Talk:Sustainable energy

Clarify: sustainable vs 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 renewable examples, descriptions and images that belong on the renewable energy page. PLEASE edit this page, because it is extremely confusing for average readers seeking info on sustainable. Thank you. —Posted by 92.40.213.220 on 20 October 2022

It's Shipley Energy that has its definitions wrong. They should be changing their confusing website, not us. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, I'd say that sustainable energy is the broader concept compared to renewable energy but it makes sense that some content about renewable energy is included in the sustainable energy article (hopefully in a way so that it's easy to maintain, e.g. details on renewable energy should not be provided in both articles but only at renewable energy). EMsmile (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

The articles could be merged because the terms are used interchangeably in common language to mean "environmentally good energy sources". Somebody searching on one term or the other wants to learn about both categories as a rule. A terminology disambiguation section at the beginning would be sufficient to draw distinctions like making it clear that nuclear is not renewable. We went through a similar process for global warming and climate change, which is now one article and in a good space at this point. You end up with one high quality article instead of 2 lower quality articles that are covering mostly the same space but in different ways and that each require separate maintenance. Efbrazil (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

At first glance, I agree with the concept of a merged article, probably Sustainable and renewable energy, but I am intimidated by the size of the task!

1. "Simply put, renewable energy is energy that is created and replenished naturally. Sustainable energy, on the other hand, is energy that reliably meets both the short- and long-term needs of a society. / A renewable energy source can be considered sustainable energy if it brings the following benefits: ..." adecesg.com
2. (Renewable energy is) "Produced from existing resources that naturally sustain or replenish themselves over time... Renewable energy is defined by the time it takes to replenish the primary energy resource, compared to the rate at which energy is used. ... (Renewable includes) biomass, geothermal, hydropower, solar, wind." (EIA lists same five as renewable) ——— Sustainable energy "is derived from resources that can maintain current operations without jeopardizing the energy needs or climate of future generations. ... wind, solar and hydropower, are also renewable." Johns Hopkins Univ.
3. (Simplified definition for students:) Renewable energy is "energy produced by a source that is constantly replenished by nature on a human timescale. ... Sustainable energy is energy whose entire production process has a limited environmental and social impact." Planète Energies video

So the definitions do differ a bit, and I'm still puzzling over whether one includes the other, or if they overlap. (I couldn't readily find an IPCC passage that concisely distinguishes the two.) —RCraig09 (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the articles we have do a pretty good job of summarizing the difference and embrace the definitions you found. Renewables are all sustainable except for cases of over exploitation of resources. Sustainable is a larger energy set that generally includes nuclear. It's a venn diagram that overlaps when talking solar / wind / hydro / geothermal / biomass.

Charcoal cook stoves are an interesting edge case that shows neither defintion is what people really want though. Cook stoves are a major source of indoor air pollution that kills people, yet they are technically both sustainable and renewable. Despite that, international energy committees put them in the naughty list of "bad" energy to be eliminated. It's like how ocean acidification is included in the IPCC mandate even though it's not technically part of climate change.

Re Cook stoves are a major source of indoor air pollution that kills people, yet they are technically both sustainable and renewable. Despite that, international energy committees put them in the naughty list of "bad" energy to be eliminated. Whether most cook stoves are sustainable is highly debatable. The committees that consider them to be bad don't consider them sustainable. FWIW charcoal/biomass stoves that the committees would approve of do exist, but they are rare and expensive.

International groups and the public searching on these terms are concerned with "what are the best long term energy sources for the environment and people and what are their prospects?". That's what we should focus a single article on. But, like you said, it's a lot of work to merge. Maybe if everyone is like "hurrah, do it!" then we could try to take it on, but I expect more friction than that. Efbrazil (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

It's a tantalising idea to merge sustainable energy into renewable energy because this would solve our problem with the renewable energy article being of low quality (only C class) despite it having higher pageviews than sustainable energy. Interesting graph on pageviews for both articles here. The sustainable energy article is FA class but the renewable energy article is only C class.

It would also reduce the amount of maintenance we'd have to do for the renewable energy content (presumably that content is currently better in the sustainable energy article than in the RE article). However, I assume that those editors who brought the SE article up to FA standard would not be enthused by the idea to rip it apart and merge it. The sustainable energy article is FA class but the renewable energy article is only C class.

My suggestion would be to condense much of the content that is about RE at SE, and to rather focus the SE article more towards its theoretical foundation which is the concept of sustainability (an article which I have worked on a lot by the way, please take a look). Here, I would say we should explain how the SE concept tries to address the 3 dimensions of sustainability, so not just the environmental aspects (like RE) but also the economic and the social dimensions. I see the SE article in line with other "sustainable XX" articles, such as sustainable tourism, sustainable agriculture, sustainable architecture... It's a slightly theoretical construct but a good societal goal to work towards.

Note that "clean energy" also redirects to SE at present (one could equally say that clean energy ought to redirect to RE). EMsmile (talk) 08:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

That's interesting grounding, thanks! Just naively looking at the sustainable energy article, it seems to do a good job at also presenting renewable energy, defining it right at the beginning and breaking down topics into renewables and not. I'm thinking that it wouldn't require much editing work at all as we'd mostly just have the topic of "renewable energy" point to the existing sustainable energy article. We'd look over the renewable energy article to see if there's anything useful to add to sustainable energy, tweak the intro of the sustainable energy article to define both terms up front, and then do the redirect. Thoughts? Efbrazil (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I haven't read the RE article for some time so I'll take your word for it that it needs work. Re My suggestion would be to condense much of the content that is about RE at SE, this would have the effect of giving more weight to non-renewable energy sources, i.e. nuclear and fossil fuels. I don't think reducing the weight of renewable energy in the SE article would be appropriate.

Re: to rather focus the SE article more towards its theoretical foundation which is the concept of sustainability: I don't see how this would serve the general reader better than the current practical focus.

On a gut level I like the idea of redirecting Renewable energy to Sustainable energy. Sustainable energy tries to cover all the big questions that the general reader has around renewable energy: What is it? How is it better for the environment, and why is it sometimes worse? Can it actually meet our needs? Will it break the economy? How do we need to change systems in order to make more use of it?

