "much faster" is vague. Can someone please change this sentence to contain some facts and sourced info? Thanks 101.103.64.85 (talk) 10:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Biogas

Why is biogas not discussed on this page?

First line of wiki biogas article: "Biogas typically refers to a gas produced by the breakdown of organic matter in the absence of oxygen. It is a renewable energy source, like solar and wind energy. Furthermore, biogas can be produced from regionally available raw materials such as recycled waste and is environmentally friendly."

An example of an contemporary biogas initiative: http://www.sistemabiobolsa.com/

Not only is biogas a renewable energy source, it also has the potential to offset methane emissions, reduce disease and deforestation, and provide nitrogen enriched fertilizer to farming communities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Painted desert (talk • contribs) 21:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It is discussed. See the 4th paragraph of Renewable energy#Biomass. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2014

The page on "Renewable Energy" is missing a few key facts...

1) Wind and hydro power sources are not renewable, because they are subject to climate change, and their power-extraction systems cannot move to follow changes..

2) An example or two of wind's dependence on climate is here... http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/wind/a-less-mighty-wind www.nytimes.com/2011/01/21/us/21tttransmission.html?_r=1&hpw

3) Examples of hydropower's dependence on climate are any recent description of our poor Colorado River flows and dam storage, and the shortfall of China's Three Gorges Dam.

4) A proper definition of "renewable energy" on human time scales would include solar, nuclear and geothermal -- geothermal is nuclear. Our sun will supply vast energy for another billion years or so, before its heat destroys the inner planets. Nuclear fission lasts as long as the minerals of fertile/fissile elements in Earth or on any rocky body in our, or any, solar system. Fusion energy is available on any body holding water. None of these are subject to climate change. -- Dr. A. Cannara 650-400-3071 cannara@sbcglobal.net

DrAlexC (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. You're going to have to come up with more sources to back up the claim that wind or hydro are not renewable energy sources. Neither of the two sources you list here say that wind power is "not renewable". — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 14:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Reference 8 - updated link

Hi there, Reference 8 "United Nations Environment Programme Global Trends in Sustainable Energy Investment 2007: Analysis of Trends and Issues in the Financing of Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency in OECD and Developing Countries" is currently not correctly linked. (It was linked to our old website; now the old link is no longer active.)

The link to this report has now moved to: http://energy-base.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SEFI-Global-Trends-in-Sustainable-Energy-Investment-2007.pdf

Would it be possible for a registered editor to update this? Many thanks!

Jekern (talk) 10:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

emerging technologies

I am going to add some more new emerging technologies into the emerging technologies such as, Algae. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunshinebird28 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Solar Energy

I understand why solar energy is included on this page despite the fact that it is not truly a renewable resource, as its energy is never renewed, but instead a "green" or environmentally friendly one. However, perhaps it is worth mentioning, at least as a note, that the sun's energy is actually a perpetual, or continuous, resource in that it is not expected to burn out for millions of years to come. Obviously, in reality, it is a nonrenewable resource; however, because of the length of its life, it is generally classified as perpetual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acomputerscientist (talk • contribs) 20:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

comp air

Please consider including Compressed Air Energy and Electro-Magnetic Energy to this article as they are two emerging renewable energy technologies with substantial market percentage, development, and benefits continuously being produced in our global economy. There are many portals leading to compressed air cars and energy, yet there is little documentation and no article for the magnetic motor, a proven and emerging highly-efficient renewable energy technology. Furthermore I have documentation such as patents and videos, which support and validate the technology with data and PHD engineer documented, confirmed "observation of work."

Compressed Air Energy: A compressed air car is a car that uses a motor powered by compressed air. The car can be powered solely by air, or combined (as in a hybrid electric vehicle) with gasoline, diesel, ethanol, or an electric plant with regenerative braking. Compressed air cars are powered by motors driven by compressed air, which is stored in a tank at high pressure such as 30 MPa (4500 psi or 310 bar). Rather than driving engine pistons with an ignited fuel-air mixture, compressed air cars use the expansion of compressed air, in a similar manner to the expansion of steam in a steam engine.

Electro-Magnetic Energy: A magnetic motor (or magnet motor) is a device which converts power of or relating to or caused by magnetism (e.g., "magnetic forces") into mechanical force and motion, with no other input. It usually provides rotary mechanical motion. The machines that utilizes the properties of a magnet for mechanical energy. Magnetic Motors are currently being developed in the US, Australia, Turkey, and many other countries, many of which who are attempting to introduce the technology to the market. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Userface2020 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Renewable energy

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Renewable energy's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "woody":

  • From Grid energy storage: Woody, Todd. "PG&E's Battery Power Plans Could Jump Start Electric Car Market." (Blog). Green Wombat, 2007-06-12. Retrieved on 2007-08-19
  • From Renewable energy commercialization: Todd Woody. In California’s Mojave Desert, Solar-Thermal Projects Take Off Yale Environment 360, 27 October 2010.
  • From Solar power in the United States: "Brightsource Ivanpah".

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Renewable energy into the mainstream

The 2014 REN21 Renewables 2014 Global Status Report is now available, and it says that "renewable energy has entered the mainstream". The global growth of most renewable energy technologies has been greater than many people anticipated, see Renewable energy commercialisation. There are now studies and proposals in many countries about practical pathways to 100% renewable energy. The variability of some renewables has turned out to be more easily manageable than first thought, see Variable renewable energy. The REN21 report says that renewable energies are not just energy sources, but ways to address pressing social, political, economic and environmental problems:

Today, renewables are seen not only as sources of energy, but also as tools to address many other pressing needs, including: improving energy security; reducing the health and environmental impacts associated with fossil and nuclear energy; mitigating greenhouse gas emissions; improving educational opportunities; creating jobs; reducing poverty; and increasing gender equality... Renewables have entered the mainstream.

-- Johnfos (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Revision Session - Layout

During the period of August 9–11, 2014, I did a number or edits, that mainly focused on the appearance/layout of the article. Here's a summary of the changes. Since I spent many hours revising it, I thought it's worth to to give you a brief overview on the talk page:

These edits mainly, but not exclusively consisted of:

  • thumbnails
    • changed dimensions of thumbs, in most cases reducing their sizes.
    • aligning thumbs to improve the text's flow (avoiding "stacking/intrusion" into next section)
    • shortening some captions (for the same reason as just mentioned)
    • removed about two thumbs from the article (due to section's "text-image ratio")
    • added the following three thumbs:
  • added section Photovoltaic developement
    • named it in line with other subsection (Wind power development,Biofuel development,Geothermal development)
    • moved from section "Photovoltaic power stations" to this one, and updated it.
    • replaced wikitable "Photovoltaic Power" (showing yearly capacities) with a "wiki-bar chart" (below), and added main-template that links to the article Growth of photovoltaics, I'm working on. Hope this amendment does not look like pure self-interest.
Worldwide Growth of Photovoltaics
in MW grouped by region
25,000
50,000
75,000
100,000
125,000
150,000
2001
2004
2007
2010
2013
Regions:
     Europe
     Asia-Pacific
     Americas
     China
     Middle East and Africa
  • very few text changes
  • wikitable
    • changed (simplified) syntax and appearance of one or two wikitables.

Rfassbind (talk) 14:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Broken Redirect

Reference 4: United Nations Environment Programme Global Trends in Sustainable Energy Investment 2007: Analysis of Trends and Issues in the Financing of Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency in OECD and Developing Countries (PDF), p. 3. This reference no longer exists. I can't edit, so I will just point out that the new URL is http://www.unep.org/pdf/72_Glob_Sust_Energy_Inv_Report_(2007).pdf Someone please change it :) 173.218.75.101 (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. Cheers, -- Rfassbind (talk) 12:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

November 2014 edit request

Change Global energy potential by soucre. to Global energy potential by source.

Done Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 13:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

resources OR sources

In the article appears twice the phrase "renewable energy sources" and twice the phrase "renewable energy resources". Why? what's the difference? if there is any... and shouldn't we choose the one or the other? 193.48.126.34 (talk) 09:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2019

207.239.23.2 (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Effects of the declining costs of solar power

Although I'm primarily interested in its potential to cause rapid economic deflation, what are the expectations regarding the very rapidly decling cost of solar power on the pace of global warming mitigation? EllenCT (talk) 03:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe that solar heat/pv together currently generate less that 2% of the worlds electricity, if costs fell by large amounts, it would take 20 years to get to 30%.Dougmcdonell (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Merge Renewable energy commercialization into here

