Talk:Sustainable energy/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Government policies

In response to what Clayoquot just mentioned in "unmitigated", I was wondering whether we could structure the government policies like this:

• introductory paragraph saying that all of these types of policies are interlinked (using for instance the sustainable development chapter from the IPCC, or other sources on sustainable energy/sustainable development)
• a subsection on environmental policy
• a subsection on socio economic policy. I think (I haven't checked for due weight) that in addition to cooking, we should talk about the trade-off between removing energy subsidies (which are often fossil fuel subsidies) and energy poverty.

The current structure calls for more and more subsections, and doesn't recognise the interconnectedness of policy sufficiently. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for these ideas. I like the idea of an introductory paragraph talking about how policies can yield multiple benefits - is this what you mean by "interlinked"? We should convey that this is not always what is done - often policies do focus on a specific type of pollution or a specific type of energy security. The IPCC's SR15 and AR5, if I recall correctly, both talk a lot about the need to carefully design policies to maximize co-benefits and minimize trade-offs. I am not sure if we should try to separate environmental policy from socio-economic policy. Clean cooking, for instance, is important from both an environmental and a social perspective. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm still kinda new to this article and just checked Government policies section and yes these make total sense. Especially an intro paragraph that ties everything together. Would pollution be included in environmental policy section? Bogazicili (talk) 09:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The benefits but also the trade-offs of potential policies is what I mean by saying interlinked. A second paragraph of the introduction could be about Covid (which is now under climate).

As I see it, we now have two subheadings about environmental policy (climate and air pollution) and one about a social economic policy consideration. I'd like to condense that to 2 subheadings, but am also okay with having zero subheadings to align a bit better with the three books I have on sustainable energy in terms of space dedicated to this topic (typically less than 5%). Of course, this does get a lot of attention in reports about sustainable development, which have quite different weighting of topics.

The overall section is getting quite long, but is still missing important policies (cooking, energy poverty), so by having only a single environmental policy subsection, we will be forced to condense and use appropriate summary style. We are currently mentioning individual countries four times, each of them in the global North... There are also loads of numbers slipping in, which may conflict with the "professional prose" criterion, and put a strong burden on us to keep this article updated. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree we'll need to condense to keep the section balanced, comprehensive, and of reasonable length. One thing we can do is focus on the tools that governments have rather than overall goals, because the rest of the article should already have explained the goals. E.g. the concept of energy security is already in the Definitions section and the idea of interdependence between countries could be explained in our section on managing intermittency. The part about metals and minerals could also go in the sections where we talk about the technologies that need these elements.

I'm not sure if the discussion of investment needed in low-carbon energy technologies and energy efficiency should be in this section at all. Is government supposed to be doing all of this investment? Or should utilities, the energy industry, and other organizations be doing some of it?

In terms of tools that governments have to accelerate the energy transition, we currently describe very few and all of them are focused at the national level as opposed to the local or sub-national level. Other tools we could discuss include R&D funding, transportation infrastructure, building electric transmission lines and hydrogen pipelines, municipal zoning and building codes, transitioning fossil fuel jobs to green jobs, and government as a major purchaser of things like electric vehicles. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. Climate is to some extent written like that. We'd ditch the subsections altogether then? Or too early to tell? I think 5 paragraphs overall would be a good length. Agree about investments, have to think about minerals (reading about this for work soon probs in the context of geopolitics. FemkeMilene (talk) 06:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think 5 paragraphs without subsections would be good to aim for. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The UNEP Emissions Gap Report 2019 is an excellent source for all these issues. I'll work on a concrete proposal for the Government Policies section, based on this source and the discussion so far. I'll also look into creating a separate section to talk about investments, which is where we could also talk about energy subsidies.

Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Brilliant. I'm really stuck with trying to word a proposal here, so I'm glad you're taking the initiative. I read https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-030-39066-2, an open-access book which also has a few chapters about the topic. Are you aware there is a 2020 emission gap report? FemkeMilene (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Ooh, thanks for pointing out that book. The 2020 emission gap report seems to be mostly about responding to the pandemic; the 2019 report has more of the stuff we need. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite of Government policies section

I've made a proposal below, incorporating some content from the current version and from Climate change, with more of a forward-focus and global approach. Thoughts? Would people be OK with replacing the current section with the proposal below, and then further refining it? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Further information: Politics of climate change and Energy policy

Well-designed government policies that promote energy system transformation can lower greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality simultaneously, and in many cases can also increase energy security. According to the IPCC, both explicit carbon pricing and complementary energy-specific policies are necessary mechanisms to limit global warming to 1.5°C.

Carbon taxes provide a source of revenue that can be used to lower other taxes or to help lower-income households afford higher energy costs. Carbon taxes have encountered strong political pushback in some jurisdictions, whereas energy-specific policies tend to be politically safer. As of 2019, carbon pricing covers about 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Energy-specific programs and regulations have historically been the mainstays of efforts to reduce fossil fuel emissions. Some governments have committed to dates for phasing out coal-fired power plants, ending new fossil fuel exploration, requiring that new passenger vehicles produce zero emissions, and requiring new buildings to be heated by electricity instead of gas. Renewable portfolio standards have been enacted in several countries requiring utilities to increase the percentage of electricity they generate from renewable sources.

Governments can accelerate energy system transformation by leading the development of infrastructure such as electrical distribution grids, smart grids and hydrogen pipelines. In transport, appropriate infrastructure and incentives can make travel more efficient and less car-dependent. Urban planning to discourage sprawl can reduce energy use in local transport and buildings while enhancing quality-of-life.

The scale and pace of policy reforms that have been initiated as of 2020 are far less than needed to fulfill the climate goals of the Paris Agreement. Governments can make the transition to sustainable energy more politically and socially feasible by ensuring a just transition for workers and regions that depend on the fossil fuel industry to ensure that they have alternative economic opportunities. In addition to domestic policies, greater international cooperation will be required to accelerate innovation and to assist poorer countries in establishing a sustainable path to full energy access.

References

Bibliography

• State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2019 (PDF) (Report). Washington, D.C.: World Bank. June 2019. doi:10.1596/978-1-4648-1435-8. hdl:10986/29687.

• United Nations Environment Programme (2020). Emissions Gap Report 2020. Nairobi. ISBN 978-92-807-3812-4.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

Sounds good. I wonder whether we can put the 'not enough policy reform' in wikivoice, maybe with a second hard. Apart from that, source formatting with the page numbers in the last few sources. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Good ideas, thanks! I made those changes. Does anyone else have comments? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Done

I replaced the section with the draft above. Below is the old version of the section, for reference. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Brill! There is a harv error for the citation of the United Nations Developmental Programme 2020 (I assume you have the script), and I'm not exactly sure which document it's meant to refer to. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Great catch, thanks. - I fixed it. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Main article: Energy policy

Climate

Main article: Climate change mitigation

Internationally, the main vehicle for climate policy is the Paris Agreement, which encourages countries to pursue efforts to keep global warming under 1.5 °C (2.7 °F). According to the IPCC, both explicit carbon pricing and complementary energy-specific policies are necessary mechanisms to limit global warming to 1.5°C.

Energy-specific programs and regulations have historically been the mainstays of efforts to reduce fossil fuel emissions. Successful cases include the building of nuclear reactors in France in the 1970s and 1980s, and fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks in the United States which has conserved billions of barrels of oil. Other examples of energy-specific policies include energy-efficiency requirements in building codes, banning new coal-fired electricity plants, performance standards for electrical appliances, and support for electric vehicle use.

Carbon taxes provide a source of revenue that can be used to lower other taxes or to help lower-income households afford higher energy costs. Carbon taxes have encountered strong political pushback in some jurisdictions, whereas energy-specific policies tend to be politically safer. According to the OECD, climate change cannot be curbed without carbon taxes on energy, but 70% of energy-related CO₂ emissions were not taxed at all in 2018.

Pollution

Air pollution levels in rich countries have been declining for decades. Improvements are attributable to environmental regulation, switching towards cleaner energy sources, and an economic shift away from heavy industry. Since 1970, emissions of sulphur dioxide (the gas that contributes to acid rain) have fallen by over 90% in the US and UK, and fine particulates by up to 80%. In London, air pollution levels are now 40 times less than they were when the Public Health Act was passed in 1891, and are over 20 times less than they are in Delhi as of 2010.

Energy security

Energy security is another major policy goal. Historically, energy independence has been the focus of energy security policy, with countries wanting to become less dependent on oil exporters. With the integration of variable renewables, countries are increasingly considering the benefits of interdependence to compensate for intermittency.