Re tweak the intro of the sustainable energy article to define both terms up front, it's unusual for a lead section to define two different terms but in this case it might be worth trying as it's a common question. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that combining the two articles in this way and calling the combined article "sustainable energy" would be wise. Reasons: "renewable energy" is by far the more common term than "sustainable energy" (see also WP:Commonname). (and "clean energy" is probably more common than "sustainable energy" too). Someone searching for renewable energy info would get to this page and would wonder "why are they telling me about nuclear energy and gas as stepping stone technology?".

I still think that "sustainable energy" should be seen as the higher level overarching article, and RE as the sub-article (in that hierarchy). And I don't think we have to allocate the space in the overview article according to its importance (like 80% of the space in the SE article would be for RE, 20% for non-RE content). For a high level overview article the relative importance can also be brought out by the words used in the lead and in the "components" (or whatever name) section. Compare with other high level articles how they do it, e.g. at ocean: You could argue the topic XX is more important than topic YY for oceans and therefore topic XX should take up twice as much space as topic YY. But this is not how it works. It's also the meaning of the words that counts, not just the length of sections (I am aware of WP:DUE but I don't think this needs to apply just based on length of sections, that one is more when it's about opinions, minority and majority views etc.).

Just to reiterate, in practical terms one of the main differences between SE and RE is that SE includes nuclear energy, right? And I also think another difference is that SE may focus more on social sustainability aspects than RE does (just based on the term sustainability but I don't have publications at my fingertips that I could cite). EMsmile (talk) 09:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I know some editors have an aversion to titles that have the word "and", but I count ~15 articles in Template:Climate change that have the word "and" in them. I'm still thinking of a merge to Sustainable and renewable energy or Renewable and sustainable energy, as it avoids the question of which is more important and lays open the similarities and differences in a single article. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Sustainable energy excludes a lot of renewable energy projects too (polluting hydro, hydro that forces people out of their house, biomass that destroys biodiversity). So neither is a subset of the other, which makes this a difficult discussion. I think it sort of works as is.. RE is indeed the commonname if we were to merge, but SE is the wider term. SE info will likely be lost if we chose to put that in. I'm not in favour of an overly long name either. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

What I think people want in visiting these articles is an overview of "good" energy types. If the articles are merged (favoring the existing sustainable energy article), then we can clarify when talking about energy sources that they may be renewable but are not sustainable if certain standards aren't met, or may be sustainable even if not renewable. What's the value in forcing people to read 2 mostly overlapping articles to get that information?

As for naming, I'd be fine with just "Sustainable energy", then having a clarifying statement at the top of the page about renewable energy, same as we do for global warming on the climate change page. Efbrazil (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I am highly in favor of merging the two for all reasons stated above. An objection raised above is that nuclear would not be included in renewable energy. This is not a clear cut difference and in fact there is a stand-alone Wiki page about this debate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_proposed_as_renewable_energy

If the names are a sticking point, a frequent term used in the industry is simply "Clean Energy", this could encompass both and the page could be structured more clearly with different energy types (and benefits and drawbacks of each) outlined Hrgo417 (talk) 03:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that our readers want to learn about "good" energy, and not have to choose based on academic distinctions—especially when the definitions are a bit hazy even among professionals. I'd prefer a compound title like "RE and CE", as it is a concise title, and prominently alerts readers that there is a distinction. However, if a single term is used: from this Google trends graphic, I see that RE is more commonly used. —RCraig09 (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the naming is tricky. You raise a good point on frequency of use- it looks like over the last year 89% of the time people search on renewable energy vs 11% for sustainable energy.

A few compound article examples I could find include "Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems", "Oral and maxillofacial surgery", "Hyponymy and hypernymy", and "AC power plugs and sockets". So there is limited precedent. I think we'd have trouble naming this only "Renewable energy" as that's a much more tightly defined term than sustainable energy. Nuclear is not renewable but we want to address its sustainability in this article. Efbrazil (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I still think a better way forward would be this:

1. Keep the two articles separate.
2. Improve and update the RE article. We could probably use the excerpt tool to transcribe some content from the SE article to the RE article (e.g. about solar power, bioenergy etc.) and thus reduce maintenance effort for us editors.
3. Have a clear section about terminology in both articles, or in just one and then transcribe that same content about terminology to the other one. EMsmile (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I am against a name that would be "RE and SE" for a merged article (if there was a merger). Perhaps a better name for a merger could be clean energy (to reflect that people are looking for content on "good energy"?). But not "RE and SE". To give some comparisons, someone could argue we should merge ecological sanitation and sustainable sanitation to become ecological sanitation and sustainable sanitation, or merge ecotourism with sustainable tourism to become ecotourism and sustainable tourism or green infrastructure with sustainable architecture to become green infrastructure and sustainable architecture. In each case the two articles are related and overlap but merging them would make it into a mammoth article and blur the hierarchies and concepts. It would work for a book title but not in the logic of Wikipedia articles, I think. EMsmile (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Excerpting or transclusion would avoid duplicating and forking all the content, but you'd be complicating the editing / monitoring process and you'd also have 2 articles saying virtually the same thing. Maybe it's better than just duplicating all the content, I'm not sure.

I still favor having just one article titled "sustainable energy" that the renewable energy article points to. It's easier for editors to understand than having 2 mostly overlapping articles and easier on readers to have just one place to go to for content. I don't see how introducing a third term like "clean energy" (or "green energy" or whatever) helps. Efbrazil (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The biggest issue I see with having two articles for RE and SE is where there are navigation templates and search engine results that give the two article titles side by side. The reader then has to pick which article to read, at which point they might either a) get the impression that renewable energy isn't sustainable energy, or 2) think this whole topic area is over their head and give up. One way to solve that problem is to merge the two articles.

The two topics are different in framing because one is framed in terms of a need and the other is framed in terms of a solution to that need. But in substance, they are not very different once you get into the details. When you look into how to deal with intermittency in renewable energy generation, natural gas and CCS and sometimes nuclear come into the conversation. When you look at what it takes to replace fossil fuels with renewables, conservation and electrification come into the conversation. Social sustainability is an important aspect of RE that should be given due weight in the RE article; the fact that this is often not done in the current version of RE is a WP:NPOV problem.

If we don't have consensus to merge the two articles, having separate articles for RE and SE would be OK if both articles were high quality. A situation where we avoid talking about sustainability issues in the RE article because those issues are covered in the SE article is the worst option. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

References in the lead section?