Comparison: table of content
Renewable energy commercialization
1 Overview
 1.1 Rationale for renewables
 1.2 Growth of renewables
 1.3 Economic trends
 1.4 Three generations of technologies
2 First-generation technologies
 2.1 Biomass
 2.2 Hydroelectricity
 2.3 Geothermal power and heat
3 Second-generation technologies
 3.1 Solar Heating
 3.2 Photovoltaics
 3.3 Wind power
 3.4 Solar thermal power stations
 3.5 Modern forms of Bioenergy
4 Third-generation technologies
 4.1 New bioenergy technologies
 4.2 Ocean energy
 4.3 Enhanced geothermal systems
5 Renewable energy industry
 5.1 Wind power companies
 5.2 Photovoltaic companies
6 Non-technical barriers to acceptance
7 Public policy landscape
 7.1 Shifting taxes
 7.2 Shifting subsidies
 7.3 Renewable energy targets
 7.4 Levelling the playing field
 7.5 Green stimulus programs
 7.6 Energy Sector Regulation
8 Voluntary market mechanisms...
9 Recent developments
10 100% renewable energy
11 Energy efficiency
12 See also
12.1 Lists
12.2 Topics
12.3 People
13 References
14 Bibliography
15 External links
Renewable energy
1 Overview
2 History
3 Mainstream technologies
 3.1 Wind power
 3.2 Hydropower
 3.3 Solar energy
 3.4 Geothermal energy
 3.5 Bio energy
4 Commercialization
 4.1 Growth of renewables
 4.2 Economic trends
 4.3 Hydroelectricity
 4.4 Wind power development
 4.5 Solar thermal
 4.6 Photovoltaic development
 4.7 Photovoltaic power stations
 4.8 Carbon-neutral and negative fuels
 4.9 Biofuel development
 4.10 Geothermal development
 4.11 Developing countries
 4.12 Industry and policy trends
 4.13 100% renewable energy
5 Emerging technologies
6 Debate
7 Gallery
8 See also
9 References
10 Bibliography
11 External links

I've come to the conclusion that it would be best to merge Renewable energy commercialization into Renewable energy. My best estimate: about 60% of the content in commercialization is redundant, another 20% is complementary and can be merged, and the remaining 20% should be deleted or moved to other articles. Besides the obvious redundancy, a merger would improve the quality of the article and make it easier to maintain. -- Cheers, Rfassbind -talk 14:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, the proposal for merger is of no interest to anyone. That's fine with me. I stopped any preparations and removed the hatnotes from the articles. -- Cheers, Rfassbind -talk 11:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2015

[7]

Not done: You have not made a request but I assume you want this added (somewhere) in the article.
However, as this is a totally unsourced, blog on Wordpress, it will not be added, as it cannot be considered a reliable source. - Arjayay (talk) 09:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Keddy, P.A. 2010. Wetland Ecology: Principles and Conservation (2nd edition). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 497 p. Chapter 7.
  2. ^ http://www.eurosaiwgea.org/Activitiesandmeetings/OtherEUROSAIWGEAmeetings/Documents/Estonia_energy.pdf
  3. ^ http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-07.htm Today's primary sources of energy are mainly non-renewable: natural gas, oil, coal, peat, and conventional nuclear power. There are also renewable sources, including wood, plants, dung, falling water, geothermal sources, solar, tidal, wind, and wave energy, as well as human and animal muscle-power. Nuclear reactors that produce their own fuel ("breeders") and eventually fusion reactors are also in this category.
  4. ^ http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/0_Overview/V0_2_Glossary.pdf
  5. ^ http://www.worldenergy.org/publications/survey_of_energy_resources_2007/peat/704.asp
  6. ^ IEA Renewable Energy Working Party (2002). Renewable Energy... into the mainstream, p. 9.
  7. ^ "Renewable Energy Impact on Environment".

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Renewable energy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Renewable energy debate

In April 2012 there was an agreement in the talk page(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Renewable_energy/Archive_4#Nuclear_power) to include a few sentences in the Renewable energy debate section. However two months later user Delphi234 removed them from the article (this was the edit done on 19:52, 9 June 2012). The edit summary refers to the talk page but all that I could find there in the relevant time period was a rant about disagreeing with the content of the removed sentences and another user criticizing that rant. I would like to return those sentences but I can't due to the semi-protected status of the article. Could someone else please fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.152.124 (talk)

I would suggest to move sources 52,53 and 54 from their position to the preceeding phrase, because none of the 3 links says that biogas is a major source. Also, the phrase "The life cycle of the plants is sustainable, the lives of people less so." is an opinion and should be left out. Alex - nov. 11, 2015 - Rome (italy) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.55.213.199 (talk) 12:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2015

182.185.50.66 (talk) 08:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Revert removal of Image about Global energy potential

In May 2015, I already had a discussion with User:KjellG about the diagram Global energy potential by source. Despite my best efforts to be constructive on my talk page and his assertion "to come back with more thoughts", I unfortunately never received a feed-back, until now, 7 months later, when he simply removed the diagram with the comment "figure do not coinside with its source. One may use Joule per year, kWh per year or here kWyear per year, not simply kW.". That's a poor behavior. One does not leave a discussion and later edit the article (i.e. removing the diagram), as I already explained that a kilowatt-year per year is exactly the same thing as a kilowatt. We can continue our conversation (also see thread from May 2015), maybe even amend the diagram, as it seems to be misleading to at least one person on this planet. -- Rfassbind – talk 15:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I see no point in any furter discussion, it ends here: "as it seems to be misleading to at least one person on this planet" Regards KjellG, eng. electro. KjellG (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Renewable energy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit requested

Change "Wind power is growing at the rate of 30% annually, with a worldwide installed capacity of 282,482 megawatts (MW) at the end of 2012" to "Wind power is growing at the rate of 17% annually, with a worldwide installed capacity of 432,419 megawatts (MW) at the end of 2015". The whole paragraph is out of date though. 2601:186:300:4200:54C1:E28B:5839:4D44 (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done, but I used 2014 figures since they're official; AFAIK 2015 figures are provisional right now.GliderMaven (talk)

Not a "Catch-all" article

This article on renewable energy is long and full of sub-sections, which makes it difficult to read. It should be an overview, and should only cover main points. But far too much detail, or content of limited relevance, has crept in and this would be better placed in one of the many renewable energy sub-articles, with just a link left here. I have started to tidy things up, mainly by moving off some less relevant sub-sections to related articles. For example, the Heat pump sub-section and Energy storage sub-section are prime candidates to be moved. Johnfos (talk) 11:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion the article should provide short information to all relevant topics. Of course it cannot go into details, but it should provide basis information, not only a link. All of the sections are short, so I don't see a problem. And heat pumps are a relevant topic, too, especially as they are often neglected or forgotten. In text books there is also usually a section on heat pumps (for example Quaschning and Kaltschmitt et al.), so we should do the same. If there is only a link, the readers have no information at all, which is not a good situation. I favour an article that can be read and provides basis knowledge to everything relevant, even if these are only a few sentences. Which is the case with heat pumps or electrification. These are topics that aren't selfexplanatory, so we have to explain the most important information in short. Greetings, Andol (talk) 11:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
In terms of providing "short information to all relevant topics", we already have sub-articles that do that: Outline of wind energy, Outline of solar energy, Lists of renewable energy topics, etc. Short sections disrupt the flow of the text, fragmenting the article, and making it difficult to read. regards, Johnfos (talk) 11:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I think that the article overall is oddly specific, and definitely is insufficiently general. It definitely should be more of a 'catch-all' article than at present. It's currently rated as B, and although I did consider dropping it to a C, it just about sustains B class, but it's surprisingly marginal- it's a low B and is far from GA and CA.
To take one tiny example to illustrate this, consider this statement from the lead: "Renewable energy replaces conventional fuels in four distinct areas: electricity generation, air and water heating/cooling, motor fuels, and rural (off-grid) energy services."
On the face of it, this is fairly obvious. But the subtle and incorrect implication is that renewable energy replaces conventional fuels/energy in a 1:1 way within those areas, because they're distinct. But in many cases it doesn't. If a country or organisation has cheap electricity from wind it may choose to buy electric cars or run electric trains rather than import oil. Or when installing solar panels on the roof, it's often better to both heat (and cool) the building using a heat pump rather than using gas heating. (Note that heat pumps are already mainstream technology- all air conditioning systems contain heat pumps). So is that electricity generation or is that heating/cooling?
In fact, the reality is that these areas are certainly not distinct, they overlap and are often interchangeable. And much of the article has similar issues, it's oddly over specific.GliderMaven (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the "over specific" thing. Aren't we just trying to capture some of the mainstream technologies and issues, without repeating too much of what is already in sub-articles? Let's not re-invent the wheel. regards, Johnfos (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Nobody is trying to reinvent the wheel, but you seem to be trying to reinvent the encyclopedia. To the maximum extent possible, we're trying to have an article which summarises everything about renewable energy, not just capture some of the mainstream technologies. That doesn't mean we have to have everything in massive detail here, we can link to other articles for that, but we have to, to the maximum reasonable extent, cover everything, in this article.GliderMaven (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
REALLY agree with this point here. GreenChairBMX (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Just a reminder -- This article is already too long for the general reader who seeks conciseness and clarity (see WP:Article size). Unfortunately, It is just not possible to cover everything about renewable energy in this one article. But we can cover some of the most notable technologies and issues, and improve our use of wikilinks. Johnfos (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
No, it isn't:

Document statistics: ... 

   Prose size (text only): 46 kB (7323 words) "readable prose size"

...

The critical point is the 'prose size (text only) which say it is 46 kB, 7232 words. WP:Article size says it should be less than 50k and that above 10,000 words you might want to split the article. We haven't reached either yet, in fact it is significantly below the 10,000 word limit.GliderMaven (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't the lead give an adequate summary of the entire article for all those readers who feel tl;dr applies? GreenChairBMX (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Let's not get too hung up with article length; it is just one factor to be considered when splitting (see WP:Split). Johnfos (talk) 08:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Sort of new to the party here but I feel strongly about the subject. I think this article should not have subsections eliminated. Maybe a little cleanup would do nicely, but overall I think more explanation if always better than less. GreenChairBMX (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Renewable energy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2016

Your article is all positive and has none of the HUGE negatives of renewable energy: such as pollution, environmental destruction, expense, continual replacement needs. People needs the good the bad and the ugly in order to make and informed decision.