Geothermal in buildings

I"ve tagged the following as failed verification: "Worldwide in 2018, geothermal provided 0.6% of heating and cooling final energy demand in buildings.". It caught my eye because I don't understand how you would use geothermal to cool a building unless you use it to produce electricity. But if you use it to produce electricity, it would be hard to say how much of that electricity is being used to cool buildings. Instead of just replacing this citation, it would be better to give numbers for geothermal's contribution to overall energy use, rather than focusing on buildings. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

That's likely my mistake. It may be that there is a category 'heating and cooling', for which it provides 0.8%. I agree replacing is better here than clarifying. Will do at some point. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm gonna wait ten days for the new REN21 report to come out. I'll try to replace more data with that report. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

References

New IEA report: Net Zero by 2050

If you haven't seen this yet, the IEA's new report on Net Zero by 2050 is fantastic, and it's free! https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050 Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Within a year, the IEA has completely changed its tune on the possibilities of solar and wind: they were very conservative and I think they might be middle-of-the-road now. Great resource indeed. FemkeMilene (talk) 07:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Having said that... While this report is a great source of facts, it's just one of many climate change mitigation pathways that have been proposed. If we use it for more prescriptive statements we then need explicit attribution (which requires more words) and possibly run into neutrality issues because there are disagreements between the pathways on how much to use different methods of reducing emissions. So, for instance, Behavioural change is another important way to conserve energy. In the International Energy Agency scenario for reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions in 2050, several significant behavioural changes are described, about half of them deriving from transport. In their scenario, some business flights are replaced by videoconferencing, cycling and walking increase in popularity, and more people use public transport.[48] Most behavioural changes are expected to be achieved through governnment policies, such as the development of high-speed rail networks, which would encourage people to opt against flying.[49] could be condensed to something like, "Behavioural change is another important way to conserve energy, especially in transport. Business flights can be replaced by videoconferencing, and many urban trips can be made by cycling, walking, or public transport rather than by car. Government policies to develop energy-efficient infrastructure can encourage changes in transport modes. Individual consumers can also choose to conserve energy by, for example, reducing their air travel." This way of laying out the options illustrates concepts that are common to many pathways rather than focusing on one pathway. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good :) FemkeMilene (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

CRES edit request

Hi, my name is Ross and I work for Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions (CRES). I have posted an edit request on the CRES Talk page, which are mostly updates to the article, but so far no one has come to the page to implement, or even comment, on the request. I would greatly appreciate if anyone here who is interested in the topic would take a few minutes to look at the request. Pinging some editors who appear to be particularly active here: Clayoquot and Femkemilene. Thank you! Ross.cres (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ross.cres. Thanks for making an edit request and posting here. You might get a faster response if you ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climate change where there are many more American editors. If you don't get a response within a few more days, you could try splitting up your request into multiple requests as that can be easier for volunteers to deal with, and I'll try to address what I can. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I will take your suggestions into consideration. I appreciate any and all the help you can give. Ross.cres (talk) 13:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Citation standards

I'm not good with citation standards. I think we need to answer two questions: 1. Which sources should go to bibliography? Books are reports that are cited more than once? (which will change, so may be maintenance-heavy)? Some other criterion? Ditch it altogether? 2. How do we want to cite chapters? I recently discovered the Citec template (see FN120), which I like, but open to other options, including just repeating the full details in every cite. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

You're probably much better with citation standards than I am. I'm willing to learn and to spend time fixing these things but currently I'm in a headspace for developing content so it will take me a while to get to this. I do like the SFN system a lot. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, let's do:

1. All books and reports go into bibliography and will be cited with SFN and page number. Papers are cited directly.
2. Chapters that need separate information (separate authors from report/book) use the Citec template
3. More than 4 authors uses et al (consistency climate change + less work typing those authors if automatic citation is broken). FemkeMilene (talk) 13:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Sounds great, thanks for writing this up. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

FYI, the display-authors parameter doesn't fail gracefully,[1] so it should be used only if more than 5 authors are given in the citation. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Should have used etal there. Have come across the error before. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Question: How long can a report be before we need to give page numbers? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I have given page numbers on a seven-page report before. I'd say when it's over 20 pages, we should typically. It depends a bit on how easy it is to find the fact within the document without a page number, as we'll want to make life easy for our FAC reviewers. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I've added a "Universal access to energy" section that finally ties together the themes of humanitarian concerns and GHG emissions. This was the last major piece I feel was still outstanding. I'm planning next to edit the lead to make sure it covers all the major points, and then look at missing pieces of content and citation formatting. The nifty word count tool says we have 6146 words not including references, so we can grow a bit more.Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

While growing further will make it easier to show we've reached comprehensiveness, I'm quite okay with nominating a shorter article to FAC. This article will be extremely intensive to maintain and I prefer creating an article that will remain accurate for some time by being maintainable to fulfulling the more subjective wish to have articles of around 8,000 words that seems to be popular at FAC. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Just read the 'universal access to energy' section, and it looks great again. I think we need a bit more precision with citing however. FemkeMilene (talk) 10:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks :) I agree and will work on the precision. I'm quite impressed at how we've covered such a broad topic succinctly. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Comprehensiveness: what is lacking still?

The article currently sits at 5530 words, which is a bit short for a FA. I'd like to keep the article short as it's maintenance-intensive as it stands, but I think we will get some flack for not meeting comprehensiveness if we're not at least at 6500 words. I was thinking the following things might be missing:

• I feel like a history of the concept is incomplete. Why did Brundland write this report in the first place? Not entirely sure it's due here though / what to write.
• Transport: Trains, car sharing
• Industry(?): ICT and growing energy demand. This might fit into energy conservation too. I think there should be sources linking the recycling and the circular economy to reduced energy needs by industry too. Two paragraphs is probs a minimum there.
• The fact that renewables seem to be unaffected by COVID
• Explaining carbon lock-in and stranded assets FemkeMilene (talk) 14:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think adding more on history would be particularly valuable - what people are interested in is the forward-looking stuff. All the other bullets sound good.

I think a Research section, as we discussed in "Proposed change of Marine energy --> Emerging energy sources" above, is critical for FA. Also, we could use more discussion around the reliability of renewable energy in prolonged bad weather, as this is one of the main fears that people have. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:54, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

 Pending::I will take on the prolonged bad weather one. I'm working on variable renewable energy which was / is in a horrible state. Might take a while, because the literature isn't always in agreement, so have to find the right sources / wording, and I'm busy enjoying the nice weather of spring/summer :). FemkeMilene (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph about innovation, but I'm not sure an entire subsection is due. If I look at the three books I've got, they dedicate only 1/4 of their space to the supporting narrative of sustainable energy, and focus most of their space to describing energy sources. If I ignore technical details in the books, that balance is 50/50 and that is what I would like to strive to (so energy efficiency + energy sources = 50% of the text). Of course, another part of our main literature is the SDG literature, who does spend significantly more attention to finance and the social aspects of the transition. Let me know if you think more is missing.

My work on climate change has put me in the mindset of extreme attention to summary style, and considering we need to expand a bit here, that may not help us that much. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi FemkeMilene, thank you for your work. I'm not sure what you mean by that sentance: "The International Energy Agency estimates that while most CO₂ reduction up to 2030 can be achieved by deploying mature technologies, that fraction drops to about half in 2050." I struggle most with the latter end of the sentence. I'm not sure what "fraction" is about. Does it mean that CO2 emissions will be cut in half by 2050? Sorry if it's just me who doesn't understand. I'm trying to keep up with the translation on the french article but I'm not sure what to translate this to. - Espandero (talk) 13:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Hope it's clearer now. As we're talking net-zero in 2050, its the contrast between new and mature technologies', which gives an order of magnitude for how much innovation is still needed. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Thinking a bit more about innovation + history; I wonder if we should talk about how solar came to be so cheap (Japan, then Germany, then China investing massively in it). Considering that solar is now set to become the biggest source of energy even by IEA, it's not getting much attention. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

That would be a good addition for the section on solar. I agree the solar story should get more weight. The mainstream POV on solar has shifted so much in the past 5 years that many readers will be surprised by it. I suspect that innovation could also use more weight to reflect the reports that look at what it will take to solve big problems urgently, but I don't have a minimum number of paragraphs in mind. I like your idea of interweaving it with the existing sections. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

About the prolonged bad weather; we're treating it very similar as both IRENA and IEA (if those two agree, I'm not that likely to find highly diverging treatments in the overview literature): naming all the various solutions for flexibility (demand-response, overcapacity, linking..). I now think it would be undue to add more. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to walk back my last sentence as I'm noticing some issues. I can't recall ever seeing direct air capture described as part of the energy system in other sources. Furthermore, this is the only part of the article where we talk about either DAC specifically or the concept of offsetting emissions. It's also odd to have the need for advances in hydrogen electrolysers appear before we talk about what hydrogen is. I've been thinking for a while about adding a section titled something like "In climate change and sustainable development goals" that would explore the idea of achieving both types of goals simultaneously. Perhaps that could be a good place to talk about the technological advances, including DAC, that would be required to meet the goals? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I added passenger trains. We could use a bit more on freight trains. Regarding car-sharing, I'm not opposed to including a mention but given its weight in the literature it would also be OK to leave it out. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Had a bit of a search for car-sharing, and now think it's better to leave out as its weight is literature is lower than I thought. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

To summarize what's outstanding from above:

•  Done: Freight transport, especially long-distance rail and ships, could use a bit of expansion as these are big users of energy Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Done: Is direct air capture really relevant to this article? I wonder if many sources besides the IEA consider DAC part of the energy system. The IEA Net Zero pathway relies on DAC, and I wonder if it's framed as being part of the energy system mostly so that it can say that the pathway doesn't require offsets from "outside" the energy system. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

  I don't mind removing it nor keeping it, but we probably need to rewrite that paragraph more thoroughly, as the IEA identified three key technologies, and we're picking out two. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

  • I agree. I rewrote it. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

More suggestions for expansion

1. Currently the article mentions power-to-gas but doesn't say what it is. A brief e explanation would be helpful.
2. The latest IEA report on Net Zero refers to "synthetic fuels". E.g. p. 74 says, "Almost 30% of the low‐carbon hydrogen used in 2050 takes the form of hydrogen‐based fuels, which include ammonia and synthetic liquids and gases." Our article covers the ammonia part but not the synthetic liquids and gases part. We have articles on Synthetic fuel and Electrofuel but I'm not finding them very helpful. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not that keen deciding what due weight is with the IEA, giving they are very bullish on hydrogen compared to more mainstream sourcing. I'll check whether IRENA agrees, which I consider closer to mainstream with the bias the other way around. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if there are any net zero pathways that aren't bullish on something or other, sigh.