I noticed that the lead only has one reference. Would anyone object if I converted this one reference into the long ref style? The reason why I am asking is because the lead is transcribed to efficient energy use with the excerpt function. As that other article uses the long ref style, it would be more convenient if that one single ref was also in long ref style. Related to that I am actually surprised that the lead does not have any further references. I know it's not mandatory to have refs in the lead but I think it's useful, now that leads are often transcribed to other articles. This article has been transcribed to:

• Government spending
• Bioenergy
• Climate change mitigation
• Pellet fuel
• Osmotic power
• Biomass (energy)
• Efficient energy use
• Nuclear power debate

EMsmile (talk) 12:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Short description discussion #3

Hi everyone. We've had previous discussions on the short description that kind of led us to decide to not have one, see Discussion 1 and Discussion 2.

To reiterate my earlier comments:

• I'm concerned about reinforcing misconceptions that sustainability is only about the future or only about the environment
• Sustainability is not just about primary energy sources; it's also about how energy is transformed and delivered.

Replenishability is one aspect of sustainability in some definitions but not emphasized in others, so centering the replenishability concept is not neutral. I'm planning to switch the shortdesc back to "none" but I'm wondering if anyone has other suggestions first? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

If there are multiple non-identical sources, then any reasonable one should be chosen. "None" is not a short description. —RCraig09 (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes it is, where the article's subject is fully explained by the article title, per WP:SDNONE. List of named passenger trains in India does not need a short description because it's fully clear what the subject is. This is quite frankly a dumb thing to edit war over, as you are all experienced editors who know better. We need to come to a consensus on this talk page, not change the short description unilaterally over and over. Personally, I don't see evidence that we should override the previous discussions on the short description, unless discussion here establishes a different consensus. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The two prior discussions weren't conclusive. Here, the title doesn't "fully explain" the concept: there is more ambiguity about the meaning of sustainable (vs. renewable, green, alternative, etc) than there is about replenishable. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

If we can't find a correct SD, we should leave it blank imo. Not seen a correct one close anywhere close to 40 characters. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

While I understand that "none" isn't a perfect solution, it's the least-bad one that I've seen. I object to the latest short description, "Energy from replenishable sources", because energy from replenishable sources isn't necessarily sustainable. Wood, for instance, is a replenishable source but when it's burned for energy it often causes dangerous levels of air pollution. Some definitions of sustainable energy include replenishability, but they also include other major criteria such as not causing dangerous levels of air pollution. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

It's true that replenishability doesn't imply sustainability. However, it's sustainability we're essentially trying to define, and sustainability does require replenishability. Also, "...replenishable sources" does enlighten and clarify with a somewhat friendlier word than sustainable. Separately, trying to encompass all possible "definitions" would make it impossible to find a 40-character description for practically any complex or technical topic, so I think we should settle for one that clarifies understanding. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I do not know of any reliably-published definition of sustainable energy in which replenishability is the only criterion. If such a definition exists, it's definitely a minority point of view. Having the short description imply that replenishability is the only criterion is wrong. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Short descriptions are not exhaustive definitions. A short description is a "concise explanation of the scope of the page ... and help users identify the desired article". —RCraig09 (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be good to have a short description, but I don't think that this one is suitable at all: "Energy from replenishable sources" - this would be the same short description as for renewable energy (which comes back to the problem that we've discussed above that sustainable energy should perhaps be merged with renewable energy...) For comparison, the short description at the sustainability article is this: "Goal of people safely co-existing on Earth"; a bit casual but not too bad, I would say. If we leave the short description blank we're essentially saying we don't know how to briefly define the concept. Plus, future editors will time and time again try to add one. (at the very least there should be a hidden comment saying "no short description provided because no agreement could be reached"). Perhaps this could work: "Energy usage that allows people to safely co-existing on Earth"? EMsmile (talk) 10:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I think you are on the right track here. "Energy usage that allows people to safely co-exist on Earth" would be an improvement in my opinion. I like how it reflects the idea that sustainable energy is a goal. Using renewable energy happens to be an important means to reaching that goal (except when it isn't). My preference would be to make it a bit more formal-sounding, with something like, "Energy usage that meets social, environmental, and economic needs". How does that sound? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. It's a bit over the 40-character soft limit I think, but the even when the last bit is cut off on smaller devices, it gets the jist across. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Good point. How about "Energy that meets social, environmental, and economic needs"? It's 52 characters. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Here, the topic is basically a thing (sustainable energy involving a noun). Things are defined as a broader thing (e.g., "energy") followed by a distinguishing attribute (e.g., replenishably sourced). Conversely, trying to summarize energy through peoples' (subjective?) goals migrates not merely one step away (to what the thing does—covered by verbs), but is a second step away by referring to what people hope it will do. It's a touchy-feely way of describing things that don't even say what the thing is. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestions by Clayoquot and Femke. I have a slight preferences with keeping the word "usage" in it (i.e. "energy usage" rather than just "energy"). I am not following what you, RCraig09, are saying. And I think we shouldn't make a PhD out of it. Anything around "sustainability" will always be somewhat vague (we tried to explain this in the sustainability article). At the end of the day it's a goal, and nothing is set in concrete. So I think "Energy usage that meets social, environmental, and economic needs" is good enough for the purpose of a short description. EMsmile (talk) 07:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@EMsmile: A thing should be defined by what it is, not by what we hope it does. We summarize ice cream as "frozen dessert" and not "what makes children happy". —RCraig09 (talk) 14:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

To use your analogy, having a short description for Sustainable energy that says "Energy from replenishable sources" is like having a short description for Ice cream that says "Mixture of chocolate, sugar, and cream from cow milk". Trying to summarize an abstract topic in a more concrete way can make it inaccurate.

I'd like to hear from more people on this. Pinging others who have been involved in previous discussions or edits: @GhostInTheMachine, Sdkb, ජපස, Chidgk1, and Trainsandotherthings:. It would be good to know 1) Which of the options you think are best, 2) Which options you can live with, and 3) Do you have other suggestions? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it would help to figure out whether or not nuclear energy (fission or fusion) is included as "sustainable energy". Once I know that, I think we can come up with a definition. jps (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Sources disagree about this. The higher-quality sourcing sees sustainability as a spectrum, with nuclear power plants competing on many important sustainability dimensions with solar/wind projects. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Clayoquot; I wasn't aware that this had been discussed, but the status quo was far too long. I most firmly oppose having no short description. "Sustainable energy" is not a term that's going to be clear to all readers, so we should try to explain it as best we can, even if it's something as basic as Type of energy service (I think "service" would be a better way to indicate we're talking about practical energy rather than physics energy; "usage" ignores that the place where energy becomes sustainable is production, not usage).