PLEASE CHANGE "It would also reduce environmental pollution such as air pollution caused by burning of fossil fuels and improve public health, reduce premature mortalities due to pollution and save associated health costs that amount to several 100 billion dollars annually only in the United States.[16] " TO "It could also reduce environmental pollution, specifically air pollution, caused by burning of fossil fuels and improve public health, reduce premature mortalities due to air pollution and save associated health costs that amount to several 100 billion dollars annually only in the United States.[16] "

Renewable energy sources INCREASE POLLUTION- to the water, to the land, particularly heavy metal pollution.They could reduce AIR pollution, but increase other forms of pollution, particularly toxic pollution. They only eliminate CO2 pollution from fossil fuels and other air pollution from poor burning sources, but increase air pollution if geothermal or open pit mining is used for the manufacture or use of renewable energy. The manufacturing waste, the battery waste, the mining waste, the electricity use are all not mentioned. For example, a set of solar panels with batteries need to replace the batteries every 3 years for optimum function, which is very expensive and causes heavy metal waste permanently deposited in the ecosystem. In order to get the specific elements to manufacture the batteries and the solar panels, many heavy metals must be mined, causing dangerous pollutants being put into water and illness to workers and people downstream. Solar panels also lose approximately 50% of their energy production within 5 years due to breakdown of the panels, and must also be replaced, leading to an increase in waste, increase in needs for panels and batteries, increase in weardown of batteries, increasing battery waste. The cost to produce electricity with solar or wind is 10X what is currently paid for electricity due to hardware costs, which will cripple our poorest people and cause them to starve to stay warm/cool, which is a HUGE , very real concern. The cost of a wind power tower means it takes 15-20 years to pay off at higher than normal electrical rates, and it is waste at the end of the pay off period, so does not ever make enough electricity to create any revenue. Drilling down for geothermal increases SO4 in the air which is 10000x more greenhouse gas then CO2. Dams destroy ecosystems, cause animal extinction(pacific Salmon) and cause very real disease(schistosomiasis,malaria) and need constant repair and input of concrete(high air water pollution, carbon footprint) and other heavy metals for repair. [1]


2001:56A:F018:D500:74B2:E515:5C91:F407 (talk) 23:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Among many other issues with what you are asking for, barring manufacturing defects solar panels don't breakdown or degrade significantly in 5 years. GliderMaven (talk) 01:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.windontario.ca/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/the-darker-side-of-solar-power/article24649804/ http://www.solarscorecard.com/2014/2014-scorecard.php http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_url?url=https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gabrielle_Gaustad/publication/260211318_Economic_and_environmental_characterization_of_an_evolving_Li-ion_battery_waste_stream/links/541053c90cf2f2b29a40c564.pdf&hl=en&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm055PJqJ8Ir98sDgBNrPsMcu533zg&nossl=1&oi=scholarr&ved=0ahUKEwiuofnm_LTMAhUQ-2MKHUrtDFwQgAMIHSgCMAA http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-01/documents/lithium_batteries_lca.pdf http://www.theguardian.com/vital-signs/2015/jun/10/tesla-batteries-environment-lithium-elon-musk-powerwall http://www.edwardgoldsmith.org/1018/dams-and-disease/

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2016 (Grammer)

Second Paragraph "renewables contributed 19,2 percent to humans' global energy consumption and 23,7 percent to" commas should be periods.

ThisIsRobokitty (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Done — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 01:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Dam failures

Clearly mention of such catastrophes is important, but where and how are equally important. Generically blaming "Renewable energy" is, at best, misdirected; Hydropower might be a better location for the argument, but both cited failures both involve external factors (i.e., Vajont might be more fairly characterized as an engineering failure). Again, I make no argument against inclusion, just against the framing as originally written.--E8 (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree with E8. The issue is already covered, in context, in several other articles including Renewable energy debate and Hydroelectricity. Johnfos (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2016

Please change "Renewable hydroelectric energy provides 16.3% of the worlds electricity. When hydroelectric is combined with other renewables such as wind, geothermal, solar, biomass and waste: together they make the "renewables" total, 21.7% of electricity generation worldwide as of 2013.[23] Renewable power generators are spread across many countries, and wind power alone already provides a significant share of electricity in some areas: for example, 14% in the U.S. state of Iowa, 40% in the northern German state of Schleswig-Holstein, and 49% in Denmark. Some countries get most of their power from renewables, including Iceland (100%), Norway (98%), Brazil (86%), Austria (62%), New Zealand (65%), and Sweden (54%).[24]" to "Renewables account for 28.9% of the world’s power generating capacity - enough to supply 23.7% of global electricity. Hydroelectric energy provides 16.6% of global electricity, while the remaining 7.1% comes from wind, geothermal, solar PV, bio-power, concentrated solar power (CSP) and ocean. By 2040, renewable energy is projected to equal coal and natural gas electricity generation (IEA). Several jurisdictions, including Denmark, Germany, the state of South Australia and some US states have achieved high integration of variable renewables. For example, in 2015 wind power met 42% of electricity demand in Denmark, 23.2% in Portugal and 15.5% in Uruguay. Interconnectors enable countries to balance electricity systems by allowing the import and export of renewable energy. Innovative hybrid systems have emerged between countries and regions.[1]" This request is made because the existing text is based on out-of-date information. The information I have provided is based on the most recent REN21 report. Rtickle (talk) 12:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.ren21.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/GSR_2016_Full_Report.pdf
It appears you are autoconfirmed and are editing the page. — Andy W. (talk) 01:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


The above additions were done, but the first paragraph duplicates the REN21 2016 report in the introduction, so I've removed the following portion from the text that was added.
"Renewables account for 28.9% of the world’s power generating capacity - enough to supply 23.7% of global electricity. Hydroelectric energy provides 16.6% of global electricity, while the remaining 7.1% comes from wind, geothermal, solar PV, bio-power, concentrated solar power (CSP) and ocean." Dougmcdonell (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Importance

Here is an important information that could be reported in the article: "Renewables made up half of net electricity capacity added last year" (The Guardian). What do you think?
July Neither Boars (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC).

Capacity is an easy number to find quoted, and can be can be very misleading. For instance solar panels in Europe run at a capacity factor of around 10% whereas geothermal runs at a capacity factor over 90% (due to scheduled maintenance). So to to compare the two on the basis of power actually produced multiply solar capacity by 900%. Quoting production figures is more difficult to source and difficult to put into context as the production of solar power is both variable and intermittent. I am in favor of using total annual generation to compare power sources realistically. Dougmcdonell (talk) 15:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hydropower as renewable energy

Only if we considered water as unlimited resource, hydropower could be considered as a renewable energy. In fact, there are no differences between petroleum and hydropower energy but renovation rates. In consequence, in my opinion, this energy might be remove from this list. Xurde78 (talk) 08:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article reads "Renewable energy is energy that is collected from renewable resources, which are naturally replenished on a human timescale". Petroleum takes millions of years to form – far longer than a human timescale. Conversely, there is no indication that precipitation will halt on that same timescale. So… no. Rob (talk) 09:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Hydropower uses scarce resource, sweet water. Humanity can use other sources to produce electricity.

Aerothermy

Must include aerothermal renewable energy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.109.156.105 (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Nuclear Power

A few years ago there was a request on this talk page to restore a portion of this article (now archived in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Renewable_energy/Archive_6#Renewable_energy_debate). This request did unfortunately not get any response until now. Since there were no objections, I'm now restoring that part of the article. Andreaseksted (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