I did some quick googling and synthetic fuels seem to be pretty controversial. I also found this 2019 policy brief by the Royal Society. Given that both the IEA and the Royal Society are talking about the concept, I think a few sentences would be due to explain the concept and its level of maturity and acceptance. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Synthetic fuels also get quite a bit of coverage in the UN 2020 Emissions Gap Report. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done Another thing that I think should be added is the challenges of electrifying long-distance freight transport and aviation. Electrification is hard because batteries are heavy and charging takes time. The transport section could be the context for talking about synthetic fuels. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Generations of heating systems

User:Andol: thanks for helping this article along. You added text about generations of heating systems. While I'm by no means an expert in sustainable heat (wow, red link!), I have never heard of these generations and I feel it's too technical for this article. The image specifically isn't clear unless you click it. Would you mind simplifying?

And some minor feedback as we're working towards a WP:featured article nomination: mind the citations standards as we're prepping for FA: display four authors before using etal, use author only for institutional authors (like the IEA), not for people (use last1 / first1 instead for correct display). FemkeMilene (talk) 07:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello Femke, the advantages of district heating are a hot topic in research on sustainable heat provision, especially in Europe and Asia. But district heating isn't district heating. Former generations 1-3 are mostly based on fossil fuels and operate with high temperatures, thus having relatively high transmission losses. Therefore generations 4 (hot topic in research) and 5 (newer and definition still discussed) have been devoloped to make district heating sustainable. A key feature is low temperature (which reduces transmission losses especially in summer), makes it easy to use solar heat, geothermal heat, waste heat and use of heat pumps to capture low temperature waste heat, all of which is problematic or at least complicated in former generations. Additionally many authors stress the key role of district heating systems in sector coupling. That means district heating would work as a kind of energy sink for the power sector when there is high renewable production, because storing excess energy from wind turbines and solar PV in heat can be orders of magnitude cheaper than storing it in the power sector, for example in batteries. On the other hand, when there is not much renewable production, cogeneration plants (fueled with biomass or in the future, with PtG-hydrogen/methane) could provide both power and heat and back up renewables.

Unfortunately these aspects weren't mentioned in the article, therefore I added them. I still think they are underdeveloped, but I don't want to write too much. I can understand it might be too technical, but I also think that its important to mention the new developments in district heating, as it is much discussed in research on sustainable heat. In fact I've added the defining review on Generation 4 (which has been cited more than 1000 times in Scopus), but there are also newer reviews e.g. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2018.08.206). Maybe just skip the technical "generations" and just write "modern district heating" (link to foruth generation) and "cold district heating" (with link)?

Speaking of the image, I don't need it in the article. Maybe a picture of an heat pump or central solar heating field would be better? Maybe take a picture of Marstal, which is a prototype of what modern renewable multi-energy district heating systems can look like? (I wrote an article about in the German Wikipedia, but unfortunately, there is none in the English Wikipedia)?

It's also great that you want to bring that article to featured status! That is an important article and it's well written. Can you link me a description how I can format refs correctly? Since I usually write in the German Wikipedia and only sometimes edit here I don't know how to format literature here, because its a different system. I also don't mind if you correct it. Andol (talk) 12:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your elaborate response :). I've changed the generations bit into your suggested wording. We do mention sector coupling in the section about 'Managing variable energy sources'. The refs were almost correctly formatted; we just agreed two sections above on this talk page that we would include 4 authors when there are too many authors to print. I've changed it.

I've added a picture of a heat pump. It's pretty, shows the fact you need space for them, and heat pumps are expected to become the biggest source of heat globally I believe. The central solar heating looks a bit too much like a PV field, so may feel repetitive to our readers. FemkeMilene (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Great! Thank you! I have been unsure if I should write that much, didn't want to mansplain a climate scientist about science ;-) I also think heat pumps will be the dominant heating technology globally, followed by district heating, which will dominate large cities in the north. Therefore the new picture should be appropriate. Andol (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Fascinating discussion. Thanks for bringing up these developments. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Hydrogen

These two edits[2] from the IP user seem to be well sourced and valuable, but I'm struggling to understand the language, especially this part "of which 17-41 wt% is directly attributable to hydrocarbon combustion" in this edit[3]. Cloud200 (talk) 07:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Cleared up and linked some of the jargon, but I'm wondering whether we should even go into the details of hydrogen production here, rather than just say "current methods of hydrogen production are carbon intensive" and link to relevant articles. Cloud200 (talk) 07:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed we don't need to go into the technical details. Havent looked at sourcing. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Citation standards

User:Cloud200: thanks for updating geothermal. Could you respect the citation standards of the article? So using the citec template for citing chapters / annexes. Also, to keep the article undrestandable, absolute numbers (38 grams of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt-hour of electricity) are not that useful, whereas a percentage of coal does give information to the reader. FemkeMilene (talk) 10:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Femkemilene: Thanks, fixed both. Cloud200 (talk) 08:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

  The citations standards for WP:Featured article are really annoyingly high to achieve status. Currently, the citations in the second paragraph of geothermal lack authors, are using the wrong template (cite web for a report with isbn, which should be citec (normally cite book)), have spelling errors. I'll fix it. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

"Bogus File options"

Hi Bruce1ee - I don't understand what is the "bogus File options" here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sustainable_energy&curid=1055890&diff=1034389757&oldid=1034387001 . Could you please explain? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Clayoquot: "Bogus file options" are one of a number of lint errors listed at Special:LintErrors. (Have a look at Help:Lint errors/bogus-image-options for more information.) The "bogus file option" I corrected was to remove a duplicate "alt" file parameter. —Bruce1ee^talk 21:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I see it now. Thanks! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Cut from Conservation section

I removed the following as it it doesn't say much and the first three sentences are unsourced or poorly-sourced. If anyone really likes it and wants to find better sources I wouldn't object.

Increasing energy efficiency is one of the most important ways to reduce energy-related pollution while also delivering economic benefits. For some countries, efficiency can improve energy security by reducing dependence on fossil fuel imports. Efficiency has the potential to slow the growth of energy demand to allow rising clean energy supplies to make deep cuts in fossil fuel use. Energy efficiency and renewable energy are often considered the twin pillars of sustainable energy.

Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Short description

The current short description is over 100 characters long Use of energy that meets the needs of the present without compromising the needs of future generations.
The guidance talks about a limit of around 40 characters. However, the best short text I could create was Energy sources that do not harm the future which is just OK at 42 characters, but does this capture the essence of the topic? Any better suggestions? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 19:12, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

"Energy not harming future generations"? Sustainable energy is specifically broader than the sources, and also includes the use / practice of using energy. With both options we're losing the essence that current generations should not be harmed.. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

GhostInTheMachine, thanks for bringing this guideline to our attention. What exactly are the disadvantages of longer short descriptions? E.g. do some applications cut them off? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

GhostInTheMachine we told you that a short description that talks only about the future and not the present would not capture the essence of the topic, but you implemented it anyway.[4] Could you please revert yourself and discuss? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Short descriptions can often be troublesome, but they do not need to (and should not attempt to) define the subject of the article – that is for the lead – so I probably should not have used the word essence. Short descriptions exist to differentiate this article from others that could be returned by a search so that the user is helped to chose the correct article. Perhaps a better SD would be something like Approach to evaluating harm from energy use or Approach to limiting harm from energy use. We could of course argue that there is no need for any short description, since the article title is unlikely to be confused with any other article's title — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 16:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing. I'll remove the short description for now. The idea of limiting harm from energy use is still only telling part of the story. I like the idea of "approach" but the phrases you've suggested miss the fact that some people are experiencing harm because they are not using enough energy to meet their needs. Can you think of a way to work that aspect in? I'm concerned about reinforcing misconceptions that sustainability is only about the future or only about the environment. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I removed the short description but someone else re-imported it from Wikidata. If there is a way to get a nonexistent short description to stick, I would be fine with that. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Y Setting the description to "none" indicates that the description is intended to be absent – not just forgotten — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 20:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Peer review?

I think we're ready. FemkeMilene (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Signed us up for GOCE

I just signed us up for WP:GOCE: most of the outstanding work is getting the citations standardised + very slightly updated. That shouldn't interfere with a copyedit. FemkeMilene (talk) 07:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I propose we sign up to peer review simultaneously, after fixing the two outstanding 'failed verification' tags. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. We've had great momentum in blasting through the remaining issues, and thank you again for your hard work on citations. I'm going to go through this talk page now and tag the issues that are still outstanding, and also add a few more below. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Another list of issues

1. "Fossil fuel funding and subsidies form a significant barrier to the energy transition." - This could use more explanation of what "forming a barrier" means, and also some nuance/NPOV'ing. The UNDP says, "Fossil fuel subsidies are justified in the short to medium terms and, if well targeted, can provide energy access to the poorest of society at an affordable cost. But analysis of the current fossil fuel subsidies shows that only a small proportion of the poor population benefits and the long-run macroeconomic impacts cost developing countries significantly, distorting markets whilst contributing to social, economic and environmental losses."(UNDP 2016, p. 11). The "justified" subsidies being referred to here are in the context of low- and middle-income countries and probably refer to things like LPG subsidies for cooking. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

   In a recent edit I tried to decrease attention to that, by putting it in a broader paragraph. Iirc he IEA recently (last few weeks) changed their opinion on fossil fuel subsidies (saying it shouldn't be done anymore, instead of only in special circumstances?), so it might have become accidentily non-POV. In any case, I think we should nuance only with very recent sources if at all. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

   OK, perhaps more nuance might not be due. We should talk about how subsidies are a barrier though. Is the story simply that subsidies make fossil fuels artificially cheap compared to alternatives? If yes, couldn't the alternatives also be subsidised? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