Going back to the core goal, I want to underline @RCraig09's point that we are not trying to get an exhaustive definition, but rather something that aids readers in search results. In practical terms, what that means here is helping them distinguish between this article and renewable energy, so we should coordinate with the short description there.

Energy meeting both present and future needs (44 characters) would be one option derived from the definition in the lead. Energy usage that meets social, environmental, and economic needs is okayish, but it's overlong. (Iterating, Energy that meets socioeconomic and environmental needs would get it down to 55 characters.) Energy usage that allows people to safely co-exist on Earth (59 characters) is a bit hippyish as well as overlong — my iteration on that would be Energy services that allow coexistence (38 characters).

We may be headed toward an RfC at some point, but the discussion here so far is good and should hopefully move us toward a core set of options to choose between. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Good points have been raised. I could so far live with all the options that have recently been suggested here, except for "Energy from replenishable sources" (for the reasons explained above). For comparison, the short description at the renewable energy article is: Energy that is collected from renewable resources. EMsmile (talk) 20:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I was able to shorten the Renewable energy SD to Energy collected from renewable resources. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts! "Energy service" has a specific meaning - it refers to a function performed using energy, such as lighting.[1] So I don't think the term "energy service" should be in the short description. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Yo, peeps, listen! One source describes "The format of a well written definition" as "category of concept + differentiating characteristics". Likewise, Wikipedia's own Definition article describes intensional definitions as having a genus and a differentia. These concepts correspond to the "broader thing" (i.e., category) and "distinguishing attribute" described in my 21:07 31 July post above. I exhort everyone to follow this structure here. Sustainable energy should be defined as (the broader category of) energy, distinguished by what the energy is (since it's a noun) rather than what you hope it does (a verb). Of course, don't go overboard with silly detail like the strawman-argument of defining ice cream as "Mixture of chocolate, sugar, and cream from cow milk". —RCraig09 (talk) 05:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@RCraig09, point me to it if I missed it, but what short description would you like to see that gives a sense of what sustainable energy is rather than just what it does?

Using the definitions you quoted above, one additional possible option is Energy with limited environmental impact (40 characters).

I think a core problem here may be that different editors in this discussion have different understandings of what sustainable energy is and how it differs from renewable energy, and that's making it hard to find agreement. This is a featured article, so hopefully the article itself provides clarity. It should be possible to list examples of what's one but not the other that we all agree on. If not, then we need to more seriously discuss merging with "renewable energy" as alluded above per WP:BROADCONCEPT. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@Sdkb: One example acceptable to me is the current Energy from replenishable sources, in which replenishability underlies and enables the more touchy/feely "goals" that some have argued for. This summary improves slightly over Renewable energy's "Energy collected from renewable resources" because the latter is circular. Well agreed: the sustainable-vs-renewable discussion rages on with more convolutions than the GreatTaste/LessFilling debate. (I favor merging these two co-mingling concepts; but mucho work would be involved.) —RCraig09 (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

This one wouldn't work: Energy with limited environmental impact as sustainability is not just about environmental impacts. There are the three dimensions which can be either hinted at with Energy usage that meets social, environmental, and economic needs or with Energy usage that allows people to safely co-exist on Earth.

I'd like to point out that at this point of the discussion there is only one editor (RCraig09) who is opposing the various options that have been proposed and keeps insisting that basically the short description of the sustainable energy article ought to be identical with the short description of the renewable energy article (even though it has been pointed out numerous times that not all renewable energy uses are sustainable). - As an aside: I could also live with a merger of the two articles but this is a separate discussion, and the title of the merged article would also have to be discussed. EMsmile (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to EMsmile for the scorekeeping update (though omitting article edits of Sdkb and GhostInTheMachine) and twisting my posts a bit. ... Separately, I agree with Sdkb's suggested on my User Talk page that a merging discussion should take place, which could moot the present discussion. I hope [March 14 post these definitions]] will help get such a discussion started (is there a formal procedure?), though I won't presume to start such discussion. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Examples

As I've said previously on this Talk page, I'm actually in favour of merging the Renewable energy and Sustainable energy articles because there is so much overlap between them. But overlap doesn't mean the two topics have the same definition. Sdkb asked for examples of what's one but not the other that we can all agree on. Here goes:

Renewable but (according to some) not sustainable

• Corn ethanol in the USA: "Worse for the climate than gasoline"[2]
• Palm oil production in which forests are cleared to plant monocultures of palm trees.[3]
• Forests cut down to make wood pellets: Burning wood for power is ‘misguided’ say climate experts
• Whale oil

Sustainable (according to some) but not renewable (see article for sources)

• Nuclear power
• Coal with carbon capture and storage
• Natural gas with carbon capture and storage

The idea that "non-renewable energy sources can be sustainable" is very controversial, but we can agree that there is a debate about it. And I think we can easily come to consensus that not all renewable energy is sustainable. Some renewable energy projects are uncontroversial, but for other renewable energy projects there is an important debate over sustainability. If we start the article by saying that renewable energy = sustainable, we are not leaving room for that debate. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

It might be most productive if you would formally initiate a merge discussion per WP:Merging, and change the title of this section to reflect your comments are its first post. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I do not want to wait for the outcome of a merge discussion before changing a short description that I believe is erroneous. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

These are articles that will be getting views over the long-term (as opposed to ones getting a pageview spike because of a news event), so I think WP:NODEADLINE applies. It feels to me like having a merge discussion needs to be a precursor to having a short description discussion, since if we end up with Sustainable and renewable energy then we'll have different considerations than we do now, and if not we'll at least have a clearer understanding of the definitions of the two, which is something that will help out the SD discussion. I do think your examples above are very helpful. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Clayoquot. The current SD was wrong and definitely not consensus-agreed. Hence we are better off with no short description for now, until that merger discussion is complete. For that reason, I've just set the short description to "none" again which is how it was for months. I think we've had some good proposals for SDs above which we could have implemented. But the one with "replenishable sources" was not one of them. EMsmile (talk) 08:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

The Short description is now back to "none", which may be pragmatic, but seems (at least to me) to be something of failure.
The main problem, as I see it, is that the phrase Sustainable energy has no clear agreed meaning. Indeed, the second sentence under "Definition" says: No single interpretation of how the concept of sustainability applies to energy has gained worldwide acceptance. A Short description really should not seek to be a definition (per WP:SDNOTDEF) and I suspect that there will not be a consensus here for any single definition – especially one that is reasonably short. So, perhaps we should avoid a Short description that attempts to say what the phrase means, however abbreviated, and instead say what the phrase is.
How about Term in energy production and distribution (42 characters) or Concept in energy production and distribution (45 characters)
or something a little shorter: Concept in energy production and use (36 characters)? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 10:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

That's a good idea, I would in principle be supportive of such a short description. EMsmile (talk) 13:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

— The article is about the energy itself, not about a term or a concept. (Analogy: Climate change versus Climate crisis.)