An edit summary said that this does not meet the definition of the scope of the article, but what Cohen argues is that the uranium in the sea is continually replenished from rivers, so that seems to meet the definition in the lead which says "Renewable energy is generally defined as energy that is collected from resources which are naturally replenished on a human timescale". Andreaseksted (talk) 23:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any mineral extraction from seawater except sea salt, and I'm certain that extracting uranium from seawater has never been achieved on any commercial scale. Mining uranium from mines is cost effective and adds negligibly to nuclear power costs. We require a secondary source before we can add this extremely marginal technology to the article.GliderMaven (talk) 23:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The argued point is not that seawater is where we currently get a significant part of our Uranium, but that it is a feasible source for it. The entire Debate section of this article is a summary of a larger text which was split into other articles because it was getting too long.
"Main articles: Renewable energy debate, Nuclear power proposed as renewable energy, and Green job"
Given this it does not make sense that nuclear power is otherwise not mentioned at all in this article and the previous consensus was to include the portion of text I restored. I'm not sure that we need a secondary source in these circumstances. Either way, including that text was the last consensus on the subject, so it should probably be included until we reach another consensus here. Andreaseksted (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Without in any way trying to find a contrary source, with google I found this calculation that states that sea water extraction has an EROEI that is too low to be commercially interesting: [4]. While this is not a reliable source, it makes a sensible argument. I require a secondary source that shows that this is incorrect before inclusion in the article, as it does not seem to be a practical energy source.GliderMaven (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
The text you linked to does not calculate EROEI on using such uranium for breeder reactors, which is the use Cohen argued for. Breeder reactors could extract far more energy from the same fuel than the reactors most commonly used today. There are some other reasons why the conclusions drawn in that text don't apply to our discussion (such as that text only considering whether a significant portion of today's nuclear power fuel could be gotten from sea water rather than just if it would be viable on any scale), but that is likely the largest one. Andreaseksted (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
This does not seem to be a technology that has been tested or widely discussed; we need more than a single primary source.GliderMaven (talk) 02:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
The very text you linked to says that such extraction of uranium has been tested and as can be seen in the Breeder reactor article, a large number of such reactors have been built. Andreaseksted (talk) 09:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I mean it hasn't been tested commercially. It seems to be completely uncommercial- uranium is cheap, and this scheme would be expensive.GliderMaven (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
There is little reason to use it commercially as long as there are still inexpensive conventional sources of uranium. It is just an argument for the existence of a renewable source of uranium. Not an argument for it being as inexpensive as the uranium mined today. Andreaseksted (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Since no new consensus has been reached and since I have not found such an absolute requirement for such sources in cases like these, I have once again restored that portion of the article. Even if there is still disagreement on this matter, including that text was the most recent consensus, so it should probably be in the article while we discuss it further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreaseksted (talk • contribs) 12:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
This must be a new definition of WP:CONSENSUS, either that or you are making bad faith edits. In either case, I am reverting your edits. You might consider asking yourself why you are wasting everyone's time with what is clearly entirely unrealistic, non commercial technology.GliderMaven (talk) 15:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm in favor of anything that reduces fossil fuels, but not nuclear on this page. I've followed the links to 2012 to read up on the "previous consensus" and there doesn't seem to have been one, so how about seeking consensus right now. Nuclear is "fueled" and that fuel is certainly not being renewed and this view would also run into arguments at Sustainable energy, I'm sure it would be welcome at Low-carbon power. Dougmcdonell (talk) 16:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The argument is that the uranium in the sea is continuously replenished, which means that nuclear power could meet definitions such as "energy that is collected from resources which are naturally replenished on a human timescale" (which is the one used in the lead of this article). There is certainly many who would disagree with any nuclear power being classified as renewable, but that is also mentioned in the text I want to restore and without it, the article is in the awkward position of still linking to the article on "Nuclear power proposed as renewable energy" without otherwise mentioning nuclear power at all anywhere in the article.
As for the previous consensus, it was pretty clear. The discussion from 2012 you mentioned had every participant except one indicate support for including it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Renewable_energy/Archive_4#Nuclear_power). One might interpret Johnfos' first comment as being against it, but it was he who ended up writing it, which only leaves Delphi234 against while four people were in favor.Andreaseksted (talk) 17:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Consensus so far
YES VOTE- I think this would be very appropriate. Jojalozzo 13:33, 9 April 2012
YES VOTE- I also would support the inclusion ... XavierGreen (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2012
YES VOTE- Done... Johnfos (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2012
NO VOTE - I strongly disagree... Delphi234 (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2012
ABSTAIN VOTE- I am indifferent about their inclusion... JonRichfield (talk) 14:46, 9 May 2012
YES VOTE- I'm now restoring that part... Andreaseksted (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2016
NO VOTE -...not nuclear on this page. Dougmcdonell (talk) 16:13, 20 November 2016
NO VOTE - We require a secondary source...GliderMaven (talk) 23:26, 12 November 2016
While uranium is moving from the land to the sea, it is not being replenished on this planet. Dougmcdonell (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Ah, you are right about JonRichfield. That should be an abstain vote even though he criticised Delphi234's reasons for opposing. That means there were 3 yes and 1 no at that time (4 yes and 3 no now).
It is true that the total amount of uranium on this planet is not being replenished, but the definition used in the lead of this article (and many other definitions as well) does not include such a requirement for such an extraplanetary source. It just says "from resources which are naturally replenished on a human timescale". The uranium in the seawater is naturally replenished on a human timescale.Andreaseksted (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes uranium in seawater is naturally replenished, by depleting the amount of uranium on the land, the net result is zero, or maybe less than zero, it's way cheaper to extract from the surface of the land where the river is getting it. All the other topics in this article are "naturally replenished" by the earth's core, the rotation of the moon and irradiation from the sun. These are all naturally occurring flows of energy. There is no flow of energy towards uranium, it's a finite source of fuel exactly like coal.
The crux of this whole discussion seems to be that Bernard Cohen used the phrase "considered a renewable source", I believe he misspoke, "considered a sustainable source" would have been correct wording for his "inexhaustible" claim. Either way I'm in agreement with GliderMaven, one man's opinion does not make it a relevant fact for this article. I wish you well with this, I'm done. Dougmcdonell (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Please stop wasting everyone's time with this heap of crap.GliderMaven (talk) 20:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
The net result for the other sources of energy you mentioned is zero as well. The earth's core loses energy, the rotational energy of the moon is not infinite and the sun won't last forever. There is no requirement that the source of energy have to be replenished from a source external to the surface of the earth. So while uranium on the earth as a whole is not a renewable resource, uranium in sea water is. Andreaseksted (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposals for harvesting uranium from the ocean are more realistic than those for solar updraft towers, artificial photosynthesis, or space-based solar collection. As such, it would be a perfect fit for the "Emerging technologies" section. Rob (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Nuclear power has it own article and produces radiactive residues, is dangerous (Fukushima, Chernobyl, Kyshtym, Russia, Windscale Fire, Sellafield, UK, Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania, USA and so on) and is more expensive, than renewable electricity. Nuclear energy is non-renewable also because the energy nuclear power produces cannot constantly be replenished. An energy source must have resources that can be replenished to be considered renewable. [5]. Nuclear power already delivers less energy globally than renewable energy [6] and is part of the problem (nuclear nightmare. [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.109.156.105 (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Before adding a comment you could at least read the thread. Your claims are based on a nuclear fuel cycle which is currently in use. The thread is discussing proposed fuel cycles which employs breeder reactors and ocean harvesting, which solves both the issues which currently precludes nuclear from meeting the definition of sustainable energy. Additionally, Greenpeace is not a reliable source of information. Rob (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 24 external links on 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) 23:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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) 17:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.216.126 (talk) 16:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Energy or Effect?

This aricle would have been much more useful with data of annual production instead of, or as a supplement to data on installed effect.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4649:7328:0:c061:16d5:9476:4331 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2018

148.253.164.193 (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Chi kin’s make energy

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 13:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Drinking the kool-aid

I'm not sure about others but when I see an article repeating phrases multiple times like strong, rapid, emerging. I get the feeling that I'm being buttering up to join some ponzi scheme.

Though that's just me. Oh and these pics and that...graph. Truly funny, really, who wrote this? great comedy. Top notch actually. In how they're such an absolute complete and utter fantasy. Record setting pricing emerging [though actually ancient and well established] technology. There were no sources of course. Though perhaps asing questons is not what one is supposed to do?

For what is, the rapidly, strong emerging[we want you to accept fossil fuel interests, as look they're even mentioned with us in the intro] technology?

The Levelised Cost of utility-scale solar PV is in sharp decline around the world, at under 2c/kWh in some regions[citation needed]
Wind, solar, and hydroelectricity[how?] are three emerging renewable sources of energy.

Boundarylayer (talk) 04:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that image has no reference, good point. Apologies if you already know the following about images and references.... if you don't I hope you find this helpful. Per our image use policy, editors are encouraged to create graphics to show data, but such images must pass WP:Verification just like text. Image captions may contain citations but it is not required in captions in articles. Where citations are indeed required is the image description page itself. You can open the image description page by clicking on the thumbnail. In the case of Solar Pricing LCoE.jpg the image description page does not contain a reference. You could (A) write the creating editor in case they can supply a reference, (and B) ask at the WP:Help desk how to flag the image description page for lack of references. After taking reasonable steps to ask for referneces and waiting an approprite amount of time (whatever that might be) there is also a way to propose deleting unsupported images. Help desk can probably help you there also. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

possible GA

Hi I would like to nominate this article for GA, but as I am not a major contributor I thought it would be good to put this proposal here first. To get this article ready for nomination the most important thing is getting the "citation needed" fixed as well as "unreliable source". I found about 4 or 5 tags in the first few paragraphs, and some of the pictures look like they may need references as well. If one of the frequent contributors could fix this that would be excellent. Thanks!!Mgasparin (talk) 02:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I added references where I thought they were needed. If someone could look this over and comment that would be great. Thanks!Mgasparin (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Deleted paragraph, overly bold?