   IEA 2021 p14 says: to give the right price signals. Elsewhere they talk about leveling the playing field. Poor countries that now give out fossil fuel subsidies against energy poverty typically can't afford more subsidies I would guess. I wouldn't mind ditching the second sentence as IRENA, IEA and IEA/IRENA/World bank reports don't give it too much attention, and the numbers are 6 years old which is quite long given the changes in energy economics since. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

   The price signals bit is a good one. Sorry I'm not following your last bit - what is the second sentence you're referring to? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

   The sentence with the percentages of lives saved and emission reductions. FemkeMilene (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

   OK. I'll look into the recent sources and try to explain the ff subsidies issue more clearly. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

   I've looked into this more and don't feel further explanation is strictly necessary, although it would be nice to include if someone has the time. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

1. The part about COVID and hope for a green recovery already sounds dated because recovery plans have already been announced. I think we can safely drop it as I don't think it's needed for comprehensiveness.Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

   I do feel this is needed as it's a make or break element of the energy transition. Was planning to update as close to FAC as possible, which is about now. Might not edit much next week. FemkeMilene (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

   Sounds awesome :) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

   Done :). I've halved the attention to it, as the our IEA/IRENA sources mostly talk about COVID's effect on energy access. FemkeMilene (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

1. Our sentence on induction cooking is looking kind of lonely. We could use a wider discussion of the commonly-used energy sources for cooking in the developed world (gas, electric resistance, electric induction, and energy-efficient appliances such as rice cookers). We could also talk about the problem of retrofitting buildings at scale. The possibility of converting gas infrastructure in buildings to hydrogen might be worth a mention. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

   Some ramblings: Retrofitting at scale would be good to talk about+ energy efficiency. Not sure about hydrogen, which I've so far only heard from dubious sources. The retrofitting of hydrogen seems to be logistically extremely hard, as it has to happen simultaneously for an entire neighbourhood. If we're talking about cooking appliances, I'm immediately thinking about energy efficiency in other household appliances, but saying that things could be more energy-efficient does get boring at some point .. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

   Good thoughts. Hmmm, further to your point about other household appliances, the fact that we have a section on "Heating, cooling, and cooking" and omit all the other energy uses in buildings is strange. We should probably replace this section with one called "Buildings" and have it give a balanced overview of the system-level issues in the buildings sector. Issues that aren't "energy system" issues, such as thermal insulation and appliance efficiency (including induction cooking) should be covered in the "Energy conservation" section. A good overview source for buildings is mentioned here.[5] Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

    Done I added appliances to the Energy conservation section. I think that's all the detail needed. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

1. (Related to the above) There are a few transport-related concepts that are mentioned in both the "Energy conservation" section and the "Energy system transformation" section. I think the "Energy system transformation" section should focus on the energy system, not the transport system. Replacing car trips with bike trips is a change in the transport system, but it can be done even if the energy system remains fossil-fuel based. So the cycling stuff belongs in "Energy conservation", whereas electric and hydrogen vehicles belong in "Energy system transformation". Ditto for buildings: Insulating a house is conservation, but electrifying the building's heating system is energy system transformation. Does this make sense? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

   Not sure I completely agree with the reasoning (definitely don't disagree). Going from using fossil energy to (human) bio-energy is also an energy transition is a less traditional sense. Given our readers tendency to only read one section usually, I sort of feel redundancy is allowed. Not a strong opinion, so feel free to remove. FemkeMilene (talk) 09:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

   That makes sense. I'm also noticing that the sources I've found don't make the sharp distinction between "conservation" and "efficiency" that Wikipedia sometimes does. They tend to use the term "efficiency" much more broadly, in a way that includes modal shifts in transport. When they want to be more specific they say "technical efficiency". I'm going to try to add something to the Energy conservation section about how consumer preferences, e.g. for things like big vehicles and big houses, affect energy use. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

    Done Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

1. Energy conservation should talk about reducing materials usage and recycling as a way to conserve energy. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

   Hmm. I like the current placement in industry for that, as it's a transformation of how we use the energy? FemkeMilene (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

    Done I added materials usage to the Conservation section. I'm fine with having more on this in the Industry section as well. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

1. Wind power should describe effects on birds in addition to bats. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

   Done. Couldn't find a review newer than 2015, but given the orders of magnitude difference in numbers, the overall conclusions should still hold. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Rewrite nuclear

(The discussion below references this revision) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

At first reading, I'm not satisfied with the rewrite of the nuclear section. By mentioning an individual reactor, we're diverging far from the summary style criterion for a featured article. I think the previous prose was also better. User:Cloud200, could you please propose changes on talk first or make significantly smaller edits so that consensus can be built for them. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Femkemilene: Happy to work on the section, but I'm not sure what you mean by "mentioning an individual reactor"? Cloud200 (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Bn-800. Mox fuel is jargon too. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Femkemilene: got it now. Proposed new paragraph for discussion (first and last section skipped as they were not edited):

Paragraph with 'considerable controversy'

Whether nuclear power can be considered sustainable is debatable, depending on assumed criteria — with opponents pointing out the risk of nuclear accidents, the generation of radioactive nuclear waste, and the potential for it to contribute to nuclear weapon proliferation. For each unit of energy produced, nuclear energy is far safer than fossil fuel energy and comparable to renewable sources.

Any comments to this section? I believe the current wording of this paragraph repeats too much of the anti-nuclear concerns which are barely related to sustainability and discussed in great detail in Nuclear power debate linked at the very top of the section, and also inline. The above proposed paragraph reiterates that there is a debate and briefly summarises its arguments. Cloud200 (talk) 13:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the wording you chose "debatable" is doing the opposite of what you want: indicating more doubt about whether NE is sustainable. I very strongly dislike introducing the word "opponent" there. I don't identify as an opponent, but I will point out that nuclear waste is produced and that it contributes to nuclear weapon proliferation. I don't see this concept of opponents in the source you cited. It unnecessarily polarizing.

The theme of public support is very common in overview sources, so I'm against the removal of that aspect. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, but public support for nuclear power is wildly different between say Germany, UK, Russia and China, so I don't think it can be reliably summarised by a single statement. Also agreed that the word "opponents" is polarising, but the nuclear power debate is extremely polarised and I don't think it's fair to pretend it's not. I disagree with how the debate is presented - risks of hydro power or toxic waste from PV panels are presented merely as technical challenges, while in the context of nuclear power the same problems are basically presented as show stoppers even if they are prevalent on much smaller scale - but the debate is polarized and not based on facts, at least on one side. We might just skip all that mess and rely solely on JRC which basically says "risks are comparable with renewables and manageable", but then some editors would say it's geographically limited view as JRC is EU institution (even though JRC report looks at global data). Cloud200 (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think a sentence as "There is considerable controversy over whether nuclear power can be considered sustainable" pretends there is no polarization. I think the way to decide this is doing a survey on overview literature. I'm using the three books I have at my disposal, as many of the reports we cite don't go into much detail about non-climate aspects of SE.

Literature survey negatives of some techniques

	Nuclear	Hydro	Solar PV
Letcher	Mentions safety, waste, public acceptance in democracies, and proliferation	Issues noted are greenhouse gases, and future reliability under climate change	No mention of toxic waste
Kutscher	Mentions how Japan is taking up nuclear again. Nuclear may play important role for handful of countries without good renewables potential, but expensive.	Disadvantages mentioned: flooding to create dams and greenhouse gas emissions. Nothing about risks.	No mention of toxiticy solar waste
Soysal	mentions how nuclear became less popular after accidents. Also notes recent popularity in Asia	Mentions social negatives of flooding and international relations, not risks of flooding.	It says: "no cost associated with fuel supply and waste disposal". Main environmental impact: change in landscape.

My conclusion: you might be right about the need to globalize (I'll wait for User:Clayoquots prose skills and opinions about how to do this), but overall our treatment of these three technologies is very much in line with overview sourcing. FemkeMilene (talk) 07:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Also note the very topic of PV and wind waste has only surfaced the public debate very recently, as we started discussing pathways to energy supply from renewables that implied very large increase in installed power from these sources which, due to their low surface power density, very large increase in amount and volume of installed generation devices. This is why science started looking not merely at PV conversion efficiency but also the whole supply chain so basically what we're going to make it from[6] and what happens with the waste[7]. The challenge of wind turbine waste has been only really noticed very recently, as farms started decommissioning wind turbines installed 20 years ago, and this is quite natural that the debate is delayed - at the same time, nuclear has been in use since 50's. Cloud200 (talk) 10:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I had wanted to edit this past week but haven't had the time. I will try to write further this weekend. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The The NPOV policy, specifically the WP:IMPARTIAL section, encourages us to write about controversies in a descriptive style rather than in an engaged style, which is one of the reasons I prefer "There is considerable controversy over whether nuclear power can be considered sustainable" to "Whether nuclear power can be considered sustainable is debatable." If we say something is "debatable" we are giving an opinion about it, and as Femke points out it implies we have a slightly anti-nuclear opinion.

English is my second language and I fully appreciate I may be missing the subtle tones here. To me "considerable controversy" sounded more negative than merely mentioning the fact that there is a debate. I might have used the wrong word in the first place - "debatable" rather than "debated" - but I'll leave it to you for the reason mentioned earlier. Cloud200 (talk) 10:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

The issue of public opinion of nuclear is itself important to describe, in addition to the facts on actual safety, waste, etc. We try to describe the drawbacks/challenges of each energy source, and much of the literature notes public opinion as a challenge for nuclear in many countries. Cloud200 makes an excellent point about public support for nuclear power being wildly different between countries - that would be worth mentioning too. It would be great to have some stats on this, e.g. percentage of public support globally plus a couple of percentages and country names at the low and high end of the support range.