— Separately, can anyone explain in 30 words or less, what is "wrong" about the threshold intensional Definitional characteristic that sustainable energy is replenishable (or close synonym that's objectively accurate)? —RCraig09 (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Re the first point, WP:ISATERM is the relevant guidance. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Happy with this too, especialy GITM's last one.

We're losing the opportunity to distinguish renewable and sustainable energy here though, which is a shame. I agree with emsmile that there seems a rough consensus for Energy that meets social, environmental, and economic needs, which does make this distinction. Clayoquot has given examples of replenishable but non-sustainable forms of energy, f.i. bio-energy on currently forested land. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Ghost and Sdkb for your creative ideas! Energy that meets socioeconomic and environmental needs is my favourite; Concept in energy production and use is a close second for me. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

To address GITM's concern about having no clear meaning, the article does day "Working definitions of sustainable energy encompass multiple dimensions of sustainability such as environmental, economic, and social dimensions." The "no single interpretation" statement means people give different weights to different dimensions or slice up the dimensions somewhat differently. E.g. energy security is a separate dimension in some definitions, whereas other definitions lump it into the social dimension. People who've read only the popular literature on sustainability may be surprised that economic considerations figure heavily in the higher-quality sources, so I think this is a nice opportunity to inform people. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The current description, "Energy that meets social, economic, and environmental needs", projects a list of vague anthropocentric hopes or wishes or goals—rather than a definition of the energy that is the subject of this article. Further, there is a disconnect in that there's no guarantee that SE or RE is/will meet those needs, and some would argue that fossil fuels do meet at least some of those needs. Though no one has provided a <25-word summary of what's allegedly "wrong" with, e.g., Britannica's RE reference to replenishable sources that enables those hopes, wishes and goals... I now propose Energy whose use does not compromise future energy needs. This suggestion keeps the description in the objective realm of the energy itself rather than digressing into subjective, anthropocentric goals, hopes and wishes. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

But the whole thing about sustainability is that it's a goal. So it's a good thing that's how we describe it. Replenishable is only one element, relatively small, that enables the goal. And yes, fossil fuel + CCS has sometimes been described as moderately sustainable, even though that's a minority of sources arguing that.

Energy whose use does not compromise future energy needs -> Fossil fuels can easily be argued to fall under this definition; if we use it now, we'll get pollution, which has no effect future energy needs and we'll have no compromise in the future as we can use renewables then. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, sustainability is a goal. But this article is about sustainable energy, not sustainability. If we define objective things like energy in terms of subjective anthropocentric goals like "social, economic and environmental needs", it arguably borders on WP:advocacy. 20:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC) And fossil fuels don't fall under my proposed wording, because if fossil fuels are used to the point of depletion, they do compromise future energy needs because it delays RE/SE development. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Revised: Energy whose continued use does not compromise future energy needs.

Earlier: Energy from replenishable sources.

Alt: Energy from inexhaustible sources.

Adding continued definitely excludes fossil fuels. Using replenishable (or other word the opposite of exhaustible) says about the same thing in fewer words, though. —RCraig09 (talk) 13:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd hope everyone appreciates the absurdity of spending thousands of words debating something which your average reader won't notice and is in theory supposed to be limited to 40 characters, in an article approximately 46,000 characters in length. This is really a stunning example of WP:BIKESHED in action. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

It is prolog to a merged article on RE/SE. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Trainsandotherthings and think it's useful that an uninvolved editor has come in. We should not spend endless amounts of time on discussing the short description. I propose that we (someone) now take(s) an executive decision on the short description, being guided by what several people seem to have agreed on above (even if it means that not everyone will be happy). Then we can move on and start a separate discussion about the merger of renewable energy and sustainable energy (which likely will stall or fissle out again, just like it's done in the past, as it's likely "too hard" and nobody has the time to really do such a merger justice; I am happy to be proven wrong!). EMsmile (talk) 09:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are asking for. I changed the short description to the one supported by rough consensus on August 5.[4] There is nothing to be done with the short description unless a new consensus emerges. I have previously expressed gratitude to the participants in this discussion and I'm still grateful, so I suppose that puts me in disagreement with Trainsandotherthings. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I believe everyone here is participating in good faith, to be clear. But I think this has eaten up a lot of time that could have been used elsewhere. Volunteer time is our most precious resource. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Clayoquot, oh sorry, my mistake: I was just responding to what I saw here on the talk page and I hadn't noticed that you had already changed the short description on the page. The short description is now Energy that meets social, economic, and environmental needs. So it's all good. Thanks everyone. EMsmile (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I added the word "responsibly" in there as I think ultimately this discussion and the sources show that sustainability is a value judgement so we need an indicator of people trying to determine such a value. The previous short definition could apply to things that are generally not considered sustainable given a moral calculus that, for example, preference economic needs over the social or environmental. I think the word "responsibly" makes it clearer that the goal is to do this with some recognition of the consequences and an aim to incorporate an improved system for such. jps (talk) 12:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

And, I should point out, the short definition without "responsibly" has a contextual interpretation that would imply that it energy that meets only one of the three needs rather than looking at all of them might be considered "sustainable". I don't see much support for that, and don't think the interpretation was intended, but it is easy to read it as such. jps (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the word "responsibly" is needed in the short description as it makes the short description less short and opens a whole bunch of new questions regarding what is meant with "responsibly". But I am not planning to engage much further in this discussion as we have already discussed this at length previously and it really is "only" a short description field. (I guess that indicating that this is a value judgement / a societal goal / a normative concept is kind of interesting.) EMsmile (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I am totally open to another word or descriptor over "responsibly", but I don't think the previous version cuts it necessarily. If the short description doesn't capture the idea that someone has to make a call about how to balance these three axes, the endeavor loses the well-ordered property and you could, for example, have oil executives come barging in cynically arguing that "drill baby drill" is a means to attaining sustainable energy since "hey, I see that we need to be able to address social and economic needs and we do that in a way that may upset people who are concerned about environmental needs, but they unduly preference those". jps (talk) 13:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I see your point now about that descriptor. I think I am warming towards "responsibly", or a variation thereof. Thanks for the explanation that you gave. EMsmile (talk) 09:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Readability improvements for the lead?