I deleted the following paragraph:

As of 2018, American electric utility companies are planning new or extra renewable energy investments. These investments are particularly aimed at solar energy, thanks to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 being signed into law. The law retained incentives for renewable energy development. Utility companies are taking advantage of the federal solar investment tax credit before it permanently goes down to 10% after 2021. According to the March 28 S&P Global Market Intelligence report summary, "NextEra Energy Inc., Duke Energy Corp., and Dominion Energy Inc.’s utilities are among a number of companies in the sector contemplating significant solar investments in the near-term. Other companies, including Xcel Energy Inc. and Alliant Energy Corp., are undertaking large wind projects in the near-term, but are considering ramping up solar investments in the coming years."[98]

The reasons: a) No idea why the US gets its own paragraph b) No idea why individual companies should be mentioned in a general article on renewable energy c) Unreferenced Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 effects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Femkemilene (talk • contribs) 20:13, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Renewable energy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Femkemilene (talk · contribs) 14:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


Failed "good article" nomination

Upon its review on April 7, 2019, this good article nomination was quick-failed because it:

contains cleanup banners including, but not limited to, {{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}}, etc, or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar inline tags

thus making it ineligible for good article consideration. Comment: While the article is very broad, many sections need updating. This requires a lot of work (please do it, would be lovely if this article is improved!)

This article did not receive a thorough review, and may not meet other parts of the good article criteria. I encourage you to remedy this problem (and any others) and resubmit it for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a Good article reassessment. Thank you for your work so far.— Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

It would be lovely if we can work towards a good article. I think what we need to do will take quite a while:

  1. Update article
  2. Cut out unnecessary details in article (also makes it easier to keep updated)
  3. Undergo a review
  4. Undergo copyedit
  5. Renominate

Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Femke Nijsse Thank you for your review. I will take your advice and begin work soon. Thanks!! Mgasparin (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Mgasparin, one thing to check is MOS:LEAD: among other things, a lead section should hold itself to four paragraphs, and the "well-written" criteria include adherence to the manual of style's lead section guidelines. Another is to be sure that there are adequate numbers of inline source citations for the material. I noticed a number of completely uncited paragraphs, which could be a problem if there is anything controversial or unexpected claimed in them. Best of luck!
Femke Nijsse, for future reference, reviews should never have more than the very top "GA Review" section have a level-2 section header. Everything within the page should be level-3 or below; I've adjusted your header accordingly. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC) And, for that matter, I should probably point out that the GA criteria states: An article can, but by no means must, be failed without further review (known as a quick fail) if, prior to the review:... So, it is not accurate to say the article was ineligible for GA consideration: you had the option to do a more complete review if you wished to, but it was certainly eligible to be quickfailed as you did. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, that helps a lot. The reason that it was level two, is that I didn't correct the standard template. Did I put the template on the wrong page? Should I have put it on the talk page directly instead? Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
No, this is the right page: all review text should be done here. You might have used the "New section" editing choice, which creates a level-2 section and header, rather than hand entering the new level-3 section—it's a matter of three equal signs rather than two around the header. Not a big deal, and very easy to fix (all I did was add an equal sign on each side of the 'Failed "Good Article" nomination' header). BlueMoonset (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

adding images

add this image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Renewable_generators_-_wind_turbine_-_solar_panel_icon.png --Tommaso.sansone91 (talk) 08:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

While it is a nice image, I think the current article already has better figures for display. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2019

There have been new developments by an IEEE Technical Committee that show the impact renewables can have on the control and stability of electrical systems. This work has received the IEEE PES Best Technical Report in 2018. I suggest the following modification to the Debate section, at the end of the first paragraph:

Distributed renewable energy resources have been shown to have the ability to destabilise the bulk transmission system when proper control design is not considered. Their impact on the bulk transmission network and strategies to mitigate the negative effects have been analysed in [1]. Apetros85 (talk) 08:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Contribution to Bulk System Control and Stability by Distributed Energy Resources connected at Distribution Network". IEEE PES Technical Report.
Thanks for your contribution. I'm not inserting it yet, because we're restructuring the article in such a way that net stability will get its own subsection (under Integration into the energy system) instead of being part of debate. I'll probably cite this research as well in that section, next to other important reports and articles on the topic. I'm currently busy with other articles, so if other editors would like to write it, be my guest. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 Not done for now: per Femke. Izno (talk) 01:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Structure of the article

In tidying up the article, I've changed quite a lot of the structure. There are a few things I'd like more input on:

a) Do we want to integrate environmental impact with the description of mainstream techniques? Tentative yes, as we'd otherwise introduce a third section with a subdivision per technique

b) Do we want to include a section/sections with information on efficiency, electrification and grid stability and storage? All three concepts are quite tightly linked to renewables, and the article should give a short introduction explaining that link. I'm not entirely sure how to best do this.

c) Developing countries is out of place, but I think it would also be out of place in a separate section or under policy. Maybe policy can be renamed into something else? Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I suggest a section on the economics of renewable energy is added (but I am not going to write it myself). In particular the economics of variable (e.g. solar) and dispatchable (e.g. dammed hydro). Chidgk1 (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you think economics should be a different section than market and industry trends. Or should market and industry trends be encompassed in the new economics section? Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
My 2 cents is definitely Yes for question A. We should strive to present a neutral point of view on every source of energy. I mentioned some of the serious issues with bioenergy in our Sustainable energy article. (In the longer term, we might want to look into ways to reuse content between the Renewable energy and Sustainable energy articles, but right now I'm just trying to make the latter into something halfway readable.) Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Cool, I'll integrate the last section into the bio-energy section then.
OOh deary me, we have to articles for these very closely related articles. We should either merge explaining the differences in the lede, or very clearly pinpoint at the top of the page.. Femke Nijsse (talk) 06:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
We also have Alternative energy ;) Our sustainable energy article should obviously describe renewables, but it also has to talk about nuclear power, energy conservation, clean cookstoves, and perhaps even carbon capture and storage. So Sustainable energy should ultimately incorporate a summary of the Renewable energy article with about a quarter to a half as much detail. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Renewable energy is a misnomer as far as physics (thermodynamics) is concerned; this should be clarified in the article

As $title says. There is no such thing as renewable energy in physics, since expending energy, according to thermodynamics, is equivalent to expending entropy. Energy is required to be injected into a system in order to reduce its entropy, thus making this system a reliable source of energy again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.123.99.88 (talk) 11:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Renewable energy is the term used for the energy obtained by renewable sources like solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, nuclear, ocean and hydrogen etc. On the other hand we have coal, oil, gas etc which are depleting when used so they give non-renewable energy. Over a very long period of time (many millions of years) there is a progressive increase in entropy and a net loss of energy from the Earth to the rest of the universe but this natural process is not significant on time scales relevant to humans. The relation of energy and entropy is same for both of them and the energy is neither renewable nor sustainable.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Punit Mangal (talk • contribs) 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  1. ^ Stephan Lewandowsky and Steven Smith, Energy is neither renewable nor sustainable (2011), available online at http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/energy_is_neither.html
I think the first sentence is pretty clear, but I've added a link to exergy which talks about the distinction between energy and useful energy. -- Beland (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Bioenergy section

The last paragraph in Bioenergy section is total nonsense. Negative consequences of combustion - first of all of coal and oil is presented as consequences of biomas combustion.Jirka Dl (talk) 17:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Jirka Dl, air pollution as a consequence of biomass combustion is a well-known side effect, especially indoors. Would it help if the sentence more specifically says fossil fuel are also to blame? Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Femkemilene, yes, there are problems from cobustion of biomass too, but for example there is no SOX pollution from bio-fuels. All the references in this paragraph talk about air pollution caused by all combustion, not renewables. I think we can use i.e. following reference to describe situation. Jirka Dl (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
TIL: SOx is indeed quite low (but not zero) from woody biomass (http://www.irbea.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/IrBEA-BiomassEmissionsReportAndAppendices.pdf). As sustainable energy is the article dealing in more detail with pollution, it should be omitted here. Your cited reference is a somewhat old newspaper. I prefer higher quality sources (review papers), but it's an improvement over the current sourcing, so feel free to add/replace. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Renewable energy

Parent55, a reminder that this article is about renewable energy and not about low-carbon energy. Natural gas isn't renewable as it's a fossil fuel. Also, make sure not to add any information to the lead that isn't yet in the body of the article. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your point. My only reason for making my edit was because of the reference to natural gas already in the article and to clarify that a zero carbon non-polluting approach for natural gas is available. My intent is simply to refer the reader to additional information. My objective is to move the world to zero carbon energy as quickly as possible. Given the substantial use of natural gas for many years yet, removing the CO2 from its use is very desirable. Thank you for your comment and advice Rich Parenteau (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Which article could we move this information to? It's too minor for this topic to be mentioned here. Maybe you can improve the text on natural gas instead? Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I will look at the change you suggest and follow up later today. Parent55 (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I implemented your suggestion, removed methane pyrolysis and made natural gas a live link plus one more citation.
Thank you for your thoughtful approach. Parent55 (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