This is already discussed in Nuclear power debate and Public opinion on nuclear issues, so I would just link them as main or see also templates. Cloud200 (talk) 10:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I think "depending on assumed criteria" doesn't accurately describe what people disagree on. I don't see much disagreement on the criteria - I see disagreement on the potential for nuclear to meet the criteria. There are proponents of nuclear, for example, who believe waste is a problem but who also believe that advanced nuclear technology will consume the waste that older technology has created. There are also proponents of nuclear who believe that weapons proliferation is a problem but who also believe that nuclear energy has done more to dismantle nuclear weapons than any other activity. These viewpoints (and/or the facts behind the viewpoints) could be added. It would also be good to include a fact that helps the reader understand the quantity of waste actually generated by current technology, as most people vastly overestimate it. David Mackay once pointed out that British nuclear waste, per person, per year, has a volume just a little larger than one wine bottle.[8]

The disparity between risk perception and actual scientific/engineering approach is already discussed in Nuclear power debate, so I would just say that the disparity does exist and link it using main template. Cloud200 (talk) 10:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Re: Risks of hydro power or toxic waste from PV panels are presented merely as technical challenges, while in the context of nuclear power the same problems are basically presented as show stoppers even if they are prevalent on much smaller scale - are you saying the current Sustainable energy article does this? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and it's largely bias by omission and undue weight. The problem of waste is only mentioned for nuclear power, and mentioned at least twice, once in lead and in more detail in the relevant section, even though the reputable sources (like JRC) confirm the problem is manageable and comparable with other generating technologies. At the same time the article does not make even a single mention about waste from PV and wind, even though the challenge is mentioned in prominent studies such as IRENA 2016[9] (78 millions tons of PV waste by 2050) and HBR 2021[10] ("by 2035 the discarded panels will outweigh new units by a factor of 2.56 and cost of recycling a single PV panel by then will reach $20-30, which would increase the LCOE of PV by a factor 4"). As for safety, risks of hydro power are of course discussed in the Hydroelectricity#Failure_risks article but were not propagated into this article, same for PV and wind, which - by the current version of the article - are 100% safe and cause zero pollution or waste, even though these issues are prominently sourced in the original articles, while nuclear power has these issues discussed in detail. As it looks now, we are presenting a picture that is quite opposite of that painted by scientific literature — objectively, tens of millions of tons of chemically toxic waste is more (by four orders of magnitude) of a problem than several thousands of tons of radioactive waste that loses toxicity fast over time, and that's both from storage and reprocessing point of view. Cloud200 (talk) 10:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

To show undue weight, you really need to come up with high-quality overview sources like the ones I provided above. They're very recent (last 2 years), and are broadly in agreement with what we do. There is a bit of wriggle room, and I'm happy to use it, but none of those sources talk about failure risks of hydro, or the possibility that HBR mentions of solar panels maybe being classified as toxic in the future. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

As explained above, the topic of PV and wind tower waste wasn't really present in the debate until very recently, simply because large-scale deployment of these sources is relatively new phenomenon. Sources I linked above are 2016, 2018 and 2021 respectively, so it's very likely the overview sources did not fully capture it yet. They are however very well documented in respective articles — see Solar_power#Environmental_impacts, Wind_power#Environmental_effects, Solar_panel#Waste_and_recycling, Rare-earth_element#Environmental_considerations, all that is sourced by pretty recent scientific publications. On the topic of hydro, you can only wonder why high-quality sources failed to mention Dam_failure#List_of_major_dam_failures as a tangible risk of hydropower, when a single 1975 Banqiao Dam failure killed tens of thousands of people, the most recent one 2021 Uttarakhand flood killed 61 and these are literally happening almost every year. Cloud200 (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Also this PV statement from Soysal "no cost associated with fuel supply and waste disposal" is clearly false in light of the IRENA and HBR publications. I'm wondering how he could arrive at this conclusion other than assuming that solar panels are made entirely of glass and nothing else — in reality however, as documented in Solar_panel#Waste_and_recycling, most types of panels used today contain amounts of cadmium and lead, and there were cases like Solyndra in the US[11] when a bankrupt PV farm contaminated the site with over 5000 tons of cadmium-containing panels and . The Solyndra case was 2013 so it certainly could be captured by Soysal if he did properly research the topic. Cloud200 (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I've added both. Not 100% convinced this is neutral, but willing to give into the benefit of doubt. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Public opposition statistics

I've looked for statistics comparing the level of opposition between countries. The latest I could find was from 2011, and the source notes that the survey was done shortly after the Fukushima disaster.[12] There doesn't seem to be much of a coherent story there - it suggests that the U.S. has less opposition to nuclear than either Russia or China. If anyone can find newer statistics that would be interesting. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Clayoquot: Scholar has plenty of in-depth studies for individual countries but not global ones, which is the primary reason for the "varies between countries" summary I've added previously. I was able to find the following studies:

• 2005 IAEA "Global Public Opinion on Nuclear Issues and the IAEA: Final Report from 18 Countries" [13] (note the URL has 2015 in it but it's 2005 study). This is probably the only and the best global study we have. Although it only covered 18 countries, it's quite diverse, including US, Europe, Asia, Africa. Looking at the actual results from page 21 it's hard to summarise this other than support for new nuclear power varies between countries - e.g. with South Korea 66% in support, vs 12% in Morocco. On one hand the study is old and pre-Fukushima, on the other hand global attitudes have significantly recovered since the nosedive straight after Fukushima - for example in Sweden now 46% support new nuclear power plants[14], in Poland 71% supports them[15] etc

"Despite introducing people to the argument that nuclear power may aid in combating climate change, an average of 47 percent of respondents say that they are not in favour of expanding the use of nuclear power to meet the world’s growing energy needs, while 38 percent believe we should expand the use of nuclear power in order to help combat climate change. Thirteen percent of people are unable to answer the question.Majorities in Japan (67%), Jordan (64%), Germany (56%), Morocco (53%), Great Britain (51%), Russia (51%), Saudi Arabia (51%), and Hungary (50%), and pluralities in Argentina (43%), are not in favour of expanding the use of nuclear power to meet the world’s growing energy needs. Five of the 18 countries – Australia, United States, Canada, France, and Cameroon – appear divided in their opinion, not significantly favouring one viewpoint over the other"

• Stewart Brand and James Lovelock (2010) who said the debate on nuclear power is far from being evidence-based and rational, with a number of anti-nuclear organizations trying to pull it into an "absolute evil" category and focusing on risks while ignoring the benefits such as zero emissions. Both are respected environmentalists and the opinion is expressed in Whole Earth Discipline book by Brand. Cloud200 (talk) 10:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
• 2020 interview with Zion Lights generally speaking about pro-nuclear changes in attitude in response to climate change.[16]
• 2020 US study that looks into links in the public opinion associations between nuclear weapons and nuclear power[17]. IMHO good source for sourcing the existence of the debate and that opinions on nuclear weapons impact nuclear power (not that they are justified).
• 2020 secondary source that also sources the existence of the debate and explores its links with climate change[18]

"Nuclear power has a clear role to play in reducing global emissions. Challenges concerning safety and waste management adversely affect public acceptance in some countries. But the world already has well-functioning institutions and technologies to address these concerns."

• 2014 study on risk perception of nuclear power[19]

"By examining the influence of fear appeal on the nuclear issue, three strategies for demarketing the nuclear fear of the public are recommended. The paper concludes that only when energy policy makers and the nuclear industry recognize the significance of minimizing fear and begin to work on removing the sources of fear, can we then expect to bring the nuclear issue back to rational discourse."

• "Public support for nuclear energy is often low as a result of safety concerns" is still unsourced.

Good reference for the subject of fast breeder reactors and waste management[20]:

"Fast reactors were among the first technologies deployed during the early days of nuclear power, when uranium resources were perceived to be scarce. But as technical and materials challenges hampered development, and new uranium deposits were identified, light water reactors (LWRs) eventually became the industry standard. Five fast reactors are now in operation: two operating reactors (BN-600 and BN-800) and one test reactor (BOR-60) in Russia, India’s Fast Breeder Test Reactor (FBTR) and the China Experimental Fast Reactor (CEFR)." (I wasn't aware there's 5 of them already)

Cloud200 (talk) 10:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Very interesting and lots to work on there, thanks. I'll tag the unsourced statement you mentioned with ; please do this with any other statements that lack sourcing. BTW, I'm going on vacation this week and probably won't edit much until I get back on Thursday. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Regarding public opposition statistics, the only type of source we can definitely use to tell a story about variability between countries would be a source that surveys multiple countries, such as the 2005 IAEA survey. Our policy on synthesis of research cautions us against taking the results of two surveys and comparing them. Since the last global survey is old and public opinion varies over time, I'm leaning towards not specifying numbers. However, I agree that the current wording of "Public support for nuclear energy is often low as a result of safety concerns" oversimplifies things a lot - safety is one of the issues but cost is another big one, and "often low" is too pessimistic. I'm planning to reword it along the lines of saying that public opposition can be a challenge. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Paragraph on recyclability

The uranium ore used to fuel nuclear fission plants is a non-renewable, mined resource, but sufficient quantities exist to provide a supply for hundreds of years even with existing technologies. Because in a regular nuclear power plant fuel cycle only a small fraction of the fuel is actually used, up to 96% of the fuel recycled back and used once again in the fuel cycle. This process can be repeated a number of times, extending the existing supplies of fissile fuel to thousands of years.