I think the lead could benefit from some readability improvements. I've started with a couple of sentence but want to see if people think this would be useful for not. Also, the lead is a bit on the long side (607 words); I would prefer to bring it down to 450 or 500 words. When using the handy readability tool, the following sentences show up in dark red (difficult to read):

• "Most definitions of sustainable energy include considerations of environmental aspects such as greenhouse gas emissions and social and economic aspects such as energy poverty."
• "For some energy-intensive technologies and processes that are difficult to electrify, many pathways describe a growing role for hydrogen fuel produced from low-emission energy sources. To accommodate larger shares of variable renewable energy, electrical grids require flexibility through infrastructure such as energy storage."
• "Policy approaches include carbon pricing, renewable portfolio standards, phase-outs of fossil fuel subsidies, and the development of infrastructure to support electrification and sustainable transport."

I have found it useful to use Chat-GPT for inspiration. I simply use the prompt: "Simplify XXX". Not saying to blindly follow Chat-GPT but using it for inspiration is handy. EMsmile (talk) 11:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh and the lead is transcribed in a few articles so it would be worth to make it easier to understand:

• Government spending (transclusion) ‎ (links | edit)
• Bioenergy (transclusion) ‎ (links | edit)
• Climate change mitigation (transclusion) ‎ (links | edit)
• Pellet fuel (transclusion) ‎ (links | edit)
• Osmotic power (transclusion) ‎ (links | edit)
• Biomass (energy) (transclusion) ‎ (links | edit)
• Low-carbon electricity (transclusion) ‎ (links | edit)
• Nuclear power debate EMsmile (talk) 11:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I went through the lead and tightened up wording to 480 words total. I also tried to address readability where I could. The lead is also looking a bit dated, referring to data from 2019, but I didn't pursue the harder work of tackling that. Efbrazil (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. You were quite bold here. I would have been more hesitant in taking out some of that content, given that it's a featured article. Not sure if the previous editors who were involved in making it a featured article will agree to it all, so I'll await some reactions.

When you say "tightening up wording", do you mean condensing content? I am a bit concerned that in terms of the text being lay-person friendly, this still hasn't been achieved yet. Using the readability tool (do you have that script installed?), the same number of sentences are still shown in red or even dark red as before. So I think from that perspective, more work is still required.

In case people don't have the script installed, I copy the dark red sentences below (dark red = difficult to understand):

• Most definitions of sustainable energy include environmental considerations such as greenhouse gas emissions and social and economic aspects such as energy poverty.
• Nuclear power is a low-carbon source whose historic mortality rates are comparable to those of wind and solar, but its sustainability has been debated because of concerns about radioactive waste, nuclear proliferation, and accidents.
• Reducing greenhouse gas emissions to levels consistent with the 2015 Paris Agreement will require transforming energy production, distribution, storage, and consumption.
• Switching to variable renewable energy requires electrical grid infrastructure such as energy storage. Hydrogen fuel produced from low-emission energy sources can be used to power technologies and processes that are difficult to electrify.
• Government can also encourage clean energy deployment with policies such as carbon pricing, renewable portfolio standards, phase-outs of fossil fuel subsidies, and the development of infrastructure to support electrification and sustainable transport. In many cases, this also increases energy security.

Before embarking on making them easier to understand, I'd like to hear from other page watchers if they think this would be a worthwhile activity. Or if the argument would be that only "experts" would come to this article anyway, and therefore it's not all that important to make the wording lay-person friendly? EMsmile (talk) 09:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! That's a good list of run on sentences. Going through sentence by sentence (or just review the diff of my edit):

• Most definitions of sustainable energy include environmental considerations such as greenhouse gas emissions and social and economic aspects such as energy poverty. --> Most definitions of sustainable energy consider impacts on the environment, the economy, and society. These impacts range from greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution to energy poverty and toxic waste.
• Nuclear power is a low-carbon source whose historic mortality rates are comparable to those of wind and solar, but its sustainability has been debated because of concerns about radioactive waste, nuclear proliferation, and accidents. --> Nuclear power is a low-carbon source whose historic mortality rates are comparable to those of wind and solar. Its sustainability is debated because of concerns about radioactive waste, nuclear proliferation, and accidents.
• Reducing greenhouse gas emissions to levels consistent with the 2015 Paris Agreement will require transforming energy production, distribution, storage, and consumption. --> Limiting global warming to 2 C will require transforming energy production, distribution, storage, and consumption.
• Switching to variable renewable energy requires electrical grid infrastructure such as energy storage. Hydrogen fuel produced from low-emission energy sources can be used to power technologies and processes that are difficult to electrify. --> Switching to variable renewable energy requires electrical grid infrastructure such as energy storage. Some processes that are difficult to electrify can use hydrogen fuel produced from low-emission energy sources.
• Government can also encourage clean energy deployment with policies such as carbon pricing, renewable portfolio standards, phase-outs of fossil fuel subsidies, and the development of infrastructure to support electrification and sustainable transport. In many cases, this also increases energy security. --> Governments can also develop infrastructure to support electrification and sustainable transport. Finally, governments can encourage clean energy deployment with policies such as carbon pricing, renewable portfolio standards, and phase-outs of fossil fuel subsidies. In many cases, these policies also increase energy security.