Merge with Sustainable energy

"Renewable energy" and "sustainable energy" are often considered synonyms, as mentioned in the latter article. I do think we only really need one article that goes through the energy sources which are renewable/sustainable, including those like nuclear that are debated. (Nuclear power proposed as renewable energy talks about all the issues of nuclear that concern both renewability and sustainability (if those are different) - continued availability of fuel and whether waste will pile up.) Both articles have strengths which would cover the weaknesses of the other article if combined. Renewable energy has better coverage of adoption and economics, which are essentially progress in reaching sustainability, and a more thorough list of technologies, all of which would benefit the "sustainable energy" article. Sustainable energy has some better connections with climate change and poverty, which would benefit the "renewable energy" article. The strongest area of non-overlap I could find is energy conservation. It is clearly not "renewable energy", but it is unclear to me that it is actually "sustainable energy" either, per se. It is obviously a useful way to make demand for energy match the sustainable supply, so it's worth mentioning in an article about the sustainability of energy production. To the degree that the terms are different at all, perhaps sustainable energy is broader and would make a better merge target, but as they are so often considered synonyms either would probably be fine. I think it's actually rather difficult to make a distinction between the two that results in two different article scopes, where there's a bunch of stuff that's relevant to one and not the other. And trying to force that kind of separation I don't think helps readers find information of interest. -- Beland (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Support merging renewable energy into sustainable energy but Oppose merging sustainable energy into renewable energy. Because it is more important that energy should be sustainable than renewable. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Oppose: I think it's clearer to have separate articles focusing on the two aspects, since these are both very popular terms. In particular, I propose to move all shared info on generation technologies into this article, and focus the discussion in Sustainable energy on sustainability, also considering the wider energy system and society. --Ita140188 (talk) 00:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Comment There's obviously a lot of overlap between the two concepts, but the differences between the articles right now are huge. I don't know if it is worth the effort of trying to get consensus on what a merged article should include. We could certainly try using Template:Excerpt on certain sections to reduce duplication. Perhaps we could try using that template to come up with, say, a section on hydropower that works in both articles. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 08:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
I think the Sustainable energy article should not have a section on Hydropower in the first place. The section on renewable energy should not have subsection and instead link to this article and only discuss RE in general. In my opinion the SE article should focus on everything else, since RE is covered here. I am thinking of: energy conservation, non-renewable sustainable energy sources (if applicable), sustainable energy systems, etc. --Ita140188 (talk) 08:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
That makes sense. What about technologies to manage intermittency? Would they go in Sustainable energy, Renewable energy, or both? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't look as if there will be consensus for a merge so I intend to remove the merge tags. But we can always continue discussion about how to manage the overlap between articles. @Femkemilene and Chidgk1:, what do you think about Ita140188's idea? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I think I should go back to my Turkey articles because nobody else is going to write them - maybe with the change in US politics it might be possible to attract new USA editors for these energy articles as US energy will presumably change a lot over the Biden term now they control the Senate. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Sustainable energy and renewable energy are not exactly the same. Renewable energy is the energy produced by renewable resources which can be naturally replenished on a human timescale. However, it is possible for some of the renewable resources to become non-renewable resources if we overexploited them. On the other hand, sustainable energy is not only about the energy source, but also the methods we use in order to make the energy sustainable. So the central points of both articles are not the same, one focuses on the materials, the other focuses on the methods used on these materials. 120.16.152.86 (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Weak oppose I agree with the IP editor above. The difference is just a bit too big between the articles. The reason I'm only weakly opposed is capacity; we don't quite have the capacity to have so many articles up-to-date as major ideas and data around energy change very rapidly. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Comment: reduce overlap/repetition I could live with a merger but if it's decided not to merge then at the very least, let's minimise overlap. I feel that both articles tend to repeat too much information about what is in sub-articles. I said the same on the talk page of sustainable energy yesterday. For example, both articles will have something to say about solar power and wind power. But we have sub-articles for both of those. So why not just keep the information about wind power, solar power etc. really brief and/or the use excerpt functions from the lead more. That way, we would only have to update the information in the solar power sub-article but not also at "renewable energy" and ALSO at "sustainable energy". (it would mean we have to ensure that the first paragraph of the leads are always really good and up to date; I tend to use only the first paragraph of the lead when I use the excerpt function). EMsmile (talk) 02:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Geothermal is not a renewable energy source

Geothermal is not a renewable energy source despite what some 'authority' says, this view is dated and has been clung to since a lot of it already exists. It is not from the sun, it is from deep in the Earth from when the planet was formed and from deep circulating radioactive elements and friction. While clean and carbon free, it is actually adding energy into an already heating planet. It is as bad as nuclear in that respect, although not having radioactive pollution and waste. Please remove it from an article on renewables, it's misinformation. Who would throw fuel on a fire they want to extinguish? 84.92.36.180 (talk) 10:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Geothermal energy replenishes itself within human lifespan which is the current definition of renewable. The fact that it is coming from earth and not from sun is irrelevalnt - the sun will also stop burning in some future

This whole page needs drastic updating. It talks of renewables 'will be' in 2020, we are now in 2021. But the main concern I have is the inclusion of geothermal which is not renewable, as it is not part of the solar derived energies that are truly renewable. Geomthermal adds energy to an already heating planet. Most energy is from the sun and global warming is caused by excessive greenhouse gases trapping heat that should have been reflected into space. Geothermal, as well as nuclear, adds energy to this mix that was never part of it, either by growing plants making fossil fuels or bio mass removing carbon and energy which is then returned. The energy from geothermal may well be limitless as far as human survival is concerned, and it may be clean and zero carbon, BUT it is additional to an already heating planet, aqnd is thus exacerbating the problem we face. It is part of the problem not the solution, and the sheer volume already being exploited across the planet is already part of the equATION OF AN ACCELERATING HEATING WORLD. 84.92.36.180 (talk) 10:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I agree the page needs updating. If you have access to WP:reliable sources, please help and WP:be bold.
WP:reliable sources group geothermal with other renewable energy sources, and it's not up to us to 'correct' that. The amount of heat released from geothermal is negligible compared to the extra heat trapped by greenhouse gases. FemkeMilene (talk) 13:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Strange section heading: debate

I think we need to do something about the section heading called "debate" as this might otherwise become a place where all sorts of content is dumped. Also the section below called "Geopolitics of renewable energy" is a bit strange. Maybe they could be grouped together under a heading called "Challenges", or something like that? EMsmile (talk) 02:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Add content about global targets and SDG 7

Share of final energy consumption from renewable sources (2015).[1]

I am planning to add some content about global targets for renewable energy but am not yet sure if that fits under an existing section heading or needs a new one. I am thinking of SDG 7. E.g. "Target 7.2 By 2030, increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix". The matching image is the one on the right from SDG Tracker. EMsmile (talk) 03:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Move the section on "emerging technologies" up a bit? Or rename.

I would like to move the section on "emerging technologies" up a bit so that it's closer to "mainstream technologies". Perhaps even be directly below each other? I find it a little strange to see the two sections so far apart. The alternative could be to call the first section just "technologies" (who defines anyway what is mainstream) and then call the second section "Research and development". Then it would make sense to have them this far apart. EMsmile (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I think putting them together makes sense either way. If you rename to technologies, people will add emerging technologies under that heading. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
OK, I have moved it up now. I have also tried to group some things that belong together, i.e. anything to do with solar energy developments is now together in a Level-2 heading. EMsmile (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

"Alternative energy" vs. renewable energy

The alternative energy article was redirected to renewable energy, but I'm not sure if it's correct to define "alternative energy" as a synonym of "renewable energy." It can also refer to alternatives to fossil fuels that are not renewable, such as nuclear energy. Jarble (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2021

Please remove 

The newest addition to Heating is from Geothermal Heat Pumps which provide

and add 

The newest addition to heating is from geothermal heat pumps which provide

There's no apparent reason to capitalize these words. 64.203.186.82 (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done — LauritzT (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Don't list "nuclear" in a side chart of renewable energy power use.

There's only a certain amount of highest quality uranium ore in the ground and uranium is not a renewable element. One could argue that lower quality veins of uranium, coal and oil still exist but that doesn't make any of them renewable. Paul Klinkman (talk) 01:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

You mean the pie chart I guess - you could edit that yourself by clicking "edit source". But rather than a pie chart I suggest a better option would be for you to download a chart including time from "Our world in data" then upload it to Wikimedia Commons then insert in this article. If you don't know how to do that please ask. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Move section on "solar energy developments" to solar power article?

I think there is too much detail on "solar energy developments" in this article. Shouldn't the bulk of it be moved to the respective sub-article, i.e. solar power? EMsmile (talk) 12:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes Chidgk1 (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I've moved that entire section to solar energy now (I wasn't sure but felt it fitted better in the solar energy article than in the solar power article). I didn't leave a summary behind because we have a section higher up called "solar energy" from where the new developments could be accessed. EMsmile (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Better image for the lead

How about we set up a 2x2 image collage for the lead, similarly to how it was done at sustainable energy? It could show 4 different renewable energy types, perhaps from 4 different continents and a mixture of low tech and high tech, if possible. EMsmile (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Text block about Chinese forced labor practices in solar and wind

This text block was recently added to the caption of the graph on prices of renewable energies. I think it makes the caption way too long. If it's important/valid then it should be included in the correct place in the main text. I am wondering though if this is WP:OR or WP:NPV? "Our World in Data notes that these costs are an effort to represent the global average. Which is driven by chinese forced labor practices in solar and wind, [2][3][4][5] [6] that manufactured, installed and exported the most globally,[7][8] bankrupting US and German solar industries, multiple times, over the time indicated.[9][10] In which, the manufacturing of panels were suggested to be 30% of solar costs in the largest production facility in the west, before labor costs were included, which they argue China do not pay, upon declaring its bankruptcy.[11] While the 2 projects that drove average nuclear pricing upwards were 2 first of their kind AP1000s in the US/west. The organization recognises that the median cost of nuclear, the most exported and produced nuclear energy facility in the 2010s the 7 South Korean APR1400, remained "constant", including in export.[12] No data on the 18 Chinese domestic nuclear, CPR1000 were included.