This is the core discussion of the actual topic of sustainability of nuclear power and I understand the primary issues were related to use of engineering jargon. I simplified it as much as possible without losing the core message. At the same time all technical details can be still found in the linked nuclear reprocessing article. Cloud200 (talk) 13:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Uncomfortable with the source here, but Letcher is also indicating that the fuel will lasts for millennia instead of hundreds of years. (Prose nitpicking: the word actually is rarely useful). I propose we add that source and say "hundreds to thousands of years", without going into the details of recycling. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

100% agreed. To be honest, the only reason why I mentioned Orano and BN-800 is because when you usually mention breeder reactors people would say "IT'S SCIENCE FICTION" while both actually operate on commercial basis for a few years now. Cloud200 (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. I would totally welcome a well-sourced statement saying that breeder reactors are in commercial operation. Names of specific reactors are too much detail. The YouTube video you supplied as a source is from Orano, which is a nuclear fuel cycle company, which I don't think it's acceptable because it's basically an advertisement for Orano's business. Is there an independent, high-quality source on the maturity of breeder reactors? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely, there's a lot of literature including IAEA[21], regulatory bodies[22] and popular science news[23]. The only reason I used the video is because it's nice and comes from an official channel. But Orano is a reprocessing plant, not a breeder reactor - the latter is operational in Russia BN-800 and started burning MOX (reprocessed) fuel already in 2020. This is pretty good as a proof of concept IMHO, but the commercial aspect is a different story - mined uranium is so cheap now that nobody really bothers about reprocessing the fuel, even though it's tested and doable. Cloud200 (talk) 10:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

We could paraphrase the JRC here. It states in its summary (p12):

A significant research effort has been devoted to maximising the fraction of spent nuclear fuel that can be recycled in nuclear reactors and reducing the long-term radiotoxicity of HLW to be disposed of in the geological repository. (...) Although essentially all steps of this process, also known as partitioning and transmutation, have been demonstrated at laboratory scale, the Technology Readiness Level is not yet corresponding to industrial maturity.

I'm a bit confused by this statement, given the existence of BN-800.

What they might mean is that while operations of one such power plant can be considered proof of concept, it's not yet widespread technology - as compared to Light-water reactor for example, which operates in hundreds of plants. Cloud200 (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

It could be paraphrased like: Recycling nuclear waste (fully?) is possible, but the technology to do so is not mature. This could be inserted as the second sentence in the current last paragraph. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Fully agreed, I will implement this particular change so that we can tick this one off. Cloud200 (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Is the issue the maturity of the technology, or is it that using new uranium and dealing with the radioactive waste is cheaper than recycling? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe both. Some recycling can be done with the current technology at commercial scale, but is expensive. Full recycling is less mature. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Any further discussion needed here or can we implement the changes discussed above? Cloud200 (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Let's wait for Clayoquot, she's good at this. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Given the maturity described by the JRC, I think fuel recycling should be mentioned in the fourth paragraph, in the context of technologies that are under development. The JRC report is a good source to cite - thanks for finding us a relevant paragraph. On page 55 the report says, "Note that some countries (e.g. France) do not consider spent fuel to be waste. Spent fuel comprises large amounts of recoverable uranium and plutonium that can be used in fast breeder reactor fuel. While fast breeder reactors are not deployed yet on a large-scale commercial basis, they are very much an option for the future for some countries, and so the uranium and plutonium within the spent fuel is considered a valuable resource."

I'll go ahead and boldly add "Fast breeder reactors are capable of recycling nuclear waste and therefore can drastically reduce the amount of waste that requires geological disposal, but this technology has not yet been deployed on a large-scale commercial basis." and everyone can edit it from there. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Paragraph with expert opinions

Climate change mitigation pathways that are consistent with ambitious goals typically see an increase in power supply from nuclear, but growth is not strictly necessary. Experts from the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the scientific expert arm of the EU, stated in April 2021 that nuclear power is "sustainable". In "Net Zero by 2050" IAEA described renewable sources of energy and nuclear power as "complementary in fighting climate change"

This paragraph summarises expert views on the sustainability of nuclear power. Cloud200 (talk) 13:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Of course the IAEA would say that :P. I think it weakens the independent JRC statement. (also, make sure to write out abbreviations in full the first time they are used). FemkeMilene (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Original JRC report has actually much more to say about sustainable use of nuclear power, where the current Reuters' "nuclear power is sustainable" is a bit of an oversimplification but I'm not insisting on using IAEA reference. Cloud200 (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree it's better without the IAEA statement. I also suggest dropping the "but growth is not strictly necessary" as it's redundant with "typically". Other than that, it looks good. I appreciate you bringing the revisions to Talk, and I think the section can be further improved and could be a bit longer. I'd suggest not worrying about length or prose for now - if we can work on identifying high-quality sources that the reader would not consider to be biased, and make a list of pertinent summary-style statements attributed to those sources, we can then choose the best statements from that list. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I thought we had found a compromise? Please don't introduce unsourced info and large changes in tone without consensus. That quote is undue. FemkeMilene (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

It does look undue. (I would have boldly re-edited it but I'm busy just trying to survive the Western Canada/U.S. heatwave. Too affected by climate change to work on climate change, and quite grumpy about that...) Cloud200, can we do the small-changes at a time thing? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Removed the quote. That was already present in the Nuclear power debate and I thought it nicely summarises JRC report. Cloud200 (talk) 06:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

would you be willing to revert the entire edit? Unsourced statements are a no-no, and I feel the statement on the nuclear movement is not neutral. I can work to implent the consensus with small edits that can be judged individually. FemkeMilene (talk) 06:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits., but also I'm not sure which statement on "nuclear movement" is non-neutral and how? Apart from the JRC quote, all changes were discussed here and all statements are sourced. Cloud200 (talk) 10:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

(Sitting outside at 6:40 in the morning to beat the heat) I've reinstated the version that preceded the discussion in this section. I'm now going to add back in the edits to this paragraph that I think have consensus so far. Please note that we use Template:Main and Template:See also only at the very beginning of a section, right after the heading. Thanks Cloud200 again for your flexibility. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 13:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I got one edit in before the site maintenance window. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 13:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

A bit of clarification for Cloud200 why I objected before.

• Two sentences were unsourced. I think you intended the wikilink as a support, but that is not allowed per WP:NOTSOURCE
  • Public support for nuclear energy varies significantly between countries.
    • Note that the current paragraph (starting with "There is considerable controversy...") is not sourced by anything at all as of now and seems to be nothing more but WP:OR. The first reference appearing in this paragraph is Our World in Data[24] which talks about nuclear power safety, not public opinion. Cloud200 (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Therefore I've done some searching for WP:RS that would talk about global public opinion on nuclear power but can't find any. On Scholar, you can find dozens of articles dealing with the topic in the context of Serbia or Japan or France to the greatest detail, but not global trends. The sentence I added is IMHO the best way of summarising the detailed articles that follow. Cloud200 (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Spent nuclear fuel is being recycled and closed fuel cycle is possible, but not widespread.
• I don't think the latter is a fair paraphrasing of the JRC statement, leaving out their idea about technical readiness.
  • Why not just provide a quote from JRC then? The one found by FemkeMilene above sounds pretty reasonable to me. Cloud200 (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• You juxtaposed the nuclear movement directly with the sentence about safety. To me, this implies the anti-nuclear was only about nuclear accidents and that they were wrong about that. That would be a charicature of the truth, given the importance of the anti-war aspect in the movement.
  • • The anti-war aspect is even further stretch from the sustainability point of view than the safety concerns in this case, as you can't really make plutonium in a light water reactor, and there are countries who got nuclear weapons but not civilian reactors (Israel, North Korea). The article is about sustainable energy, not about origins of anti-nuclear movement which is discussed in great detail there. Cloud200 (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
  • These concerns spurred the anti-nuclear movement, however for each unit of energy produced, nuclear energy is far safer than fossil fuel energy and comparable to renewable sources.
• The paragraph logic disappeared, with the concluding JRC statement in the middle of the discussion of sustainability aspects of nuclear. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
  • As pointed out above, the two sentences dealing with safety concerns are not sourced by anything and they also appear just between discussion of economics and then uranium mining, so what kind of logic or consistency we're talking about? I do believe safety is important part of sustainability and should be summarised in the section, but as of now it's just a single unsourced newspaper-level synthesis. Cloud200 (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

    You're right about sourcing. I will take that on my to-do lsit. Will come back tomorrow with a fuller response. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

    Thanks for cleaning that stuff up. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

    We state "the potential for it to contribute to nuclear weapon proliferation" with probably too much certainty and lack of balance. Does anyone have a good source we can use to balance it out as Cloud200 suggests? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

    I dont think its necessary, this is such a common theme in books and articles without those caveats (not only caveats pro-nuclear, but also anti-nuclear of terrorism with nuclear waste). We dont have to mention all that specialist literature. Proliferation is something global, so this statement is still true independent of many counties using a technology with very high costs of making weapons. FemkeMilene (talk) 21:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Housekeeping - keeping discussions readable

BTW it's very hard to follow discussions when editors cut up other editors' comments and reply to things point-by-point. Could everyone please follow Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Good practices for talk pages and pretend that other editors' comments are uneditable? It's much better to copy/paste the point that you want to reply to. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I take this is for me and sorry for replying to your comments point by point. Cloud200 (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Please review my latest revisions

I just did a reorg and series of adjustments in wording for the nuclear section.[25] I split the "There is controversy..." sentence into multiple sentences in order to give each issue more room for WP:NPOV discussion. I would appreciate feedback on whether NPOV has been achieved. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll probably rewrite the sentence on proliferation. Nuclear proliferation, a term also including gaining weapons-applicable nuclear technology and information, has happened in the past linked to power production, so 'in theory' is inaccurate. Also, not sure 'some' is factually accurate, as LWRs can still be used, even if its difficult and expensive. Will consult with more sources. FemkeMilene (talk) 11:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• For the word 'some': Fletcher says that one of the problems of proliferations (the fissile materials) could be avoided with future fuel cycles, so the word some is not justified from the given source. The source doesn't support 'in theory' either.
• This article goes into some more depth and says that the connection between nuclear power and proliferation is 'somewhat inevitable', and only notes aspects that can mitigate the risk (not take it away completely). FemkeMilene (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

  Good catch, I agree your new wording is closer to the source. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the 'translation' of baseload to steady. It makes a neutral word into a positive word, ignoring the negative aspect of baseload (being inflexible). I would also like to start the subsection with a more neutral/weakly positive sentence, only emphasising the low-carbon aspect as that's the least controversial of the technology. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted myself while we sort this out. I do feel that a statement that nuclear provides baseload power should be mentioned somewhere in this section. Are there sources that consider this statement to be controversial? I could go with any of the terms "baseload", "steady", "unvarying" or "non-intermittent" - to me they say the same thing, with "steady" being the easiest to understand.