Overall word count is unchanged after these edits. Thanks again for pushing me on this! Efbrazil (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I should add that I am being careful with these edits. If anybody has issue with them they can either follow them up with further changes or back them out and we can discuss. I think you were spot on that the lead was overly long before and had some run on sentences, and it is good we are fixing those. Efbrazil (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Looks good. I've also made some further readability improvements now. Just focused on readability, not changing the meaning of the sentences (although every now and again, there will be nuances of differences, I guess). I managed to eliminate all the dark red sentences that the readability script highlighted. As of today there are still 8 sentences in light red. Ideally, I'd want to bring them all to the "orange" level but I couldn't see any easy fixes for those sentences. Perhaps someone else can find ways or we leave them like they are for now. The length of the lead is good now (491 words). EMsmile (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Great work on these improvements. It was certainly needed: the lead was both too long and too complicated. I've had to revert most of the recent changes by EMsmile, as they changed meanings, became so simple that it was overly vague, or it was the type of language you expect for a very young audience, rather than the general audience Wikipedia has. You can easily get carried away using these readability tools. I'll have a further think about the mortality sentence on nuclear. It was an awkward compromise during the FAC that produced that sentence, and I believe we had something better before. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow through Femke. I agree that nuclear description is weird. I also hate the term "low-carbon" because frequently that is used to include natural gas. In the very next next sentence we actually describe natural gas as "lower carbon". Also, saying "possible accidents" is weird following nuclear proliferation- both are risks, so both should be framed the same way. We have this now:

Nuclear power is a low-carbon source whose historic mortality rates are comparable to those of wind and solar. Its degree of sustainability is debated because of concerns about radioactive waste, nuclear proliferation, and possible accidents.

I changed it to this, feel free to back it out if you disagree:

Nuclear power does not produce carbon pollution or air pollution, but has drawbacks that include radioactive waste, the risk of nuclear proliferation, and the risk of accidents.

We could qualify "does not produce carbon pollution" with "does not produce significant carbon pollution" if you think we need to be pedantic there. EMSmile's readability tool probably won't like me combining the sentences again, but I think it reads better to have the pros and cons together immediately after we mention that we are talking about controversially sustainable energy sources. Getting rid of talk of mortality rates allows for that I think. Efbrazil (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

No reason to be pedantic here I don't think :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Good team work! Efbrazil: you mention "EMsmile's readability tool" - does that mean you don't use this tool yourself yet? It really is very useful to get a quick overview on which parts of an article may require further work. I highly recommend trying it out. I can explain to you how to install this script if you haven't done so yet.

The tool now still flags up these two sentences in dark red:

• Switching to variable renewable energy requires electrical grid infrastructure such as energy storage. -->I had made an attempt to improve this but it was reverted. My proposal was: "The use of renewable energy that varies with the weather needs more energy storage within the electrical grids." (instead of "weather", something else could be used to refer to the night time aspect).
• These policies may also increase energy security. (I had changed this one to "more secure" but Femke said "more secure" is meaningless. I don't think it is because there would be a wikilin to energy security but won't argue over it). It shows that the tool does not just pick up long sentences but also those with many multi-syllable words.

Apart from these two sentences in dark red, there are 10 sentences in light red. I am pretty sure those could be improved as well but I won't attempt that myself. Perhaps an uninvolved copy editing person might be useful for that. Or we can just leave it of course if we feel that the article is anyway rather abstract so we won't even try to make it understandable for anyone below college graduate level. EMsmile (talk) 09:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

In order:

• First sentence is fine as is I think. It's not overly long or complicated. Your proposed change removes the conditional "such as", and that's not really accurate. Increasing energy transferrence between locations (not adding storage) is an option as well, for instance.
• Energy security is a specific policy area referring to the ability of a location to provide energy for itself in the event of disruption in global supply chains. More secure is a generalized term that doesn't have that specific point of referral.

As for the readability script, I think it is great that you are using it, but I'm not really keen on using it myself. Efbrazil (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't find the first sentence clear. How is a layperson meant to know what "variable renewable energy" is (without following the wikilink)?. Also, should it say "requires additional electrical grid infrastructure" because any type of energy source requires some electrical grid infrastructure, right? The point is here that it requires more/additional/different/novel infrastructure. And if there is a second prominent example, other than energy storage, let's mention it, or an overarching term for both of the examples. Although I don't understand what is meant with "Increasing energy transferrence between locations" either.

Second sentence: OK, I see. EMsmile (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The energy transferrence issue is that if you are able to transmit power across great distances then it evens out availability- it can be windy or sunny in one spot even when it is not windy or sunny in another spot. There are also options like using car batteries for storage or only charging them at selected times of day. Additionally, if you are electrifying transportation and other sectors then there are new, greater demands on utilities, and that also requires electrical system upgrades. Note that it took me several sentences to say all that :)

I agree the first sentence isn't ideal, thanks for pressing on that. I don't have a great idea for fixing it without making it longer. Here is a longer version that explains what "variable renewable energy" is, plus it clarifies that upgrades are required. I think it is fine to only mention energy storage as it is the most intuitive example, it's just that we shouldn't imply it is the only upgrade needed:

Power output from renewable energy sources varies depending on when the wind blows and the sun shines. Switching to renewable energy can therefor require electrical grid upgrades, such as adding energy storage.

Does that work for you? Efbrazil (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

If we say "Power output from some renewable energy sources..." it would be more accurate. Otherwise looks great! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Awesome thanks, so much clearer! I've changed it to: Power output from some renewable energy sources varies depending on when the wind blows and the sun shines. Switching to renewable energy can therefore require electrical grid upgrades, such as addition of energy storage. (I found "addition of" better than "adding" but don't feel strongly on that. I would be tempted to say "The power output" but leave that to the native English speakers to decide). As per the readability script, the first of these two sentences is now green (excellent), the second one is light right (not bad; at least not dark red). - Thanks again for the collaboration. EMsmile (talk) 10:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Tech maturity and offsets

Over the past few days, several revisions have been made to one sentence in the lead. Until April 22, this sentence said:

"Some critical technologies for eliminating energy-related greenhouse gas emissions are not yet mature."

This sentence had been stable for years. It summarized sourced statements in the body regarding technological maturity in the areas of CCS, shipping, aviation, green hydrogen, batteries, and carbon-neutral fuels. The most recent edit eliminated the concept of maturity and added a new concept:[5]

"Some emissions from energy use may be more affordable to address with carbon offsets than to eliminate directly."

This statement does not reflect any statement in the body and is not sourced, and there has been no reason given for taking away the concept of maturity. I'm going to revert to the stable version of this sentence. If anyone has ideas for improving this sentence I think it's time to discuss here first instead of being bold.