LCOE is a measure of the average net present cost of electricity generation for a generating plant over its lifetime. As a metric, it remains controversial as the lifespan of units are not independent but manufacturer projections, not a demonstrated longevity. EMsmile (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Pinging USer:Clayoquot and User:Chidgk1 EMsmile (talk) 10:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
The text is poorly sourced (including a blog), partially off topic (nuclear), and sources don't quite support the text. Agree with removal. Femke (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
FYI, Boundarylayer (talk · contribs) pasted this same thing to multiple other pages. If talk threads fire up elsewhere I'll try to redirect editors here per WP:TPG favoring centralized discussions. As for content, this presentation was terrible, but I'm at least persuaded that we might need to say something about "forced labor" in power-generation industries. Though if they do that for solar, I wonder if they do it for any fossil fuel purposes?NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Ritchie, Roser, Mispy, Ortiz-Ospina (2018) "Measuring progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals." (SDG 7) SDG-Tracker.org, website
  2. ^ https://www.americanmanufacturing.org/blog/report-finds-forced-labor-throughout-china-solar-panel-supply-chain/ Report Finds Forced Labor Throughout China Solar Panel Supply Chain Matthew McMullan. MAY 19 2021 "researchers in the United Kingdom 'released a report examining Chinese government-run labor programs that service the industries in the solar panel supply chain that runs through the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region"
  3. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/24/business/economy/china-forced-labor-solar.html
  4. ^ https://www.eenews.net/articles/solar-industry-were-in-most-serious-crisis-in-history/ "Faced with the prospect of tariffs on Chinese-made solar panels in 2017, SEIA warned that the market would react badly to new duties, predicting that the price of new panels would reverse years of declines and jump back up to 2012 levels."
  5. ^ https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2021/08/u-s-solar-china-polysilicon-battle/ The U.S. solar industry has a Chinese problem Solar Power World August 9, 2021. "Desari Strader, then-head of government affairs for SolarWorld Americas.[Operator of the largest polysilicon production facility in the western world] “They were beating us on the cost of production,” Strader said of Chinese suppliers at the time. “We had just finished ramping up [to mono-PERC]. Of course the Chinese could come and dump [cheap panels] in the U.S. It was super easy. Then everyone is screaming that you can’t compete with [Chinese module prices.] Yeah, you’re right. We can’t compete with slave labor.”
  6. ^ https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/3115771/us-moves-renewable-energy-wind-turbines-xinjiang-may-get-caught As US moves to renewable energy, wind turbines from Xinjiang may get caught in political tempest South China Morning Post "As more information emerges about the suspected use of forced labour in the region, the US government has begun restricting trade from the area."
  7. ^ https://www.irena.org/publications/2020/Jun/Renewable-Power-Costs-in-2019 IRENA.Renewable Power Costs in 2019
  8. ^ https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2021/Jun/IRENA-and-China-Sign-Landmark-Cooperation-to-Address-Climate-Change "IRENA and China agreed to strengthen co-operation on the promotion of climate finance and investment as well as the promotion of innovation, policies and technology in the area of renewable energy and climate change and facilitate enhanced international collaboration."
  9. ^ https://m.dw.com/en/germanys-solarworld-files-for-bankruptcy-again/a-43166235 Germany's Solarworld files for bankruptcy again 28.03.2018 "Competition from China, the world's largest producer of solar panels, has been a major headache for Solarworld. The Bonn-based company noted that EU plans to let protective tariffs against Chinese imports lapse made its position untenable"
  10. ^ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-solarworld-bankruptcy-idUSKBN1862MN German Sun King's SolarWorld to file for insolvency ..."overwhelmed by Chinese rivals who had long been a thorn in the side..." "Germany used to be the world’s biggest market for solar panels, with demand driven by generous government support that provided business for panel makers around the world, including Asia and the United States." Reuters May 10 2017
  11. ^ ref>https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2021/08/u-s-solar-china-polysilicon-battle/ The U.S. solar industry has a Chinese problem Solar Power World August 9, 2021. "Desari Strader, then-head of government affairs for SolarWorld Americas."If 30% of the cost of a panel is your polysilicon, and you’re not paying wages, [of course] they were beating us on the cost of production,” Strader said"
  12. ^ https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth

I've given the "overview" section a sub-structure

I've just given the "overview" section a sub-structure so that people can find more easily what they are looking for from the TOC. We could alternatively maybe eliminate the "overview" section heading and move those new sub-headings up a level (definition, drivers and benefits, scale, uses). Those sub-headings are still a bit short but could grow over time. I have a problem with the section called "scale" as it seems out of date (starts with a sentence about data from 2011). More up to date info about scale is available later in the article as well in a relevant sub-article that I've now linked to. This could probably be optimised. EMsmile (talk) 11:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The sustainable energy nav box takes up too much space

Part of a series on
Sustainable energy
A car drives past 4 wind turbines in a field, with more on the horizon
Energy conservation
Renewable energy
Sustainable transport

What could we do to reduce the amount of space the sustainable energy nav box takes up (see on the right handside)? Can it be collapsed? Or move it towards the end? Do we really need it? EMsmile (talk) 11:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

It's easy to collapse categories like "Energy conservation", then let pages specify one category to open if they are specifically in it. See the Scientific method nav box for instance. Efbrazil (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
I've tried but couldn't get it to work. Could you (or someone else) please try? I think the template for this nav box is different to the one at Scientific method. I thought it might work like this: {{sustainable energy|expanded=none}} but it didn't. As an aside: I am not a big fan of these prominent big nav boxes that appear on the top right. Why couldn't we just continue with the nav boxes that we have at the bottom of the article. Why have both? EMsmile (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Why I reordered the mainstream technologies to start solar then wind then hydro

Yes it was me who put hydro at the top some while ago because it generates the most electricity - but I have had second thoughts.

I just put solar top because it is the fastest growing and predicted to eventually be the biggest.

I put wind second because it is growing faster than hydro.

Another reason for having hydro, biomass and geothermal grouped together below solar and wind is that solar and wind are variable and the rest are mainly dispatchable so it seems to make sense to group them together as they are/will be used to balance solar and wind.

Feel free to disagree/discuss/revert.

Chidgk1 (talk) 12:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

New content about wind power

I've just removed this newly added paragraph because it goes into too much detail and should rather be in the sub-article on wind power, shouldn't it? Also I get suspicious if a long text block is added with only one reference at the end (by a new user). I think this will require further checking: "Wind power resources present a number of challenges in the transmission network's operation, including many lines that lack sufficient capacity for transmitting the energy. Transmission congestion happens whenever variations in demand/production cause a transfer of power that reaches or exceeds the transmission network’s physical capacity. Additionally, the transmission infrastructure of the system is rapidly deteriorating. Consequently, the amount of congestion in the grid enhances markedly, which is a major factor in the increase in power production costs and the restriction of the use of renewable energy. It is difficult and costly to construct new transmission lines to reduce congestion, so utilities are seeking a more cost-efficient technology to make use of the current infrastructure. The flexible high voltage DC system and enhanced conductor system are developing transmission technologies, which are increasing the capacity of the transmission network. Nevertheless, a number of technologies, such as large-scale energy storage, require significant investment. Accordingly, novel transmission technologies, designed to utilize the potential of the current transmission infrastructure, would be more appealing and are becoming, increasingly, used in practice. As a result, transmission service providers are searching for alternatives that could be used effectively for their networks. This paper uses DTR and network topology optimization (NTO) as well as, for improving the network’s reliability, increasing wind power’s penetration rate and reducing congestion of transmission lines.[1]" EMsmile (talk) 09:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

It's an open access paper so I guess it's legal to copy sentences from the paper but needs reworking to make it encyclopedic and easy to understand. Either way, it would have to be moved to wind power, not here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EMsmile (talk • contribs)
The journal Sustainability is typically regarded as poor quality, or even predatory (it used to be on the Beall's list, and was given the label non-scientific by the Norwegian national publication committee). The MDPI journals are all a bit iffy, but this one probably crosses the line into 'unreliable' territory. Highly recommend installing User:Headbomb/unreliable.js to light up sources that have been found iffy or unreliable on Wikipedia. Femke (talk) 16:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
thanks for that. I've installed that tool now (User:Headbomb/unreliable.js). I'll message you separately about the results when applying the tool to sustainability.EMsmile (talk) 12:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
I also use it. It's a great tool that should be standard on wiki! {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 15:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Hou, W. et al Management Optimization of Electricity System with Sustainability Enhancement. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6650. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116650

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SU22 - Sect 202 - Tue

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 July 2022 and 16 August 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Izzywu21 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Izzywu21 (talk) 22:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Question about bioenergy section

The section on bioenergy currently says at the top: Main articles: Biomass, Biogas, and Biofuel. This makes me think: perhaps we need a sub-article on "bioenergy"? At the moment bioenergy redirects to biomass. I am not sure if this is ideal. Perhaps we need a disambiguation page or a short article about bioenergy? EMsmile (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 201 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MichaelNhy (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by MichaelNhy (talk) 02:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Human timescale

I'm left guessing what a "human timescale" might mean, as the lead links this term to the Orders of magnitude (time) article, but there is no mention there of a "human timescale". Human timescale redirects to the Time scale disambiguation page but this does not explain "human timesale". Clearly, given a long enough timescale, it is possible that fossil fuel supplies could all have been replaced with new deposits, and this would probably fall outside the scope of a "human timescale", but what does it actually refer to? BobKilcoyne (talk) 10:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I guess it is shorter than a Geologic time scale, but "less than a geologic timescale" is clumsy. I cannot think of a better way to word the first sentence - can you? Chidgk1 (talk) 12:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Can the second paragraph be improved?