I'm confused by your concern about baseload being inflexible. Some energy sources, e.g. gas and dam-based hydro are flexible enough to provide both baseload and dispatchable power economically. Nuclear can provide baseload power but in general isn't suitable for providing dispatchable power. One could say that not being able to provide dispatchable power is a negative aspect of nuclear power, but it's not a negative aspect of baseload power. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I feel like baseload and non-intermittent both carry a neutral connotation, whereas steady brings a positive connotation. Of the two, baseload is easier to understand. Given the fact that nuclear is less flexible than dam-based hydro and gas, I prefer to stick to that wording. I don't want to start the section bang-bang-bang with three positives on nuclear (mature, "steady" and low-carbon), as that defeats the point a bit of us having spent hours on making this subsection neutral.

I'm okay with adding the linked word baseload to the first sentence, or having a more in-detail second sentence comparing it with intermittent sources (not weather-dependent) and gas (less flexible). FemkeMilene (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, I'll add the linked word baseload to the first sentence. I hear you on the painstaking work we’ve put into this section. When you removed “steady” your edit summary talked about sourcing and not neutrality; I did not realize at the time that it was a neutrality concern for you. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Ecuador and cooking

I'm planning to remove the following as newer sources indicate the project hasn't gone as planned, unfortunately:[26][27]

Ecuador is switching all cooking stoves to electric induction models, which are more sustainable and sometimes cheaper than subsidized LPG.

Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Environmental issues

Suggesting we remove the following paragraph for a couple of reasons

• I'm not comfortable talking about 'quantified health benefits' in wikivoice, as saying that one can convert human life into money is not universilly accepted.
• It deals with other issues than environmental, such as poverty and energy security
• It talks about solutions, rather than problems, which feel off-topic. FemkeMilene (talk) 10:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Multiple analyses of strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have found that the quantified health benefits of reduced air pollution can significantly offset the costs of implementing these strategies. Efforts to limit global warming to 1.5 °C could save millions of lives per year from air pollution alone, while increasing energy security and reducing poverty.

The issues that this paragraph talks about are very prominent in UN sources, especially WHO documents, and in other high-quality sources on the relationship between health and climate change. I agree though that the "Environmental Issues section" is a weird place to bring them up. What do you think of adding a "Benefits" section after the "Energy system transformation" section to talk about the benefits of making energy more sustainable? The paragraph on job creation could go in the Benefits section too. I'll propose a new wording for the quantified health benefits sentence that's closer to the sources. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

That was the reason I didn't delete outright.. I'm typically not big fan of section titles that have negative (controversy) or positive (benefits) connotations, but I don't quite know where to place this information. The fact we say that fossil fuels cause air pollution mortality (previous section) already implies that millions of people could be saved, so I'm thinking the best way to describe this is implicit.. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

That's a good point about millions of lives saved being implicit, and we also have a similar statement at the opening of the Government policies section. What do you think of retitling the Finance section as "Costs and benefits" and adding a paragraph on health benefits there? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm also OK with removing this paragraph. I'm not likely to have time to rewrite the quantified health benefits part soon. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Energy poverty / Universal access sections

Two of our PR reviewers have suggested shortening these sections. I am cutting the following sentence as the most general sources on sustainable energy don't give this issue much weight:

A large fraction of the world population, including many in richer countries, cannot afford sufficient heating or cooling for their homes.

I am also cutting the following sentences which convey data that will quickly get out of date, and not meaningful since the article doesn't say anything about what kinds of policies/efforts are being made to promote energy access.

According to a 2020 report by the IEA, current and planned policies would still leave over 660 million people without electricity by 2030. Efforts to improve access to clean cooking fuels and stoves have barely kept up with population growth, and current and planned policies would still leave 2.4 billion people without access in 2030.

I'm going to look into combining the Energy poverty section with the section on Sustainable Development goals.

Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Statistics by sector

We currently have two sets of breakdowns by sector: One in the bar chart and one in the following paragraph:

Generation of electricity and heat contributes 31% of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, use of energy in transport contributes 15%, and use of energy in manufacturing and construction contributes 12%. An additional 5% is released through processes associated with fossil fuel production and another 8% through various other forms of fuel combustion.

It's confusing to have two mostly-overlapping sets of statistics and I think the way things are broken down in the graph matches better with the system transformation story. I'm planning to remove the above paragraph if nobody objects. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Seems okay. Slightly less emphasis on climate is good. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Definitions and "sustainable energy development"

I skimmed through the new source on "sustainable energy development" that came up in the PR. We probably can't assume that definitions of "sustainable energy" and "sustainable energy development" are the same, because the latter is worded to describes a process rather than a state.

However, I found this part was illuminative: "Multiple different themes or issues of sustainable energy development exist. These have evolved and changed through time, similar to other issues of sustainable development. Initially, energy was discussed in the context of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving air quality [6]. Currently, sustainable energy development is viewed more holistically, where all three pillars of sustainable development are accounted for: economy, society, and environment. Thus, the role energy plays in promoting economic growth and social development is recognized [2]."

I think many readers will come in expecting a more environment-focused article because the older way of framing the sustainability of energy is very environment-focused. As Chipmunkdavis pointed out the reader will need us to more explicitly connect the social and economic issues to sustainability. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. I think we can be a tiny bit cheeky, and integrate this in the definition section without trying to devine what the difference the authors had in mind between "sustainable energy" and "sustainable energy development", as long as we use the latter term verbatim. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

IEA citation formatting

 ToDo The IEA has instructions, e.g. [28] on how to cite its publications. Location is always Paris. Both author and publisher for most publications seem to be "IEA" and should be abbreviated, not spelled out. I'll complete and reformat the IEA references accordingly. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I am getting harv errors now. Do you have the script? I use User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js to detect them. FemkeMilene (talk) 10:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I just installed the script and reloaded the page with the Shift key held down, but I'm not seeing any error messages :( I will investigate further. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

 ToDo :We have two sourced reports from the IEA in 2020, but we have a reference to IEA 2020, which one is it? I have hidden the ref for now. If you could say which one it is referring to that would be great. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 13:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

This is actually a symptom of a bigger problem, which is that a bunch of our SFNs name the publisher, such as the IEA, when they should refer to the author(s). Thanks for bringing it to our attention so that we can fix it. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Citing iea is quite annoying, as they are publisher as well as institutional author. Sometimes a long list of names is present in their reports of human authors. They are typically cited as IEA in the scientific literature. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, tomorrow AR6 will come out and we will get to do a new round of citing the IPCC, which will make citing the IEA look absolutely fun! :) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

The traumas of source formatting at climate change... Fortunately, the WG3 report will come out long after our nomination, so we won't have to bother too much. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I was mistaken - the IEA seems to want to be cited as the author. I'm planning to spend some time in the next day or two making names in SFNs match the names of authors, and doing other ref cleanup. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Government policies and R&D

I'd like to strengthen our statement on government policies and R&D. Currently we have:

Financial incentives may be useful to encourage research, development, and demonstration of newer technologies such as low-carbon fuels, and to create a level playing field with mature fossil fuel-based technologies.

A previous version said:

Financial incentives for green technology can also be used, and may be useful for less mature technologies or to create a level playing field with fossil fuels.

This is pretty vague and wishy-washy. I'll try replacing this with something from the IEA's Net Zero report, which has more specifics. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Done.[29] 22:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Prediction for hydrogen

I removed the following for a couple of reasons. First, the source makes this claim in the context of the chemical industry rather than for all uses of energy. Second, the extent to which hydrogen will be used in the energy system is still controversial, so it's not appropriate to say it in Wikipedia's voice.

This dual character of hydrogen, both a chemical reagent and as an energy carrier, makes it likely hydrogen use will expand in the coming decades..

I'm noticing as well that the section doesn't have anything about the practical drawbacks of hydrogen, i.e the difficulties of storing and transporting it safely. I remember adding drawbacks but this content seems to have been removed. I'll try to add something about drawbacks. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Blue hydrogen emissions

We now say With carbon capture and storage technologies, a large fraction of these emissions could be removed.". A first study doing a life-cycle assessment of blue hydrogen showed overall emissions may be larger than direct gas burning without CCS: This would be because of methane leakage, the inefficiency of hydrogen production and the extra energy needed for CCS. It's a primary study, so not sure whether to put a lot of emphasis on it, but our text may be misleading if this turns out to be true. What about:

While carbon capture can remove a large fraction of these direct emissions, additional energy requirements may cancel greenhouse gas emission savings.