If anyone wants to add something to the body about balancing hard-to-abate energy emissions with CDR then it obviously needs to be sourced and I doubt it will be due weight for the lead. The vast majority of energy emissions are cheaper to abate than they are to offset unless the offsets are of low quality. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree too, important concept to talk about. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Just by the way: I've noticed every now and again when we work on leads that some people (including Efbrazil) are bold and include content (or even just wikilinks) to the lead that are actually not in the main text. I usually disagree with these additions. If someone really thinks that it should be in the lead then it should be added to the main body first (well, every now and again, for lower quality articles, one is in a rush and one adds significant content to the lead first; I've done that as well on occasions but it's not ideal). - So I agree with Clayoquot regarding their concern for the statement on offsets. EMsmile (talk) 10:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine eliminating the issue entirely as it is now. If it goes back in then it needs to be fixed to add clarity or a wikilink that provides clarity. Carbon offsets are often held up as a path forward for tech that is difficult to decarbonize, so I thought it was appropriate to use, as the linked content goes into areas that are hard to decarbonise. Efbrazil (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

"Eliminating the issue as it is now" refers to the fact that FloridaArmy removed the sentence after I started this Talk page discussion, without participating in the discussion. FloridaArmy can you work with us on consensus before reverting anyone please?

Elmidae and Femke we seem to be talking about two issues here (adding one sentence and removing another one) so if you could clarify which issue you agree with that would be helpful.

I'm agreeing on both points - current phrasing is representative of the text body, and alternate (or additional) statements on C offset angle require sufficient treatment in text, and demonstration that that is desireable, before being added to lede. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Efbrazil, if by "the linked content" you mean Carbon offsets and credits, as far as I can tell the only energy-related area that it describes as difficult to decarbonise is aviation fuel, which is 2.5% of global CO2 emissions.

We can certainly talk about adding clarity to the "Some critical technologies for eliminating energy-related greenhouse gas emissions are not yet mature." What needs to be clarified? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I removed a bit that was weasely, uninformative, and crystal balling as I noted in my edit summary. Another editor thanked me for the edit so it should not be restored without consensus. What are you trying to tell readers? What section of the article body discusses the issue? FloridaArmy (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

As I stated above, the sentence in question summarized sourced statements in the body regarding technological maturity in the areas of CCS, shipping, aviation, green hydrogen, batteries, and carbon-neutral fuels. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Think of it this way- An analogous statement in the climate change lead would be "Climate change is not precisely understood and requires more study". Accurate, but an invitation to paralysis analysis and frequently spouted by denier propaganda. What we say needs to be precise and wikilinked or it needs to be cut. The overriding message is that there is a pathway forward to net zero, it's not like we're blocked by the need for technological miracles. The vast majority of people will only ever read the lead, so we need to be sure they can read just that and come away with the correct impression. Efbrazil (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

The technologies needed are described in multiple sections of the body and are too long to list so it is not realistic to be precise or to wikilink. How about, "In the International Energy Agency's proposal for achieving net zero emissions by 2050, about 35% of the reduction in emissions depends on technologies that are still in development.[6]"? This would go in the body as well. To address your analogy, climate change is well-understood. That's why we don't say it isn't. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Much better. Since this is in the context of the 1.5 degree goal I assume CCS is a big chunk of the 35%. It would be better to have a number for hitting the more realistic 2 degree goal. It would also be better if the source was more specific in linking to a list of required technologies instead of just providing a top line number, or if there was a section in this article grouping the technologies that require additional development. Having said all that, I think it's fine to go ahead and roll with this. Efbrazil (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! As far as I know, the IEA has not published an analysis on how to reach the 2 degree goal. In principle, the amount of innovation needed is the same for both targets, but for 1.5 degrees you have to innovate faster and deploy faster. I added the sentence to the body and lead and added this as an additional source to the body for more detail. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Picking up on merger discussion with renewable energy

I am just wondering, now that a bit of time has passed, how does everyone feel about the earlier merge discussion with renewable energy? Earlier discussion is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sustainable_energy#Clarify:_sustainable_vs_renewable_energy and also here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sustainable_energy#Short_description_discussion_#3 .

In the meantime, the article on renewable energy has been improved a bit. I can see the merits of both options but am leaning towards keeping them separate. Perhaps the sustainable energy should be seen as the parent article for renewable energy, as it contains more than just renewable energy. If we see it that way, we could perhaps make it clearer in the structure of both articles. But if there's appetite and energy for merging, I'd also be OK with that (would be hard work; Step 1 would probably be to move to the long ref style). EMsmile (talk) 09:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I lean toward merging, since the two concepts overlap so heavily, and are often used interchangeably (even if improperly; WP:COMMONNAME is somewhat relevant on this issue). The merged article name should be Renewable and sustainable energy or Sustainable and renewable energy. A merged article would require ~half the maintenance of separate articles, and avoids some duplication. I recognize the labor required to merge is immense, and can't say I'm volunteering as I myself am frankly still confused by the distinction. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I also lean towards merging, although my concern is that "renewable energy" is a term that everyone has heard of, whereas "sustainable energy" is not. So a title of Renewable and sustainable energy could be rather confusing. The term "clean energy" is also commonly used in the media but redirects to "sustainable energy" at present. In fact perhaps clean energy could work as a kind of vague term that encompasses both? The other problem is that renewable energy is written in a fairly straight forward, practical way, whereas sustainable energy is a bit more "academic" with slightly more complex language and wording (this would speak against merging, I guess). EMsmile (talk) 08:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

A strong no to merging. Renewable energy is a child article of sustainable energy. See: Sustainable_energy#Non-renewable_energy_sources. This article also covers other points such as Sustainable_energy#Energy_usage_technologies or Sustainable_energy#Hydrogen. As a child article, Renewable energy has a more limited scope, so can get into more details of economics of solar power for example. Bogazicili (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Do we have any other inputs to this conversation or should we close it as no consensus? Perhaps User:Clayoquot wants to weigh in. I would be OK with seeing renewable energy as a child article of sustainable energy but I am not sure if the two articles are really organised as such. Also, since not all renewable energy is sustainable (see previous discussion), an argument could equally be made that it's not really a child article, more of a cousin article or alike (i.e. related). - One thing is fairly clear: the term "renewable energy" is far more common in everyday language and the media than "sustainable energy". "Clean energy" is also commonly used. But I already mentioned that above so I guess I am repeating myself. EMsmile (talk) 10:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't have anything to add in terms of content. It's a tough set of questions! In terms of procedure, it's probably clear to everyone that there's no consensus so I don't think a formal close would add benefit. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)