I feel it should be about more than just electricity and have fewer numbers - maybe some info from https://www.ren21.net/gsr-2022/pages/keymessages/keymessages/ but I am not quite sure what Chidgk1 (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

History Section

The History section only covers history until the year 1980. This could be updated with more recent history and information. --Mayaworthing (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Good idea - you could add another paragraph Chidgk1 (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Definition of Renewable Energy

PLEASE I plead with you Wikipedia editors to do a thorough clean-up of this page, because it is totally confused in its entire contents between what is sustainable energy and what is renewable energy - the two are entirely different - here is an excellent definition "Renewable energy comes from sources that the earth can naturally replenish, such as crops and biomatter. Sustainable energy comes from sources that don't need to be replenished because they can never be depleted, such as sunlight and wind energy." from https://www.shipleyenergy.com/resources/green-sustainable-clean-and-renewable-energy-what-does-it-all-mean/ If you read the Wiki page you can see it is littered with sustainable examples, descriptions and images that belong on the sustainable energy page. PLEASE edit this page, because it is extremely confusing for average readers seeking info on renewable. This issue is also with the sustainable energy page and I have left a message on its talk page too. Thank you. 92.40.213.220 (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I don’t agree with your statement that renewable and sustainable energy are “entirely different” and you would need a far better source to convince me. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Please continue the discussion here (if needed) so that we don't have the same discussion in two different places: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sustainable_energy#Clarify:_sustainable_vs_renewable_energy EMsmile (talk) 10:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Content at energy transition that could be moved to here

Hi page watchers, please take a look at the current discussion at energy transition. I am proposing to move some content from there to here. It's the content that was added to there in a merger from a year ago where renewable energy transition was merged into energy transition. I think that merger was possibly not quite ideal and some of the content from renewable energy transition would perhaps have fitted better here than at energy transition.

Also the question is what to do about the content that is provided for the country examples. Move to here or move to specific country articles, like Renewable energy in Australia for the paragraph about Australia. EMsmile (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I've now brought a section about mining and minerals across from energy transition (see here). With respect to the country examples, I have decided not to bring them to here but have mostly moved them to the "climate change in country X" articles. EMsmile (talk) 08:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Should the sentence about efficiency be moved out of the lead?

I think the sentence

"In addition, electrification with renewable energy is more efficient and therefore leads to significant reductions in primary energy requirements."[1]

is too confusing to be in the lead because the second paragraph of Primary energy says the accounting is being debated.

So I suggest the sentence is deleted or moved to the body of the article and explained in full Chidgk1 (talk) 13:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I moved it out of the lead to the body of the article in the hope someone will clarify it Chidgk1 (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Volker Quaschning, Regenerative Energiesysteme. Technologie – Berechnung – Simulation. 8th. Edition. Hanser (Munich) 2013, p. 49.

How about having 4 pics in the lead?

I mean a format like in Sustainable energy but different pics.

For example one of the pics could be hydropower and one biomass.

Graphs are very good (especially those made by @RCraig09:), and indeed I have put many in other articles, but I feel they belong in the body of the article where readers are thinking more deeply. The lead needs the more instant understanding of pictures I think Chidgk1 (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%. The 2 x 2 image collages work really well for this type of article. Please go ahead and set one up. :-) EMsmile (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Concentrated solar power parabolic troughs in the distance arranged in rectangles shining on a flat plain with snowy mountains in the background
Wind turbines beside a red dirt road
The Three Gorges Dam on the Yangtze River in China
Biomass plant in Scotland.
Examples of renewable energy options. Clockwise from top left: concentrated solar power with molten salt heat storage in Spain; wind energy in South Africa; Biomass plant in Scotland; The Three Gorges Dam on the Yangtze River in China
Coming back to this suggestion from March. If we have a 2 x 2 image collage, which 4 images should it feature? I suggest:

The aim would also be to have a mixture of large scale and small scale, and a mixture of Global North and Global South countries. Right? Anything else to consider? To get the discussion rolling, I have made a suggested collage, see on the right. EMsmile (talk) 10:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it should because the best place for this stuff is in the articles for each individual technology Chidgk1 (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't delete it but move it, right? Unless the texts are completely useless? I think if they are good summary type statements then they could be moved up to the section called "mainstream technologies" in the respective sub-sections. If it's regarded as too detailed then the text blocks could be moved to the sub-articles on the individual technologies. EMsmile (talk) 10:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
OK, I've made this change now, i.e. moved content to the respective sections within the "mainstream technologies" section. I have also dissolved the gallery section and moved those images up. EMsmile (talk) 11:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Too many sidebars?

Regarding this recent edit, I find that the article now has too many sidebars and that they take up "prime property" space at the very start of the article: We have a side bar on sustainable energy, one on renewable energy and one on climate change mitigation. I think that is too much and cloggs up valuable article space. I would recommend to cut it down to one (the renewable energy sidebar) and/or to move the sidebar(s) more towards the end of the article. EMsmile (talk) 08:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree in principle. However, I'd retain the "Sustainable energy" sidebar because it contains "Renewable energy" as a part of it. I'd eliminate the other two, because these sidebars relate to entire topics/articles and not just particular sections. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Agreed and done. :-) EMsmile (talk) 07:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Intro image (graph)

I am afraid that the introductory image is not very appropriate for the article - the graph is only about electricity, and the problem is that it is about "power capacity." This means for renewables, the peak capacity is very different from the peak capacity of fossil production. Jirka Dl (talk) 10:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Capacity (uploaded 13 February)
Production (uploaded 2 October 2023)
The graphic shows how the capacity of renewable energy is growing, and for fossil fuels is waning. I don't understand the meaning or relevance of your sentence re "peak capacity". —RCraig09 (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi @RCraig09, I am afraid that there is a huge difference in "power capacity" versus "power production" - or "electricity production" - compare this graph with "electricity production" graph here or "energy production" graph here (use "Relative" box to see the share. Our graph looks too much optimistic. Especially for FV - in my country (Czech Republic) the average real kW production of FV panel is about 10 % of its power capacity. The graph is correct (but in description it should be mentioned that the graph is about electricity, not primary power), but I do not think that it should be as first on the page. Do not take my comments wrong, I am in favor of renewables very much :-) Jirka Dl (talk) 18:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, User:Jirka Dl. I have added a sentence of explanation to the chart's caption. But I will also look for a better chart. I have created several renewable energy charts, shown in the "Alternative/renewable/green energy/transition" section of my Wikimedia Commons user page, which you are welcome to view. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
User:Jirka Dl, I've created a new chart, File:1990- Renewable energy production, by source.svg, that shows production. I think this chart takes care of your concerns.
Separately, I'm puzzled by the chart in the section "Renewables break new records but growth slows" in this Ember page. It shows capacity (GW) as much less than generation (TW). That representation seems backward. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Watch out: Gigawatts->giga+"watts" measure power (in this case "theoretical installed "capacity" of the plants). While Terawatt-hour->tera+"watt-hour" is a measure of energy (how much energy the plants actually produce basically). {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 10:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
@RCraig09 The "production" graph is quite clear (didn't check if units are accurate) and shows the exponential growth of renewables (although it doesn't show how they compare to non renewables). However there is another imprecision: energy and electric energy are not the same thing. Energy = electric energy (electricity) + other forms of energy for transport etc. The source of the data refers to electricity while the graph talks about energy. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 11:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto:
— I'm not following exactly which change(s) you think should be made (I assume it's the "...production" graphic shown here). Is it "Renewable energy production" ---> "Electricity production" ?
— Pinging User:Jirka Dl for comments. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes ”Renewable electricity production” would make sense. Consider that graph does not include all renewable energy: something like Solar water heating is a kind of renewable energy which is not “electricity”. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 08:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Version 2, with revised title, has been uploaded. Thanks for your input. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. I don’t see it yet in the article though. It still says “energy” {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 19:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
You'll have to Wikipedia:Bypass your cache when you refresh the screen. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! I've aligned the caption. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 23:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Possible additional charts

Should we also include the "Capacity" graph in the article somewhere? And should we consider showing all other electricity sources in the Production graph? We might consider a graph showing "all renewables" together vs. other sources (oil, coal, gas, nuclear etc. separated) to show the relative share? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 11:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: You might want to look at the ~29 renewable energy charts I've uploaded, shown on my Wikimedia Commons page (expand the collapsible text). There are already some "capacity" charts in this article; maybe more charts are appropriate. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA23 - Sect 201 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yl10506 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Yl10506 (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, is it okay for me to edit the conversion error under drivers and benefit section?

It's supposed to be 35.6 degrees Fahrenheit Cherrycoke5 (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I cannot see that error - maybe you or someone else already fixed it. In general the answer is yes - see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle Chidgk1 (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Renewable_energy/Archive_6&oldid=1257964493"