This article responding to the study indicates that future technology may make blue hydrogen lower-carbon. Many of their ifs are explored in the study, whose conclusion is relatively robust (blue hydrogen may be marginally better than direct natural gas burning) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Femkemilene (talk • contribs)

I've seen a lot of criticism of that study's assumptions on Twitter. I would prefer to use this secondary source, which came up in the criticisms: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629621003017?dgcid=coauthor . It says, "Unlike renewable hydrogen, certifying carbon abatement from fossil sources is a more complex endeavor, as both emissions associated with upstream processes and leakages, as well as actual carbon sequestration of carbon gases must be correctly inventoried... The Australian National Strategy adopts a technology-neutral stance on hydrogen production, referring to “clean hydrogen” (which includes both renewable hydrogen and fossil hydrogen coupled with CCS) [551], [552]." How about:

While carbon capture can remove a large fraction of these emissions, the overall carbon footprint of methane-based hydrogen is complex to assess, in part because of emissions associated with the production of methane.

Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 14:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Some more tech-speak for us to remove: most readers won't know that methane = natural gas. Which page of the source is it on? Couldn't find it within five minutes. Secondary of course better than a primary source, but I wonder how much of the criticism comes automatically with the name of the second author. Agree with suggested sentence (how does one spell natural-gas-based in terms of hyphens). FemkeMilene (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Done :) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I think page numbers would still be useful :). Also, I think it's not accurate to say methane is derived from natural gas, as it's basically already 99% methane.. Not sure whether there is some intermediate step to get rid of the ethane and other hydrocarbons that can be called 'derive'. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Quick running-out-the-door comment: I put the page # (page 39) in there but the cite template isn't making it pop. Yes I agree the wording should be clarified. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I've tweaked the wording to clarify it. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Hydropower emissions

I'm planning to remove the following sentence as I don't think it's an accurate reflection of the sources: "The carbon footprint may be half of that of conventional fossil fuels."

The cited source is a 2016 primary study from Scherer et al which says that on average, hydro footprints are half that of fossil fuels, and that hydro "in individual cases can reach the same emission rates as thermal power plants".

The IPCC's 2014 figures for lifecycle emissions include:

• Coal: minimum 740, median 820, maximum 910
• Utility solar: minimum 18, median 48, maximum 180
• Hydroelectricity: minimum 1.0, median 24, maximum 2200

I've struggled with what to say about the enormous range of emissions intensities for hydro projects. I considered mentioning that hydro can be more emissions-intensive than fossil fuels, but that's true for only a very small proportion of projects so I think it would be undue weight. At the same time, it's pretty clear that scholarly consensus on hydro emissions is less rosy than popular perception. The best way I can think of to reflect the scholarly consensus is to describe the concerns without making a direct comparison with fossil fuels. I'd be interested in other ways to approach this though. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Ready for FAC?

I think we're finally ready. Femke, do you want to look this over and then nominate? Does anyone else have last-minute comments? There's one broken ref but our friend AnomieBOT should come by and fix that soon. P.S. When Femke first brought up the idea of getting this to Featured Article status I thought it was a crazy idea, but I've very much enjoyed this collaboration and review process, and I'm pleased with what we've done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I think we are :). I'm still quite ill, so no guarantees I can me of much help during the nomination, at least not in the first week. Can you do the nominating and close PR? FemkeMilene (talk) 10:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Great! Yes, I'll do these things (might take me a few days) and will address as many of the FAC comments as I can. Rest up and dearly I hope you feel better soon. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

"Disadvantages of alternative energy" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Disadvantages of alternative energy. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 21#Disadvantages of alternative energy until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Should "low-carbon energy" really redirect to here?

I am wondering if it's correct that low-carbon energy redirects to here. If so, it should probably redirect to a specific section in the article. But perhaps better it should redirect to a particular section in low-carbon economy. I am also concerned that the two articles overlap but don't integrate well with each other in the area of energy. The low-carbon economy article only mentions "sustainable energy" under "See also". I also wrote about it on the talk page there in April (here) but didn't receive a reaction. EMsmile (talk) 23:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Nearly all of this article is about low-carbon energy; it's not restricted to one section. Energy just isn't sustainable unless it's low-carbon. Low-carbon economy is one of the most frighteningly chaotic and error-filled articles I've seen in a while, to be honest. I'm tempted to nominate it for deletion. Or, it could be redirected to Climate change mitigation or perhaps Sustainable energy. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, but not all "low-carbon energy" is sustainable, e.g. if the social dimension is not met. Therefore, the two terms are not 100% equal. Perhaps the article should at least explain what is meant with "low-carbon energy" if the term "low-carbon energy" redirects to here. At the moment the term appears but is not explained in the definitions/terminology section. The article Low-carbon economy gets about 200 pageviews per day, and I expect this will rise in future. So I don't think deleting it altogether would be wise; I haven't checked in detail: is it really so bad or would it not be salvageable? Isn't the term one that will be used more in future? Would you say the content is the same (or should be the same) as for climate change mitigation? I hadn't thought of that option. If the article stays and is not redirected then at least we should link clearly from Low-carbon economy to "sustainable energy" if that's what we think people should be reading instead. I find the current overlap and lack of integration between the two articles problematic. (but yes, I know it's hard to find the time for all the different articles; I also wrote on the talk page there, hoping to encourage some of the page watchers from that article...) EMsmile (talk) 12:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh and in one place from the lead there is a wikilink from "low-carbon" to low-carbon power. But the same wiklink is not repeated anywhere in the main text. So low-carbon power is just about electricity but low-carbon energy we say equates pretty much with sustainable energy? Should low-carbon power be added under "See also" instead of Low-carbon economy or in addition to it? EMsmile (talk) 12:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

You've raised some really good questions about the Low carbon economy article. (I'll have to come back to them later to make myself finish the FA issues for Sustainable energy first.) Regarding the redirect, WP:REDIRECT says that appropriate redirects include "sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article". Low-carbon energy doesn't equate with sustainable energy, but it is a subtopic of sustainable energy, therefore the redirect is appropriate. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Power or energy

Green power redirects to this page. But power is not energy.49.178.138.126 (talk) 04:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

In what way is power not energy? Are you suggesting that Green power redirect to somewhere else? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I think this is nitpicking about the technical differences between power and energy in physics. Power is the rate of use of energy. In this article, we use the colloquial English sense of "power" and "energy", so no contradiction arises - they are interchangeable. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (my talk page | my contributions) 05:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, I was not nitpicking. Sorry if this came across like this.49.178.138.126 (talk) 07:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

My bad too, sorry. I spend a lot of time reverting vandals; doing so has made me slightly prejudiced towards IP editors because most vandals are IPs. I will try harder to assume good faith in the future. W. Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_c) 08:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh I see. Thanks49.178.138.126 (talk) 08:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the question is nitpicking at all, actually. The way we use power in this article is as a synonym for electricity. We don't use the term power in the way that physics textbooks define it. I'm going to go update our Power disambiguation page now. Do you think that Green power should redirect to a different article? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Electric power rather than electricity is what I think we should refer to, no? jps (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

COP26 fueled vandalism

I just undid an edit that had changed the sentence "85% of energy is from fossil fuel" to "1% of energy is from fossil fuels. This is cleary some COP26 "joke" (when there's nothing to joke about climate change). How is it possible that this article as not been protected? Touyats (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Unless there is persistent vandalism, the tradition at Wikipedia has been to keep Featured Articles of the Day unprotected to encourage first-time editors. If things keep being a problem, protection can be asked for. jps (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Energy is sustainable

Energy is sustainable? In which universe? Certainly not in the one in which we find ourselves, as entropy is continually increasing. This article was constructed by individuals who appear to lack even the most fundamental knowledge of the laws of thermodynamics and physics and those who awarded it a "featured article" status know even less. It's an embarassment. — 174.87.179.155 (talk) 17:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

The context for this article is hardly the heat death of the universe. Odd that you would think it was. jps (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it was a joke... maybe... i hope... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.54.212.6 (talk) 20:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Page views from Nov 2

This page was viewed 110,374 times yesterday. Woo hoo! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Short description 2

The short description horribly long again. Please can we reset it to "none" or perhaps truncate it to Approach to meeting growing energy demands — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 10:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

That's not really what sustainable energy is, however. It is more of "energy resources that are produced and distributed in a sustainable fashion". But talk about circular! jps (talk) 12:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Let's do none to avoid a short description that's technically wrong. Femke (talk) 12:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that none is the best option here since confusion is possible. The goal of short description is to provide a short explanation of what the scope of the article is. In this case, there are facile definitions of "sustainable" and even "energy" that do have some potential to cause confusion. For example, "sustainable energy" does not refer to pacing yourself during a marathon. :) jps (talk) 12:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with anything that's not wrong. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, it was just changed to something that was wrong. :( jps (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I also think "Kind of energy" was wrong - so I changed to none because I cannot think of anything better. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

"Energy from resources that can be used while minimizing harmful effects" is better than anything else so far... but still a bit haphazard. jps (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

That's close but still not quite accurate. When we talk about what resources are used, we're talking about producing primary energy. For energy to be sustainable, the conversion and delivery processes to deliver final energy and energy services to the end-user also have to be sustainable. An example of this is biomass fuel for cooking: burn wood in a traditional cookstove and you get a lot of harmful air pollution and soot, but burn the same wood (from the same forest) in an advanced cookstove and it's much less polluting and safer. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree. The question is how to construct a phrase that makes that clear while also staying concise. jps (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

It's seems to attract new users, that none statement. I can live with 'approach for meeting energy demand' or 'approach for meeting energy needs'. Femke (talk) 21:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I wish we could add an adjective in front of "approach", but the only one I can think of is "sustainable" which is not good. jps (talk) 02:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)